People more likely to contract coronavirus at home, study finds

This makes for good satire. The CDC is going to become a good source for jokes for years to come.

In the house, really? It’s the same as that “you get COVID from running AC” joke. And one wonders why to trust the CDC for well.....

Anything.

 

Well, evidence like this that actually addresses variables instead of pretending they don’t exist. To be clear I’m talking about evidence, not “proof” of something.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/06/22/science.abc6810

Yes, as far as I can tell this has not been through peer review. Pre print is all I can find so far.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v3.full.pdf


When we look at the above information and apply what we now know about actual infection rates in places like New York, it’s pretty obvious New York is approaching herd immunity. The lack of a second wave in the face of reopening (with the same mitigations in place that only brought infections down slowly, if at all initially) is also evidence there is a degree of herd immunity reached already. That lack of second waves is an indicator examined and discussed in my links.

Now, I think the death rate in NY was atrocious. But Fauci gives them an “A” and he’s the authority I guess. So if even places as populous as NY can approach herd immunity at the infection levels they have “achieved”, the idea death rates are too high to be acceptable doesn’t fly. New York is being widely praised as a success.

Now before someone flies off the handle on infection rates, I’m not interested in Worldometer case counts. I’m also not interested in being told I’m wrong without some hard evidence being presented that I am.

 

BRAVO!

 

Sounds kinky lol

And 6 feet social distancing during sex and in doggy position?? If a guy can maintain 6 feet social distancing and still have sex...I guess that man should be congratulated...Haha

I read this same thing about masks during sex, no air conditioning and all that crap it's just getting too ridiculous! I am sure there are couples out there getting busy with masks on and that's just plain funny...

 

What a surprise. Being close to other people and not wearing masks makes you vulnerable to getting infected

Newsflash. During lockdown me and my wife went out together infrequently and together.

Yes. If she got it...I likely would have too.

This surprises who?

 

Often what you see when a journalistic source reads a scientific paper and writes up an article, is that they don't understand the study and they reach conclusions that are not warranted by the study and are not what the study says.

This study absolutely does NOT say what this article is implying.

Here is the study:

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-1315_article

The study is merely saying that 11.8% of people who are household contacts of confirmed COVID-19 patients also got positive. It also says that contact-tracing those index cases, 1.9% of non-household contacts (among a much LARGER population) of those index patients, were found to be positive. This does NOT mean that people are more likely to get it at home... It just mean that these 5,706 index cases passed it more readily to their family members... It's the other way around... they *infected* 11.8% of their household contacts, and *infected* 1.9% of their non-household contacts (duh, they spent more time and more proximity with their household contacts) but where did the index cases themselves got it? Presumably in the community, since it was before anyone in their household got it. That's what an "index" case means: the first one in that population (of household members).

It's not "2 out of 100 infected people" - it's 2 of 100 non-household contacts got the virus from that person. The other 98 are not "infected people." They are contacts who did NOT get the virus. They are negative! Gee!

Also, you need to look at the study limitations:

What is happening here is a journalistic bias. They read this study, misinterpret it, don't understand it, but spin it for their agenda: "see? It's not really necessary to wear masks outside; you are more likely to get the virus at home" which is... not what the study says.

Amazing.

So here is a piece of advice for everybody reading this thread: on these matters, don't trust a journalistic source. Go to the original study, read it, and try to understand what it is saying.

You'll see that the majority of lay press articles get a scientific study wrong. Unsurprisingly, because journalists are not scientists.

 

A fraction of 1% yes, but a sizable fraction. The CDC's current best estimate of the infection-fatality rate is 0.65%. The case-fatality rate (confirmed cases) is much higher, but the infection-fatality rate would include the missed, non-diagnosed asymptomatic or mild cases, never tested, so it is lower.

It also needs to be understood that deaths are not all. There is growing evidence that at least 5% of patients who don't die, come out of it with permanent organ damage. Severe scars in lungs limiting lung capacity and resulting in permanent shortness of breath, liver damage, heart issues, renal insufficiency, risk of strokes, neuropsychiatric issues, severe chronic fatigue, etc. So, it's not just that the virus kills 0.65%... but also that it maims 5% or more.

If a significant percentage of the US population contracts this virus and 5% of them come out of it with permanent medical disabilities, the economic impact will be HUGE (imagine the costs for treatment, lost productivity, shortened life span) and likely to be several times higher than the cost of our rather short lockdown (as compared to other countries: barely 4 weeks here, 12 weeks in Spain, for example).

Before you think that I'm saying this to highlight "orange man bad", check out the thread I started today praising Trump for his Warp Speed vaccine initiative. When I talk about the serious dangers that this virus entails, I'm not implying anything against Trump. By the way, Trump himself, in yesterday's press briefing, said "this virus is vicious, very dangerous." I agree with Mr. President on this. This virus is indeed vicious and very dangerous. It affects the endothelium - the inner layer - of blood vessels everywhere in the body, causing in severe cases a myriad of organ damage.

People who think this is a little flu should look at the case of Nick Cordero, 41-years-old previously 100% healthy Broadway actor who caught the virus, battled it for 13 weeks, had one leg amputated due to a blood clot, had an artificial pacemaker due to heart inflammation, had dialysis due to renal failure, had severe lung scars, then died. Good luck finding a flu case with this kind of disease course.

Make no mistake, this virus is dangerous and vicious, like Trump said The fact that the majority of people survive it well, doesn't mean that a significant percentage of people (in terms of public health, 5.65% is huge) won't come out of it either dead (0.65%) or maimed (5%).

Best is to be cautious now, while we wait for a vaccine, which I do believe is coming. I'm optimistic about a vaccine.

 

Apparently Broward County in Florida has mandated that people wear their masks at home and practice social distancing with family members.

Such madness.

 

One thing needs to be clear, almost half of deaths occur at nursing homes, but the question never gets brought up, why do we have so many nursing homes? What's happened to American culture where it's okay to put your parents and grandparents in a warehouse to die?

 

You're shooting the messenger. The CDC merely published the study; they didn't author it.
And then, the study is showing something TOTALLY different than what the Fox Business journalist, naively or maliciously, understood (I should say misunderstood) from it. It DOESN'T say that people are more likely to get it at home.
Read the study; I posted the link to it 5 posts above. See my clarification there, about what the study really says.

People here are jumping to conclusions about a study, from a likely biased and definitely inaccurate lay press article.

 

That’s a mandate I’m happy to break. The madness has to end somewhere, even if citizens themselves have to be the adults in the room while elected officials act like children.

 

Problem: They're asymptomatic, so during that time when no one knows they're infected they could logically wait for it...spread it. However, the study's findings make a lot of sense. It may seem counterintuitive, but in the randomization of a crowd you're more likely to be in a crowd of people who don't have the coronavirus, as opposed to people who do.

People who are sick enough to show symptoms will stay home, and if people suspect they have the virus they will mostly stay home as well. As a result, the outside world is indeed considerably safer than being with a sick person inside.

This whole thing has been us running around with our heads cut off like a chicken this whole time. We humans struggle with being calm in the face of adversity and tragedy, but if we had been we could've prevented a lot of this.

 

We're doomed!

Only World War III can save us.

Vote Democrat 2020

 

Is the family member who brings the virus home wearing a mask while outdoors?

 

family member should be masked up 24x7 including when eating and showering. Masks are the panacea and provide a force field around the wearer

 

Helps when you had family that experienced it and told the kid about conditions. We were still killing blacks for being black in 1941! During the war our war propaganda showed japs as monkeys and less than human.

Easy to judge the interment today as evil and unneeded. But it protected jap Americans from mob behavior.

 

Dust in the wind, the virus is just dust in the wind.

 

The population density for humans cannot be sustained. The planet is over populated with humans.

I'm a strong supporter of assisted suicide.