Health Experts Worry Coronavirus May Be Spreading Undetected in the US (statnews.com) 353
UPDATE: (2/29/2020) Saturday U.S. health officials confirmed the first American death from coronavirus.
And the Boston Globe's Stat News site reports that the new coronavirus "may be spreading in parts of the Pacific Northwest, with California, Oregon, and Washington State reporting Friday that they have diagnosed cases with no travel history or known contact with another case...." Problems with a coronavirus test developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have meant that little testing for the new virus has been done in the U.S. Worried infectious diseases experts have warned that the lack of apparent cases in the country cannot be taken as a sign the virus isn't spreading, undetected in some places...
The discovery that the virus may be spreading in the country should not come as a surprise, said Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Diseases Research and Policy. "It just tells us where there is testing, there are cases. And that's what we have to understand," Osterholm said. "There is no such thing as a barrier containment to keep these out. It's going to happen. And what we have to do now is get on with how we're going to deal with them...."
Dr. Sara Cody, health officer for Santa Clara County, said individuals need to start practicing good hand hygiene and learn to stop touching their faces -- people can infect themselves if they pick up viruses off a contaminated surface, then put a finger in their mouth or rub their eyes or nose.
And the Boston Globe's Stat News site reports that the new coronavirus "may be spreading in parts of the Pacific Northwest, with California, Oregon, and Washington State reporting Friday that they have diagnosed cases with no travel history or known contact with another case...." Problems with a coronavirus test developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have meant that little testing for the new virus has been done in the U.S. Worried infectious diseases experts have warned that the lack of apparent cases in the country cannot be taken as a sign the virus isn't spreading, undetected in some places...
The discovery that the virus may be spreading in the country should not come as a surprise, said Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Diseases Research and Policy. "It just tells us where there is testing, there are cases. And that's what we have to understand," Osterholm said. "There is no such thing as a barrier containment to keep these out. It's going to happen. And what we have to do now is get on with how we're going to deal with them...."
Dr. Sara Cody, health officer for Santa Clara County, said individuals need to start practicing good hand hygiene and learn to stop touching their faces -- people can infect themselves if they pick up viruses off a contaminated surface, then put a finger in their mouth or rub their eyes or nose.
Trump worries about politics instead of health (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what happens when you elect a scam artist as the leader of the free world.
Instead of concerning himself with public safety he just lies about the pandemic and congratulates himself and his team on blatant incompetence.
Rank incompetence, stupidity, and dishonesty are not a recipe for success during a public health crisis.
Re: (Score:3)
This is what happens when you elect a scam artist as the leader of the free world.
Instead of concerning himself with public safety he just lies about the pandemic and congratulates himself and his team on blatant incompetence.
Rank incompetence, stupidity, and dishonesty are not a recipe for success during a public health crisis.
If only The Donald'd had the funds to finish the wall. That would have kept it out!
I blame the NIMBYs.
Jan31 - Trump Declares A Public Health Emergency (Score:5, Informative)
Instead of concerning himself with public safety he just lies about the pandemic and congratulates himself and his team on blatant incompetence.
I am not a fan of the orange dude but lets at least be honest. He took action back in January.
"Trump Declares Coronavirus A Public Health Emergency And Restricts Travel From China
The declaration of a public health emergency — which will become effective Sunday at 5 p.m. ET — enables the government to take temporary measures to contain the spread of the virus, which has been confirmed in seven people in the U.S.
The action means that U.S. citizens who have been in China's Hubei Province in the past 14 days will be subject to 14 days of mandatory quarantine if they travel back to the United States.
In addition, the U.S. is temporarily suspending entry of most travelers arriving from China, or who have recently been in China, if they are not U.S. citizens."
https://www.npr.org/sections/h... [npr.org]
Rank incompetence, stupidity, and dishonesty are not a recipe for success during a public health crisis.
Sadly that is what the Democratic leadership is offering. On the above date where Trump acted the Dem Leadership was focused on impeachment.
... both are a-holes, but the Dems are doing an incredible amount of lying in the hopes that Coronavirus might the the kryptonite they have been praying for. They are playing poiltics with the virus far more than Trump and Pence.
Dems try to portray the above travel restrictions as racist. Really, restricting travel from a plague region is racist? The requirement for entry into the US is US citizenship not being white. The Dems claimed mandatory quarantine on those returning is an overreaction? Really, voluntary self quarantine is enough?
Meanwhile Italy has nearly 20 deaths and the US has less than 100 sick. Of course this will change, of course Trump's actions are more of a delay of the spread than the prevention of the spread. But that delay allows us to be better prepared and reduce the number of eventual fatalities. That is a good thing, have the intellectual honesty to admit it.
They lie about Trump, they lie about Pence
Re:Jan31 - Trump Declares A Public Health Emergenc (Score:4, Informative)
I am not a fan of the orange dude....
Then why are you cherry picking what he's done semi-right, and ignoring all the things he's done very wrong?
Like firing all the white house experts on infectious diseases and not replacing them. Well, he replaced them with Pence, but that's like replacing a team of firefighters with an arsonist.
Like repeated cuts to the CDC budget over the years.
Or maybe ignoring the WHO's test for the virus while the CDC made its own flawed test in numbers too small to be really useful?
Maybe sending half the people to greet the cruise ship quarantine passengers in full protective gear, but the other half in no protective gear, and then having the folks with no gear fly commercial to get back home?
How about the general lying about everything, so that the bulk of the population doesn't trust a word he says? In the face of a crisis, people not trusting their leaders seriously hurts the response.
Heck, just yesterday he forbid the nation's leading expert on the disease from speaking publicly, instead running all communication through Pence. So he's not allowing us to hear anything about a fairly infectious disease except what he thinks will help him politically. Otherwise, why not let experts speak freely?
In case you actually missed it, and aren't just a troll, most of the democrats are criticizing very valid things. They are not "doing an incredible amount of lying in the hopes that Coronavirus might the the kryptonite they have been praying for." Pointing out that the anti-science, pray-it-away Pence is about the worst person to lead a response to what might be a global pandemic is not lying. He's got a track record of doing the opposite of what's needed during a health crisis.
Thanks for proving your political bias and misinfo (Score:5, Informative)
replaced them with Pence, but that's like replacing a team of firefighters with an arsonist.
And what is Pence's first action. Appointing a genuine medical professional with governmental and international experience, a doctor working for the State Dept regarding AIDS.
"And the following day, Pence announced he was appointing Ambassador Debbie Birx to assist the effort as "White House coronavirus response coordinator." Birx is a physician and global health expert who is currently responsible for coordinating the State Department's HIV/AIDS task force. The White House said she will be supported by NSC staff in her role."
https://www.politifact.com/fac... [politifact.com]
Like repeated cuts to the CDC budget over the years.
You misrepresent proposed cuts as if they were real. In reality Trump signed budgets with increases. And you ignore areas where increases were suggested, increases that offset CDC reductions from previous administrations. In sort he proposed spending less overseas and more domestically.
"Every year since Trump has been president, lawmakers have passed bills — bills signed by Trump — that not only exceeded what Trump requested on emerging infections but also exceeded what had been spent the previous year.
In addition, the Trump campaign pointed to consistent funding for certain budget sub-categories, such as CDC’s public health emergency preparedness, which helps states and localities deal with public health emergencies, including outbreaks. That program suffered funding losses that predate Trump."
https://www.politifact.com/fac... [politifact.com]
Or maybe ignoring the WHO's test for the virus while the CDC made its own flawed test in numbers too small to be really useful?
In other words he listened to the US CDC.
Maybe sending half the people to greet the cruise ship quarantine passengers in full protective gear, but the other half in no protective gear, and then having the folks with no gear fly commercial to get back home?
Sorry, I missed where Trump personally equipped and led those efforts. You are conflating a mistake by some middle manager far down the chain of command with Presidential level decisions.
How about the general lying about everything, so that the bulk of the population doesn't trust a word he says? In the face of a crisis, people not trusting their leaders seriously hurts the response.
Oh the irony. This is exactly what I am calling out the Democratic Party leadership over, and their operatives such as yourself. You lie and misrepresent and undermine you own credibility. The result people outside your echo chamber ignore you, they don't have the time to sort your lies and half truths from your just criticisms. Is short, you made yourself ineffective. Thus helping Trump to get re-elected.
Heck, just yesterday he forbid the nation's leading expert on the disease from speaking publicly, instead running all communication through Pence. So he's not allowing us to hear anything about a fairly infectious disease except what he thinks will help him politically. Otherwise, why not let experts speak freely?
It is pretty normal to have an administrator or dedicated spokesperson, someone trained in the art of communications and media interaction, not medicine or science, to speak to the press. You can't speak to the press as you would speak to a conference of fellow scientists or doctors. They also often call on the medical professionals to be part of their presentation. As we saw in Trump's news conference
Pence handled coronavirus outbreak in 2014 as Gov (Score:5, Interesting)
Like firing all the white house experts on infectious diseases and not replacing them. Well, he replaced them with Pence, but that's like replacing a team of firefighters with an arsonist.
I wasn't aware Pence was trying to get every single person infected with the coronavirus? Maybe better to say replaced a team of fire fighters with a 12 year old boy.
Nope. That's just Dem disinformation. At today's press conference the Press, dutifully following the Dem Leadership's talking points, asked how he was qualified. He responded that as governor he had handled a coronavirus outbreak in Indiana in 2014. A Middle Eastern variant out of Saudi Arabia. He said one of the things he learned is how important the partnership is between the federal agencies, CDC etc, and the local healthcare system and first responders. How his local officials handled the quarantine and investigation of the person's contacts.
Also note Pence's first act after being appointed. He chose a medical professional with governmental and international experience, a doctor working for the State Dept regarding AIDS, to be the White House coronavirus coordinator.
There's plenty to criticize Pence and Trump over, but at least have the intellectual honesty to admit when they do make good moves or have relevant experience.
I'll give Trump a pass on this one. So far. (Score:3)
With the 24 hour news cycle, it's easy to lose track of the fact that the very first cases of this thing were reported just 90 days ago. There's really nothing anyone could have done to prevent it getting here. The same story has happened all over the world; you can't expect Trump to accomplish something that no other leader has.
I *am* concerned the president's messaging on this though. While you *do* want to prevent people and markets from panicking, you want to preserve your credibility if things go a l
Re: Trump worries about politics instead of health (Score:2, Insightful)
Because those are his proposed policies. How about we actually talk substance about policies and results vs the twitter feeds of the figureheads.
Will Pence or Trump single-handedly cute the disease? Off course not. Will they get billions of dollars to prevent a major outbreak like China and Europe? Perhaps, if the actual policy makers do something instead of the House Democrats wasting the first meeting on coronavirus between the House reps and the CDC ripping on immigration policy.
Re: Trump worries about politics instead of healt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because he's going to tax every mouth breather in the US over 50%. Their talking heads said so, so it must be true. I have to listen to this shit every time I leave the house.
Nevermind that you have to be making over $250k a year to have your tax bracket change at all, and you have to make over 10 million a year to see that 52%.
Re: (Score:3)
??? The U.S. has had tax brackets since it first enacted an income tax in 1916.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not want to pay >50% of my earnings to the govt.
Yeah, well, if you're making millions, then, quite simply, fuck you..
We need to back to the tax rates we had in 1950. without the loopholes. That would be close to a fair tax. And then we can afford to maintain the safety net and more. And then people can stay home when they are sick or hurt. That's how you slow the spread of a contagious disease.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You might need to rethink your math... The top 10% [taxfoundation.org] make 45% of all income - but pay 70% of all income taxes. And if you make more than $12,000 per month - you're in the top 10%.
As far as those high tax days, you do realize that back in 1957 (the last year the Federal Government ran an actual surplus, not a cooked-books surplus), the Federal Government collected HALF the taxes per capita (adjusted for inflation) than it does today. Our national debt has exploded as tax collections have exploded - because
Re: (Score:3)
"The top 10% make 45% of all income - but pay 70% of all income taxes."
That only shows the disparity in the system. If the next 50% were allowed to make any substantial amount of money, they'd be paying taxes too.
Re: Trump worries about politics instead of healt (Score:4, Insightful)
"The "rich" overwhelmingly carry the load right now, so that the middle class and poor don't pay, effectively, anything."
Completely false. The poor pay a higher percentage of their income on necessities, and have less ability to write them off, so they pay a higher percentage of their income on taxes on necessities. That means they effectively pay more when it comes to mere survival within the system.
Re: (Score:3)
So you want to raise taxes significantly more than what it has ever been (loopholes is one reason why, even though the marginal rate was high in the 50s, the effective rate was so much lower), and raise caps on SSI/FICA. Would you also raise SSI potential payouts, instead of having it capped as it is now?
A related question, you're on /. and probably in the tech world. My guess is you make more than $7,000 per month. You do realize that your proposal would effectively dramatically increase the taxes you p
Re: (Score:3)
That's false. Not only does it eliminate a lot of current spending but it puts the government in a position to reduce health care costs. Your analysis would only hold true if health care costs remained fixed. But everywhere else national health care has reduced those costs, and there's no reason to believe it wouldn't also do so here.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Only a fool would think a wall will stop a virus.
It's coming in by boats, planes, trains, and cars. It's already here. But yeah, let's spend a few billion on a wall and pretend it'll help.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Trump worries about politics instead of health (Score:2)
He is just practicing catch and release!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Give me the seven hundred bucks a day we're spending to hold each kidnapped child in a concentration camp per homeless person and I'll house all of them in comfort and dignity.
Re: (Score:3)
A modern leftist cheering for genocide against those he disagrees with. Everything old is new again. Stalin and Mao would be proud.
Double standard (Score:4, Interesting)
Yay for America not even testing so we have no idea how many are infected.
Re:Double standard (Score:5, Informative)
There is no general purpose lab test for viral infections. Bacteria you can culture in a petri dish then count and identify them. You can even look at them under a microscope. A virus is too small to see so you can't even confirm one is present without a species-specific molecular biology test.
To develop that test you need concentrated samples of the virus free from the stew of chemicals you find in the human body. A virus doesn't reproduce outside of a host cell so that's tricky. You have to grow them in a compatible cell culture (if you can find one), then either produce antigens (for immunoassays like ELISA) or species-specific DNA-cleaving primers for PCR (polymerase chain reaction). For a virus that is highly infectious you have to do all this in a special lab using extra precautions [wikipedia.org].
The cases of novel pathogens like COVID-19 are identified is by clinical observation and Occam's razor: this person has the same *symptoms* as a whole bunch of other patients right now, they test negative for bacterial infections or known viruses, so we'll assume they all have the same new virus.
That's the way COVID-19 is still mostly diagnosed today: old-fashioned, seat-of-the-pants doctoring. That involves judgment calls. People get sick with unknown viruses all the time, viruses with similar symptoms. And not everyone with COVID-19 develops all the same symptoms. There's human judgment involved. Even if China were a transparent society, which it's not, there is bound to be some slop in the figures, particularly early on.
Prediction: COVID-19 to be politically weaponized (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Just sayin......
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the summary where is said (paraphrase)"where testing is done COVID-19 cases are found"?
P.S.: I've seen a report that in one case a man with COVID-19 had his dog tested, and it showed a weak case present. Just what this means isn't clear to me, given how people pet dogs, and how blood samples are done. It *could* mean it was resident on the skin or hair, and the sample collection wasn't sterile. But it could also mean that dogs can carry the disease. (Whether they can spread it is a separat
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Prediction: COVID-19 to be politically weaponiz (Score:5, Insightful)
Until we have a plan, we are stuck at the phase of developing a plan, and that is inherently political.
And here is where that process is at:
What this tells me is there is no intent to come up with a plan. Until that changes, the problem is political.
To be clear, I don't deny for one second that Democrats will pounce on any opening to attack Trump. But instead of just counterpunching with words, the response I would like to see from the President is a solid, constructive, agreed-up on plan developed by actual experts that we as a nation are going to follow.
Re: Prediction: COVID-19 to be politically weaponi (Score:2)
What sort of plan? The flu and the common cold have been around for years. Even if covid19 had a 10% death rate, do we even have a theoretical plan to stop it. The TV show âoeLast Shipâ comes to mind. It had a 90% death rate and the world collapsed. Even at a 90% death rate, Iâ(TM)m not sure we are capable of stopping a highly contagious disease. We are only able to stop stuff like Ebola and Polio because the transmission rate is very low.
Re: Prediction: COVID-19 to be politically weaponi (Score:4)
We have dealt with outbreaks before, we get through them.
They are horrible, but we as a species get through them.
This one will be pretty bad unless the leaders get their shit together.
Many places deal with similar, dangerous outbreaks every damn day. cholera, yellow fever, ebola, malaria. it is hard, horribly hard, but they carry on.
We still have lots of room to impact the spread and outcome of this outbreak,, I am focused on those things, and I hope you will too.
Re: (Score:2)
The current purpose of quarantines, etc., is to slow the progression of the cases while medical capabilities are developed and ramped up. Maybe it will work. But hiding your head in the sand and just making speeches isn't a good choice...especially if you don't already have a good team of infections disease agents working on halting it. And the US fired their team last year (possibly the year before).
Re: Prediction: COVID-19 to be politically weaponi (Score:5, Insightful)
May 2018. And nobody has been rehired, nor that team reassembled. Plus he's been chopping down the CDC's budget, because:
"I'm a businessperson. I don't like having thousands of people around when you don't need them," Trump said. "When we need them, we can get them back very quickly."
Maybe if you've never worked with nor needed an expert who was up-to-date in their area of expertise, that makes sense. If you're not an idiot or if you have worked with such people, you realize that you can't get people back quickly if they know that they'll get discarded tomorrow if you don't think they're needed. And you'll also realize that you're just hoping that someone else is paying to grow their expertise in the same area they were working in, rather than them moving on and their knowledge getting out-of-date.
Yeah, I get that the government is a giant, wasteful bureaucracy, but it's job is to deal with shit like this, not turn a profit. And you can't deal with shit like this without having plans ready, and you don't have plans ready if you've fired everyone who was in charge of making them.
Re:Prediction: COVID-19 to be politically weaponiz (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump has a plan, protect the stock market and his re-election....silly wabbit.
Meanwhile... (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile, the President is facing heavy criticism for his handling of the coronavirus after he admitted that he closed 37 out of 47 anti-pandemic programs in vulnerable countries around the world set up by his predecessor Barack Obama to tackle just such a contagion.
Everything is fine, don't worry- the virus is just a "hoax" according to the President and FOX News.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Not really doubting that such things could have occurred, both on the Obama and Trump sides of this, but do you have links to those "facts"?
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes Trump did make cuts to the CDC programs.
Snopes has this as true.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, no links, but I I read it the CDC didn't get defunded, but the infections diseases control team was disbanded under orders from the executive branch.
You know you could read the linked article (Score:3, Informative)
Just out of curiosity, why did you post that? Are you just stirring shit? Getting paid by somebody? Do you just love Trump so much you'll stick your fingers in your ears? If it's the last one Reality is about to come down hard on you. I would skip those Trump rallies if I were you. Especially if you're over 60...
Re: (Score:2)
Everything in that post is true though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:5, Informative)
Not really doubting that such things could have occurred, both on the Obama and Trump sides of this, but do you have links to those "facts"?
FFS, do a google search...it's a fact that's been reported in almost every news source.
But here's a sample via a February 2018 story in The Washington Post:
Four years after the United States pledged to help the world fight infectious-disease epidemics such as Ebola, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is dramatically downsizing its epidemic prevention activities in 39 out of 49 countries because money is running out, U.S. government officials said.
The CDC programs, part of a global health security initiative, train front-line workers in outbreak detection and work to strengthen laboratory and emergency response systems in countries where disease risks are greatest. The goal is to stop future outbreaks at their source.
But the Washington Post is a liberal newspaper, so just ignore them, right? Don't take ten seconds to search for confirmation, just keep pretending everything is fine.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I haven't seen the CDC putting any faith healing online yet
That is true. But we also don't know what useful information they didn't put online because Pence didn't let them.
For all we know the CDC wanted to tell everyone not to seek out faith healers, don't expect healing crystals or prayer to do anything. And Pence disallowed it because he personally thinks it may work.
Re: (Score:3)
I did no such thing.
I fully expected it to backfire as America is so partisan and team orientated. Republican Senate would never have allowed it to happen.
Shit Americans can't even believe in the same reality as each other. Any attack or perceived attack on Trump will just make Republicans love him more.
Stupid Democrats still think that if they show how incompetent or bad or whatever Trump is that it will change peoples minds. It just won't work. Republicans just don't care about it. Even in the unlikely
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"Super Flu" out of China, not Ebola from Tropics (Score:2)
Meanwhile, the President is facing heavy criticism for his handling of the coronavirus after he admitted that he closed 37 out of 47 anti-pandemic programs in vulnerable countries around the world set up by his predecessor Barack Obama to tackle just such a contagion.
No, not this contagion. This contagion is from China, not one of these vulnerable countries, not a country that is open and forthcoming regarding data and information. Such info and data might reflect poorly on the Chinese Communist Party so it will not be shared, there will not be meaningful cooperation that could expose such info..
The likelihood of introduction of the virus to the US is from a person traveling to China, not so much these vulnerable countries. If we were talking about an Ebola virus fro
Horseman rides (Score:2)
with no travel history or known contact with another case
Enjoy your "convergent evolution", naturalists. Or have an actual plan, in case this improbability is actually "convergent design".
Diseases get less fatal with time (Score:2, Interesting)
with no travel history or known contact with another case
Enjoy your "convergent evolution", naturalists. Or have an actual plan, in case this improbability is actually "convergent design".
Diseases tend to become less fatal over time, since there is evolutionary pressure to *not* kill the host.
Typically, an infectious disease lives in some animal species without killing them, and at some point mutates to become infectious to another species (notably humans), at which point it's usually very potent. (*)
As time progresses however, there is enormous evolutionary pressure evolve into a form that makes the host sick without killing them - diseases that don't kill the host have more opportunity to
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, did you think by "plan" I meant just -this- virus?
I should have been more clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Naturalism is 100% fatal.
You can substitute "atheism", if you prefer.
Re: (Score:2)
breathing
eating
sleeping (and not sleeping)
atheism
theism (all types)...
If you have a list of things proven to cause immortality, please do post them here!
Re: (Score:2)
Speak for yourself.
But since you asked...
NDE phenomena [thelancet.com]
Fine Tuned Universe [wikipedia.org]
Statistical improbability of prophecy [christinprophecy.org]
Irreducible Complexity, i.e. stepwise survivability [evolutionnews.org]
Historical accounts [theguardian.com]
EAAN (incoherence of naturalism in conjunction with evolution) [wikipedia.org]
Once you get off your domain-inappropriate demand for "proof" that is. "Proof" is for math and vodka. You are really asking for forced conversion, which is what giving you "proof" would be? No, you get to decide. As always, we decide based on -evidence-.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, there isn't much pressure not to kill the host when there are lots of potential hosts around. So it will only evolve to become less harmful if there's a good reason. One good reason may be to avoid detection...but that isn't a reason to do more than slow down the destructive stage if there are lots of hosts around, and if the hosts immune system is going to try to kill you eventually anyway.
COVID-19 can start spreading before the symptoms appear, so the obvious evolutionary advantage is to exten
No Known Contact (Score:2)
Isn't that the whole freaking problem in part of a sentence?
If infected people are walking around hacking, wheezing on people and food around them, doesn't this mean the cat is out of the bag?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed] on 12-24 days incubation and transmissible.
Also: Wash your damn hands and stop picking your nose.
This is not airborne, it is droplet based, so if you keep your hygiene as high as you can, you are at much less risk.
Re:Of course it is (Score:4, Informative)
the fact is WHO and CDC say "Most estimates of the incubation period for COVID-19 range from 1-14 days, most commonly around five days. These estimates will be updated as more data become available."
Mod parent up (Score:3)
Stop worrying about it spreading. Too late. Wash your hands a lot.
Exactly. It's already here. Arguing about whether or not it's coming is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
The only question now is how bad it'll be, and things aren't looking good.
We have measures that work, hygiene, social (Score:3)
We can do things that reduce and slow the spread, so lets focus on doing them. We can give the experts time to test more people, test existing antivirals, ramp up production, etc.
At the moment anyone in the US's individual chance of catching it is low.
The slower this spreads, the better we are going to do responding to it given the numbers and the realities of how our health care system is.
I think we have a sense of how many will catch this eventually, probably on the lower end of the 40-70% projection.
And most folks will be fine from the virus. That is true - 80% of folks who catch it are fine. 15% need to be in a hospital. 2% of those folks will pass away.
We can keep doing what experts tell us, wash hands, do not touch your face, stay home if you get sick, work from home if you can. Avoid large gatherings, church, etc.
If we all keep doing that we will have an impact on making sure as few folks as possible catch it and even fewer die.
Do not forget: Testing results do not mean more spreading, it means identifying more folks who already had it and learning a lot more to help slow the spread.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: We have measures that work, hygiene, social (Score:2)
Nobody knows the true death rate because we arenâ(TM)t testing the entire population (nor has China). Given the fact that the cases in the U.S. have no known connection to China, it appears likely that some large portion of the population exposed has no symptoms or very mild ones- we havenâ(TM)t and indeed couldnâ(TM)t test all of these people.
Take comfort in the fact that this disease has been active for almost 3 months in China and has only infected a minuscule portion of the population. Ev
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: you you use a different test kit for each subject, contamination figures may result much lower.
The US Does have a great Flu Monitoring system (Score:2)
If it is one thing the US does do quite well is monitor flu and influenza like illnesses.
If CORVID19 had been circulating for any time we would have picked up on something. For sure.
We can slow and reduce the spread in the US if our officials follow the advice of the experts in the field.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is one thing the US does do quite well is monitor flu and influenza like illnesses
Well...we used to, not so much anymore.
Over the last couple of years this administration has cut the funding for most of the field offices that monitored this kind of thing in other countries, so now we're kinda flying blind. Maybe not completely blind, but damn near.
Lets compare to H1N1 Response (Score:2)
CNN [cnn.com] reported at the time:
Furthermore, the CDC's Frieden fretted at the time that efforts to create a vaccine had stumbled:
I really have to stop picking my nose. (Score:3)
I'm wondering what effect it will have (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, by the time transmission during rally would be concern this thing will be all over the USA anyway. Not a concern for healthy people, it's like a mild cold. Those of you who are diseased, frail, smoke (either tobacco or MJ) might want to worry.
Re: (Score:2)
They both rely heavily on social media as well, in Trump's case personally. I think Trump in particular will miss the adulation, but in truth most of their supporters never go to a rally and the ones that go are the most committed.
A bigger issue might be the ground game -- getting canvasses to go out in swing districts to voters who might be on the fence about turning out.
There's hope that COVID-19 might die down in summer naturally, like flu does.
This is what a leading pandemic expert is doing (Score:3)
https://twitter.com/KrutikaKup... [twitter.com]
firing the cdc will bite this admin but indirectly (Score:3)
But you know who it will bite the ass more at election time ? The GOP. Not because people would be sick of trump. no. because the GOP voting cohort are older on average , (at least those the most likely to die , the silent gen , is also the more likely to vote/admit to vote gop). And the people taking their time to go vote are also older. If 14% of those die, then sudednly coming november they will be sorely missed at the election.
That said I hope for all it does not spread , otherwise the number of death will be horrendous.
Re: (Score:3)
The bigger problem here isn't bankruptcy for people who need treatment. It's that we don't have paid sick leave. Many low wage jobs here will give sick leave, but it's unpaid. Some people can't afford to miss a day of work, so they'll go in anyway and spread their sickness.
Re: Translation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Neat how blaming Trump fixes everything.
Re:Translation (Score:4, Interesting)
Neat how blaming Trump fixes everything.
The guy did fire the CDC response team [snopes.com] which would have been involved in this situation so now we're with stuck with Pence.
But then, when anything happened during Obam's tenure, the Fox tabloid and the uneducateds were quick to blame him so obviously that fixed things as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Tu quoque [wikipedia.org]
Re:Translation (Score:5, Interesting)
That's exactly the way the Fox tabloid operates along with what seems like a majority of Republicans. Remember when Lindsey Graham said there doesn't even have to be a crime for there to be an impeachment? Yet when presented with actual crimes and abuse of power he goes whistling in the wind.
My pointing out hypocrisy does not negate the point. If you're going to complain when its' done to your guy, you can't then do the same thing to someone else and not expect to be called out for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Tu quoque!
My intent was actually an appeal to abandoning politics entirely as a source of truth or long-term resolution of any existential issue, rather than a personal rebuttal, but we'll be seeing many more of these in the near future.
I'm always reminded of these two guys... [youtube.com]
That won't work (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps. But putting Pence in charge doesn't do anything to solve the problem...and may well make it worse. So I feel free to continue to blame Trump not only for past actions, but also for present time actions.
You say, "But that doesn't solve the problem either", and you're right. But I'm not the one at the levers of power who was given the job of solving the problem. I can clearly see that certain actions could be taken to minimize the problem in the long term that wouldn't be politically disasterous.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Trump still managed to do several cuts to the CDC which impacted their ability to respond to the Corona virus as it was developing abroad. Yes, Congress stopped some of the cuts. Not all of them. It would have been very useful to have a larger presence overseas to monitor the development of the disease.
If you read the links in the Snopes article linked to elsewhere about the cuts it appears to have been done so that Trump & Pence could consolidate power in the administration by putting
Not entirely accurate. Worry about the next one. (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all many of the proposed cuts were undone by Congress. Some cuts were in areas like studying chronic diseases such as diabetes or heart disease.
The administration *did* shut down some programs that monitor the emergence of zoonotic pathogens. However those cuts likely won't affect *this* particular situation much because we're past the stage where those programs would have given us early warning. We're fortunate that this one emerged in a relatively advanced country, although China's internal politics probably cost us a month preparation time. The first reported cases of COVID-19 in Wuhan were just 90 days ago. If this happened in, say, Tanzania, without those surveillance programs we'd just be realizing this was happening now.
More worrying is the President's long term strategy for the CDC. He thinks it should be smaller and that we should just hire doctors as epidemics occur. That *might* work if what you needed were doctors, and general practitioners at that. What you actually need in situation are not just specialist doctors, but specialist professions like epidemiologists. People will simply leave those fields if there is no employment, and new people won't enter them.
The idea that you can just go out and hire CDC functions as you need them sounds great if you know absolutely nothing about what the CDC does, but it's rather like thinking you're going to go out and recruit sailors to run your aircraft carriers after war breaks out.
Re: (Score:2)
The Prevention and Public Health Fund (what is used to deal with these kinds of events) went from $801 million in 2018, to $805 million in 2019, and the President requested $894 million for 2020. So not sure where you're getting the slashing.
And I guess you ALSO forget that the President can propose a budget, but the budget - by Constitutional mandate - is the source of the budget and spending, it's their call, first. If you're upset there's not enough Government spending, then you need to take it up with
Re: (Score:2)
If only Trump hadn't slashed funding for the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and its infectious disease research we might have been able to get a handle on this, but it's too late now. (For fiscal year 2020, Trump proposed cutting the CDC budget by $1.3 billion, nearly 20% below the 2019 level.)
For each budget year, Trump has asked for a reduction in spending across the board, which makes sense as we have been running massive deficits every year since the great recession. Every year Congress had increased spending for all departments, including the CDC. Every year Trump has passed the spending bill.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politic... [go.com]
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Re:Translation (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, never happened. [snopes.com]
Perhaps you should crawl out of your alt-right infested rock some time.
Re: Time to Shoot self in head (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The 1864 election during the civil war is even better precedent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The virus has a low mortality rate among those exposed to it, and that exposure does not mean certain death.
A mortality rate of 1 ~ 2 percent is nothing to laugh at when you're talking about the possibility of tens or hundreds of millions of people being exposed. And that's just this iteration of the virus; if (when) it mutates it's expected to become more lethal, not less.
This thing has the potential to turn very, very bad almost overnight, especially since symptoms don't appear for the first week or two. During that time the infected people are walking through airports, grocery stores, schools, shopping malls,
Re: (Score:2)
corona virus we aren't sure how much it will kill (Score:3)
In a healthy person, the coronavirus is like a mild cold.
Hmm who to believe. All the medical experts telling us it's a big deal. Or some Internet rando telling us it's just a cold...
Maybe Trump is right and it's just a Chinese/Democrat hoax. They sure did pull out all the stops, shutting down their economy to make it look good.
I think I'm going to wash my hands anyway. You feel free to attend as many Trump rallies as you like though. I'm sure you will be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe I read the CDC report and it says exactly what I related about how the disease affects a healthy person vs. one with weakened system. Knowledge is power, ignorance is dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
The first rule of statistics should be think about where your numbers are coming from.
It appears that the death rate in Wuhan is higher than other Chinese cities. This is both good and bad news. The good news is that it means that the virus itself may not be as lethal as initially feared. The bad news is that it shows the pathogen's infectiousness enables it to overwhelm health care delivery systems.
The early data almost certainly skewed toward overestimating lethality as only the most severe cases were r
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually we've got a quite good idea of the incubation period...it's just quite variable. In particular individual cases time of 2 days to 6 weeks have been found, but both of those are rare extremes. (Possibly different groups were measuring things differently?) But this does make effective quarantine difficult. What makes it impossible is the high failure rate of the tests.
Also, it appears now that the primary vector is people. The viral particles appear to be moderately durable, and able to persist