***NON-POLITICAL COVID-19 Discussion Thread***

[JakeF]

A couple of reminders...

Originally Posted by Bwana

Once again, don't come in this thread with some kind of political agenda, or you will be shown the door. If you want to go that route, there is a thread about this in DC.

Originally Posted by Dartgod

People, there is a lot of good information in this thread, let's try to keep the petty bickering to a minimum.

We all have varying opinions about the impact of this, the numbers, etc. We will all never agree with each other. But we can all keep it civil.

Thanks!

Click here for the original OP:

Spoiler!

Apparently the CoronaVirus can survive on a inanimate objects, such as door knobs, for 9 days.

California coronavirus case could be first spread within U.S. community, CDC says
By SOUMYA KARLAMANGLA, JACLYN COSGROVE
FEB. 26, 2020 8:04 PM

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is investigating what could be the first case of novel coronavirus in the United States involving a patient in California who neither recently traveled out of the country nor was in contact with someone who did.

“At this time, the patient’s exposure is unknown. It’s possible this could be an instance of community spread of COVID-19, which would be the first time this has happened in the United States,” the CDC said in a statement. “Community spread means spread of an illness for which the source of infection is unknown. It’s also possible, however, that the patient may have been exposed to a returned traveler who was infected.”

The individual is a resident of Solano County and is receiving medical care in Sacramento County, according to the state Department of Public Health.

The CDC said the “case was detected through the U.S. public health system — picked up by astute clinicians.”

Officials at UC Davis Medical Center expanded on what the federal agency might have meant by that in an email sent Wednesday, as reported by the Davis Enterprise newspaper.

The patient arrived at UC Davis Medical Center from another hospital Feb. 19 and “had already been intubated, was on a ventilator, and given droplet protection orders because of an undiagnosed and suspected viral condition,” according to an email sent by UC Davis officials that was obtained by the Davis Enterprise.

The staff at UC Davis requested COVID-19 testing by the CDC, but because the patient didn’t fit the CDC’s existing criteria for the virus, a test wasn’t immediately administered, according to the email. The CDC then ordered the test Sunday, and results were announced Wednesday. Hospital administrators reportedly said in the email that despite these issues, there has been minimal exposure at the hospital because of safety protocols they have in place.

A UC Davis Health spokesperson declined Wednesday evening to share the email with The Times.

Since Feb. 2, more than 8,400 returning travelers from China have entered California, according to the state health department. They have been advised to self-quarantine for 14 days and limit interactions with others as much as possible, officials said.

“This is a new virus, and while we are still learning about it, there is a lot we already know,” Dr. Sonia Angell, director of the California Department of Public Health, said in a statement. “We have been anticipating the potential for such a case in the U.S., and given our close familial, social and business relationships with China, it is not unexpected that the first case in the U.S. would be in California.”

It is not clear how the person became infected, but public health workers could not identify any contacts with people who had traveled to China or other areas where the virus is widespread. That raises concern that the virus is spreading in the United States, creating a challenge for public health officials, experts say.

“It’s the first signal that we could be having silent transmission in the community,” said Lawrence Gostin, director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law. “It probably means there are many more cases out there, and it probably means this individual has infected others, and now it’s a race to try to find out who that person has infected.”

On Tuesday, the CDC offered its most serious warning to date that the United States should expect and prepare for the coronavirus to become a more widespread health issue.

“Ultimately, we expect we will see coronavirus spread in this country,” said Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. “It’s not so much a question of if, but a question of when.”

According to the CDC’s latest count Wednesday morning, 59 U.S. residents have tested positive for the new strain of coronavirus — 42 of whom are repatriated citizens from a Diamond Princess cruise. That number has grown by two since Messonnier’s last count Tuesday, although the CDC was not immediately available to offer details on the additional cases.

More than 82,000 cases of coronavirus have been reported globally, and more than 2,700 people have died, with the majority in mainland China, the epicenter of the outbreak.

But public health leaders have repeatedly reminded residents that the health risk from the novel coronavirus to the general public remains low.

“While COVID-19 has a high transmission rate, it has a low mortality rate,” the state Department of Public Health said in a statement Wednesday. “From the international data we have, of those who have tested positive for COVID-19, approximately 80% do not exhibit symptoms that would require hospitalization. There have been no confirmed deaths related to COVID-19 in the United States to date.”

CDC officials have also warned that although the virus is likely to spread in U.S. communities, the flu still poses a greater risk.

Gostin said the news of potential silent transmission does not eliminate the possibility of containing the virus in the U.S. and preventing an outbreak.

“There are few enough cases that we should at least try,” he said. “Most of us are not optimistic that that will be successful, but we’re still in the position to try.”

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Then you should stop doing it as well as making assumptions.

Aside from your ridiculous straw man argument, no one is saying he isn't allowed to change his mind. The point is one man's word is not the gospel.

And that’s the thing, pete: Science isn’t Gospel, it’s science.

Science changes every minute and every hour as we humans make new discoveries. It’s not something that’s been set in stone for thousands of years so it stands to reason that if new discoveries are made, new recommendations will follow.

[displacedinMN]

I only jump in once in a while.

Minnesota expected to extend stay at home orders, with some exceptions.

Gov live at 6pm tonigjt.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

And that’s the thing, pete: Science isn’t Gospel, it’s science.

Science changes every minute and every hour as we humans make new discoveries. It’s not something that’s been set in stone for thousands of years so it stands to reason that if new discoveries are made, new recommendations will follow.

And why is it we should listen to only Fauci? Sorry but as you said, it isn't gospel. Therefore I like to get a broader take on things and not just one man's opinion. Fauci seems to come off as a bit extreme. The more people I hear talking like the doctors from NYU, etc. the more I am convinced that Fauci is on the edge a lot so I like to hear opinions from others to provide some balance.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Titty Meat

WTF is CNN doing

If you ever figure that one out you could write a book and make a lot of $'s.

[Mr_Tomahawk]

Originally Posted by Titty Meat

WTF is CNN doing

Elaborate?

[Donger]

Originally Posted by petegz28

And why is it we should listen to only Fauci? Sorry but as you said, it isn't gospel. Therefore I like to get a broader take on things and not just one man's opinion. Fauci seems to come off as a bit extreme. The more people I hear talking like the doctors from NYU, etc. the more I am convinced that Fauci is on the edge a lot so I like to hear opinions from others to provide some balance.

What are the doctors from NYU saying that is different from Fauci?

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Mr_Tomahawk

Elaborate?

Greta Thunberg is now an expert on Covid-19

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Donger

What are the doctors from NYU saying that is different from Fauci?

I think the more important question is what aren't they saying that Fauci is?

But instead of my engaging you in what will surely turn into your standard act of pedantic hair splitting I would say why don't you just go look for yourself?

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by petegz28

And why is it we should listen to only Fauci? Sorry but as you said, it isn't gospel. Therefore I like to get a broader take on things and not just one man's opinion.

He's not conducting research. He's looking across the landscape of research and drawing conclusions based on the general consensus. And it's not like there's this army of epidemiologists and public health officials who disagree with him. A vast, vast majority of experts agree with his conclusions.

If there's one thing that I've come to despise about the current public discourse about science, it's that people don't understand (or care about?) the idea of scientific consensus. If 10 studies are done, and 9 of them come to the same conclusion, that's pretty reliable. Is it perfect? No. But if we're placing bets (in the form of policy), it's pretty good.

The world we live in, though, means that people who don't like that consensus will just point to the 1 dissenting study and say that it "proves" that the consensus is "wrong." Is it possible the others were wrong? Yes. Is it likely? No.

We've somehow arrived in a world that, despite millenia of scientific advances leading to where we are today, people look for anything they can possibly do to discredit anything they don't agree with.

I'm not saying we should trust everything that Fauci says. I even agree that it would be nice to have an economist more prominently featured who can bring that view to the discussion (though note that surveys of economists suggest they think that opening things up is risky as well). I just don't understand why everyone is going all conspiracy theorist about the guy when he's literally dedicated his life to keeping people healthy.

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by petegz28

And why is it we should listen to only Fauci? Sorry but as you said, it isn't gospel. Therefore I like to get a broader take on things and not just one man's opinion. Fauci seems to come off as a bit extreme. The more people I hear talking like the doctors from NYU, etc. the more I am convinced that Fauci is on the edge a lot so I like to hear opinions from others to provide some balance.

I don't think he is extreme , it just comes off like that to people who don't agree with him, he just happens to be focusing on the virus aspect of the pandemic because that is his job , he probably thinks it is going to be worse than he is saying if you asked him in private.

[Strongside]

What would you do?

My wife booked a round trip through Tampa about 2 months ago, scheduled for June 5th. We've booked a small house on a tiny island south of the city. Fairly isolated. The plan from the start was to basically hang out at the house, enjoy the weather and the pool and occasionally walk down to the beach.

Fast forward to now, and while the flight is nowhere near full, I'm having some serious reservations about going through with this trip. I'm hearing stories of airlines consolidating flights last minute with no notification, essentially filling planes to capacity and making social distancing impossible.

My main issue is that my wife does not share my concerns. Not even in the slightest. She is so hellbent on getting out of the house that she seems to be in some level of denial that air travel, or travel in general, is a serious risk right now. We are both young and in great health, but I worry about being a vector and spreading this thing to someone I either know or don't know. I can't imagine that.

I feel like she's being incredibly selfish, and only wants to take this trip because we have been at home for so long. It's a want, not a need. Our division over it has caused a lot of stress and several arguments. I am trying to find a compromise - something like driving to the mountains and staying in a remote cabin. Hiking, fishing, etc. but she just isn't biting.

To compound matters, we would be traveling with our 1 year old son. That, to me, is enough to axe the entire thing. We can wear masks and keep our hands off of shit. He will touch every surface, put his hands in his mouth, etc.

It's just too much risk for me to be willing to take right now.

Am I tripping? Would you go or put your foot down and say we aren't doing it.

Not looking for someone to tell me what to do here, just looking for some outside perspective.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by petegz28

I think the more important question is what aren't they saying that Fauci is?

But instead of my engaging you in what will surely turn into your standard act of pedantic hair splitting I would say why don't you just go look for yourself?

Well, you seem to already know what they are saying differently than Fauci, no? If so, what is it? Something you like better?

Pretty hard for look them up without names.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by DaFace

He's not conducting research. He's looking across the landscape of research and drawing conclusions based on the general consensus. And it's not like there's this army of epidemiologists and public health officials who disagree with him. A vast, vast majority of experts agree with his conclusions.

If there's one thing that I've come to despise about the current public discourse about science, it's that people don't understand (or care about?) the idea of scientific consensus. If 10 studies are done, and 9 of them come to the same conclusion, that's pretty reliable. Is it perfect? No. But if we're placing bets (in the form of policy), it's pretty good.

The world we live in, though, means that people who don't like that consensus will just point to the 1 dissenting study and say that it "proves" that the consensus is "wrong." Is it possible the others were wrong? Yes. Is it likely? No.

We've somehow arrived in a world that, despite millenia of scientific advances leading to where we are today, people look for anything they can possibly do to discredit anything they don't agree with.

I'm not saying we should trust everything that Fauci says. I even agree that it would be nice to have an economist more prominently featured who can bring that view to the discussion. I just don't understand why everyone is going all conspiracy theorist about the guy when he's literally dedicated his life to keeping people healthy.

Well I am not going down any conspiracy path. I don't think it is that at all. I think Fauci sees things from a very narrow perspective is all and at least gives me an impression of overreaction. I don't think it is for any other reason other than that's what he thinks.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Donger

Well, you seem to already know what they are saying differently than Fauci, no? If so, what is it? Something you like better?

Pretty hard for look them up without names.

Try Google....

[Donger]

Originally Posted by DaFace

He's not conducting research. He's looking across the landscape of research and drawing conclusions based on the general consensus. And it's not like there's this army of epidemiologists and public health officials who disagree with him. A vast, vast majority of experts agree with his conclusions.

If there's one thing that I've come to despise about the current public discourse about science, it's that people don't understand (or care about?) the idea of scientific consensus. If 10 studies are done, and 9 of them come to the same conclusion, that's pretty reliable. Is it perfect? No. But if we're placing bets (in the form of policy), it's pretty good.

The world we live in, though, means that people who don't like that consensus will just point to the 1 dissenting study and say that it "proves" that the consensus is "wrong." Is it possible the others were wrong? Yes. Is it likely? No.

We've somehow arrived in a world that, despite millenia of scientific advances leading to where we are today, people look for anything they can possibly do to discredit anything they don't agree with.

I'm not saying we should trust everything that Fauci says. I even agree that it would be nice to have an economist more prominently featured who can bring that view to the discussion (though note that surveys of economists suggest they think that opening things up is risky as well). I just don't understand why everyone is going all conspiracy theorist about the guy when he's literally dedicated his life to keeping people healthy.

Fauci has been pretty blunt that he's giving his medical expertise and advice, and that he isn't an economist and doesn't give economic advice.