Butte County, CA - Mask Free

[Archimedes]

More than 180 people told to quarantine after Covid-19 exposure at church on Mother's Day

https://www.sacbee.com/news/coronavirus/article242774396.html

Took one person to infect. How many will test positive?

Took one person to infect who? How many have been proven to be infected, or are you making an assumption?

And I wonder how they know that '180 people have been exposed to the coronavirus'. How do they know who was actually exposed to the virus?

On a related note, research out of the U.K. of students and teachers who contracted the virus early in the outbreak before SIP indicates that the virus likely doesn't spread rapidly in a school environment, as tracking of those positive students and teachers back to their activities while symptomatic discovered very low transmission to others.

BTW, I think these church goers are fucking morons for doing this and deserve whatever comes their way, but I'm willing to wager than 180 people didn't contract the virus that day.

 

[thepretender]

youtu.be/m2s0nB2VPvs

 

[Kornholio]

youtu.be/k5QEbYngVdA

Never forget

 

[Johndicezx9]

"Closer to God than thee...."

:rose

 

[Beanzy]

Took one person to infect who? How many have been proven to be infected, or are you making an assumption?

And I wonder how they know that '180 people have been exposed to the coronavirus'. How do they know who was actually exposed to the virus? ...

BTW, I think these church goers are fucking morons for doing this and deserve whatever comes their way, but I'm willing to wager than 180 people didn't contract the virus that day.

Nobody knows if any of the 180 church goers has the virus but they were advised (probably through contact tracing) to self-quarantine. Seems the logical and right thing to do, don't you agree?

 

[bojangle]

Took one person to infect who? How many have been proven to be infected, or are you making an assumption?

And I wonder how they know that '180 people have been exposed to the coronavirus'. How do they know who was actually exposed to the virus?

On a related note, research out of the U.K. of students and teachers who contracted the virus early in the outbreak before SIP indicates that the virus likely doesn't spread rapidly in a school environment, as tracking of those positive students and teachers back to their activities while symptomatic discovered very low transmission to others.

BTW, I think these church goers are fucking morons for doing this and deserve whatever comes their way, but I'm willing to wager than 180 people didn't contract the virus that day.

As a medical term, exposed was used correctly. Exposed does not mean infected. They know 180 people were exposed because they attended the same church service.

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/exposure

exposure [eks-po´zhur]
1. the act of laying open, as surgical exposure.
2. the condition of being subjected to something, as to infectious agents or extremes of weather or radiation, which may have a harmful effect.
3. in radiology, a measure of the amount of ionizing radiation at the surface of the irradiated object, such as a person's body; calculated by multiplying milliamperage times exposure time in seconds, expressed in units of milliampere seconds (mAs). See also x-rays.
x-ray exposure see exposure (def. 3).
Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health, Seventh Edition. © 2003 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.

ex·po·sure (eks-pō'zhūr),
1. A condition of displaying, revealing, exhibiting, or making accessible.
2. In dentistry, loss of hard tooth structure covering the dental pulp due to caries, dental instrumentation, or trauma.
3. Proximity or contact with a source of a disease agent in such a manner that effective transmission of the agent or harmful effects of the agent may occur.
4. The amount of a factor to which a group or individual was exposed; in contrast to the dosage, the amount that enters or interacts with the organism.
Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary © Farlex 2012

 

[Archimedes]

Nobody knows if any of the 180 church goers has the virus but they were advised (probably through contact tracing) to self-quarantine. Seems the logical and right thing to do, don't you agree?

100 percent. My point is that the headline is inflammatory. Just because an infected person attended a service there doesn't mean they 'exposed' anyone t the virus, much less every single person at the service. An infected person attended a service, period. We don't know if anyone caught it.

Sensationalist stories like this just breed fear, when in fact the reality is much different. Again, I go back to that story of the infected woman who went to a restaurant and sat right in front of an A/C unit and infected about 10 other people. The news ran that in the form of an 'oh my god, it spreads so easily! we're all gonna dieeeee...', when in reality, when they studied the facts, it actually indicated the exact opposite. The woman in question was symptomatic, was coughing repeatedly and was literally right in front of an AC that was perfect for moving air. And yet, the only people infected were those at her table directly around her. Not one of the other 70+ people in the restaurant were infected, nor were a few people AT HER TABLE.

So I'm gonna wait before jumping to the conclusion that 180 people were exposed to the virus at this service. Maybe, maybe not.

 

[Archimedes]

As a medical term, exposed was used correctly. Exposed does not mean infected. They know 180 people were exposed because they attended the same church service.

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/exposure

Total nonsense. Just because you were in the same facility as someone with the virus doesn't mean you have been 'subjected to it' or been in 'proximity or contact' with it. You don't even know what the facility was like, how big it was, how were people seated, etc. I think you should read more about how this virus is actually spread. Just more fear mongering. There is zero evidence that either of those conditions below were met by anywhere near 180 people at that service.


the condition of being subjected to something, as to infectious agents or extremes of weather or radiation, which may have a harmful effect.

Proximity or contact with a source of a disease agent in such a manner that effective transmission of the agent or harmful effects of the agent may occur.

 

[Brokenlink]

100 percent. My point is that the headline is inflammatory. Just because an infected person attended a service there doesn't mean they 'exposed' anyone t the virus, much less every single person at the service. An infected person attended a service, period. We don't know if anyone caught it.

Sensationalist stories like this just breed fear, when in fact the reality is much different. Again, I go back to that story of the infected woman who went to a restaurant and sat right in front of an A/C unit and infected about 10 other people. The news ran that in the form of an 'oh my god, it spreads so easily! we're all gonna dieeeee...', when in reality, when they studied the facts, it actually indicated the exact opposite. The woman in question was symptomatic, was coughing repeatedly and was literally right in front of an AC that was perfect for moving air. And yet, the only people infected were those at her table directly around her. Not one of the other 70+ people in the restaurant were infected, nor were a few people AT HER TABLE.

So I'm gonna wait before jumping to the conclusion that 180 people were exposed to the virus at this service. Maybe, maybe not.

Exposed and infected are tow separate terms. Nobody has said these people were infected. Just that one bozo showed up and exposed the rest to the virus.

Let me put it this way, let's say I show up to your house and expose myself to you and your family. You have been exposed to my exposure. But you weren't infected by my herpititaids.

 

[Archimedes]

Exposed and infected are tow separate terms. Nobody has said these people were infected. Just that one bozo showed up and exposed the rest to the virus.

You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means...

If I'm sitting on the glass in Section 106 of the Shark tank and you're in the last row of Section 227, and you have flu, have I been 'exposed' to your flu?

 

[Kornholio]

You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means...

If I'm sitting on the glass in Section 106 of the Shark tank and you're in the last row of Section 227, and you have flu, have I been 'exposed' to your flu?

Can you definitely prove you haven't been? Me thinks infectious disease science would say it's plausible.

 

[Blankpage]

You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means...

If I'm sitting on the glass in Section 106 of the Shark tank and you're in the last row of Section 227, and you have flu, have I been 'exposed' to your flu?

If you stood next to in line at the entrance, sneezed when walking by, took a wizz simultaneously at the adjacent urinal, sat in the same toilet seat, touched the same doorknob...

 

[Archimedes]

Can you definitely prove you haven't been? Me thinks infectious disease science would say it's plausible.

Actually every single health organization relevant to this discussion would say no. BTW, by your logic, you're likely being 'exposed' to the virus almost every time you leave your house and go to the grocery store, because positive people are definitely out there in the community.

Again my point is that the use of the word exposed in that article was pure speculative nonsense. And it seems it worked, as many of you are making the Same false assumption they were inferring. Media fear mongering is alive and well and doing its job.

At least the CDC has finally stated what has been obvious from the start. The virus passes through direct person to person contact. Not casual passing or surface transmission.

 

[Kornholio]

And give it a few weeks and they'll likely change their mind again...like literally every health organization has during this entire debacle. You still can't prove with any certainty that you weren't exposed and they can't either. Plausible does not mean absolute and it seems like you're unwilling to think outside of absolutes.

 

[tzrider]

Again my point is that the use of the word exposed in that article was pure speculative nonsense. And it seems it worked, as many of you are making the Same false assumption they were inferring. Media fear mongering is alive and well and doing its job.

So are you going to church this Sunday?

 

[tgrrdr]

How many have been proven to be infected, or are you making an assumption?

And I wonder how they know that '180 people have been exposed to the coronavirus'. How do they know who was actually exposed to the virus?

I know this isn't the subject case but the CDC has credible evidence that church-like gatherings increase the risk of spreading the virus. I get that people want to return to normal and the economy sucks and whatever but people aren't taking it seriously and people are dying.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6920e2.htm

Summary
What is already known about this topic?

Large gatherings pose a risk for SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

What is added by this report?

Among 92 attendees at a rural Arkansas church during March 6–11, 35 (38%) developed laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, and three persons died. Highest attack rates were in persons aged 19–64 years (59%) and ≥65 years (50%). An additional 26 cases linked to the church occurred in the community, including one death.

if 92 people caused 4 deaths will 180 cause 8? Seems like a pretty steep price to pay for going to church.

 

[Climber]

if 92 people caused 4 deaths will 180 cause 8? Seems like a pretty steep price to pay for going to church.

But, God has your back, pass the collection plate. :laughing

 

[dtrides]

Hey, God's will and all...so be it.

 

[Archimedes]

All depends on the building, situation, etc., but I agree that going to church is probably the stupidest idea imaginable. But it’s their choice. I imagine after some people die, it’ll slow down. If not, Darwin will work his magic.

 

[Dr_SLO]

Actually every single health organization relevant to this discussion would say no. BTW, by your logic, you're likely being 'exposed' to the virus almost every time you leave your house and go to the grocery store, because positive people are definitely out there in the community.

Again my point is that the use of the word exposed in that article was pure speculative nonsense. And it seems it worked, as many of you are making the Same false assumption they were inferring. Media fear mongering is alive and well and doing its job.

At least the CDC has finally stated what has been obvious from the start. The virus passes through direct person to person contact. Not casual passing or surface transmission.

The CDC has not been helpful in clarifying information during the coronavirus outbreak. Transmission is possible from surfaces, it's just not the main route of transmission.

Also, the phrase "person-to-person contact" is incorrect terminology. It's very clear that SARS-CoV-2 transmission is via droplet/aerosol transmission. Person-to-person contact implies direct physical contact between individuals only. Although transmission will occur this way it is not the only route of transmission.

With that in mind, exposure to the virus has to be considered if an infected individual (one who needed testing after showing clinical signs of disease) was in a building and others shared the same space or routes of entry; they will be potentially exposed. In such cases quarantine and testing will be mandated.