To quarantine, or not to quarantine?

[lil devils x]

It's fine to watch for all the possibilities but to base policy on something that probably has less than a 1% chance of happening and with no signs pointing towards it just doesn't make much sense. There's been several articles about people testing positive again for the virus, but there has been no sign that people are actually getting reinfected to where they are exhibiting symptoms again or becoming contagious again. Viruses are not alive so you can't kill them, showing positive test results doesn't mean that much. Also, the negative test results could've been false negatives too. That's not to say no one will ever get reinfected either as that can happen in people that have immune system disorders. I feel like if this was happening to even 10% of people, we would have much better signs pointing to this being a thing already.

I'm not an expert on the immune system but I know the reason why hydroxychloroquine was theorized as something that could help because it should help with regards to a cytokine storm (immune system attacking everything). What I meant about the immune system being ready after you recover from a cold doesn't cause that scenario. Your immune system stays on its toes for a week or so before going back on its heels so-to-speak. It's why you don't get sick right after you've been sick because the immune system is still on "patrol" basically. So, in theory, if you had the flu and recovered and then pick up the coronavirus shortly afterward, your immune system should be ready to pounce on it.

The difference here is I am actually an expert on the immune system. That is literally what I have a degree in. My degrees are in Immunology and Pediatric Medicine. I was actually in medical school LONGER than Mr. Bright, who testified before the Senate yesterday and put out dire warnings on these very issues. Yes, we do use these things to make policy because if we do not we could be responsible for millions of deaths.

I understood exactly what you meant, that was why I supplied you the link above on how your immune system works, It is able to fight the cold and flu due to previous exposures teaching your antibodies how to attack those viruses. This being a new virus, your antibodies do not know how to attack it so they cannot " pounce on it" as you suggest. Instead, your body's immune response causes too much damage to your own tissue while trying to learn how to attack the virus. Your own immune system is what will damage your lung tissue and prevent it from being able to take in oxygen and distribute it to your cells, meaning even on a ventilator, your lungs will still not supply your body with the oxygen it needs to survive. This is why we have studies right now that show it may be beneficial to suppress your immune system rather than boost in the early stages of COVID-19 to reduce severe outcomes:

Timing of immune response to COVID-19 may contribute to disease severity

A new study suggests that temporarily suppressing the body's immune system during the early stages of COVID-19 could help a patient avoid severe symptoms. That's because the research shows that an interaction between the body's two main lines of defense may be causing the immune system to go...

www.sciencedaily.com

If you already have the flu, or another infection when you contract COVID-19, your immune system will already be in overdrive when it needs to be suppressed in the early stages thus leading to more severe outcomes. The biggest obstacle with being able to suppress this immune response in the early stages of course, is in the early stages people usually do not seek help because it is not severe. They wait until it is too late to stop this from happening and we miss our window to be able to prevent the damage. Sadly we are even seeing people coming in the same day they claim to have noticed symptoms and dying in that same day due to how quickly this progresses when it does. People do not generally seek help until " they think it is bad", and by doing so, they miss their window to prevent it from being bad. In addition, we have not yet trained healthcare workers to be able to treat this so until that happens, in most cases, it wouldn't matter if you go in early, many hospitals would likely send you home because they are not even aware of the data we do have on these things yet to be able to adequately address it. That is what needs to happen here. They have to stop sending patient's home too soon, as it has been leading to unnecessary deaths. Instead THIS is what is happening because we do not have healthcare workers trained in how to handle this:

Beaumont worker turned away 4 times with COVID-19 symptoms before dying

"The fact that she got infected by doing the job she did for 31 years and she couldn't get taken care of by her own family, meaning Beaumont it’s sad," said Corrothers. "It is disheartening to say the least."

www.fox2detroit.com

Family ravaged by coronavirus begged for tests, hospital care but was repeatedly denied

Gary Fowler went to the emergency rooms of three Detroit hospitals in the weeks leading up to his death, begging for a coronavirus test.

www.usatoday.com

Man says dad was turned away by 3 hospitals while sick with COVID-19, then died at home

Articles and videos about Man says dad was turned away by 3 hospitals while sick with COVID-19, then died at home on FOX6 News Milwaukee.

fox6now.com

We keep hearing the same story all across the US over and over because we have not had enough time to gather the data necessary to be able to treat this. We need to have our healthcare workers trained in how to manage this before we have floods of patients coming in or otherwise this ends very very badly. From the data I have seen thus far, it is possible we would need an early suppression to stop the initial tissue damage then utilize an antibody treatment to prevent the virus from binding with the cells. These things take time though to determine and produce, that is why we need wide scale PPE distribution and methods in place prior to increasing wide scale exposure.

AND No, we would not necessarily have more information yet on the percentages of population this will impact long term yet because we have ZERO long term data. We had no information on Shingles happening in patients who had chickepox as children until it happened years later. Unnecessarily exposing millions of people and then finding out later we overlooked something extremely serious is terribly irresponsible. This is not the sort of thing you can only act retroactively on, you have to do everything you can now to prevent exposure so that we will have more tools in our arsenal before we take that risk. The biggest concern with the delayed Kawasaki disease like symptoms we are seeing in children is we do not know why it is happening. We actually do have children come down with a delayed shingles response as well after having mild chickenpox. Not knowing why it is happening with COVID-19 means we do not know if it could happen in adults as an onset delayed reaction either, and such a response in adults who had a previous exposure, which could prove far more dangerous to adults than even children due to the differences in the immune system response. This means it is still possible that adults who had mild cases of COVID-19 then later have these delayed lethal Kawasaki disease like symptoms later. We do not have enough data yet to be able to make that determination.

Increasing general population exposure to the virus when only having a small amount of short term data is reckless and dangerous, not by any means, what should be used to make policy.

 

[lil devils x]

As soon as they had significant numbers of people dying they shut down Wuhan in a way far more draxonian than basically every other country. And their health system was better prepared for outbreakes due to ealier experiences.

Underreporting in China is still a thing. But the total infection number is certainly not off by degrees of magnitude. It stayed pretty much the same for many weeks now. Don't you think that if still hundeads of thousends new infected would be delivered to hospitals it would be noticed that this is wrong ? They had it contained. And even if they didn't report every other death, they would still have a death toll miniscule compared to what the US has. The Chinese death rate is not actually an outlier as well which further hints at there not being much underreporting.

There is no way it is anywhere close to as bad in China as it is in the US. Of course some Americans don't want to believe that because their misguided pride does not allow for that. But as it seems the US, The UK, Brazil, Russia and Belorussia are the countries that are the worst at handling the pandemic in the whole world. Though some countries like India are in as early a stage that they are hard to judge.

Yes, China might have started even earlier and that would have been way better. But even if they wasted a month, that is less time wasted than several western countries. And afterwards they were incredibly thorough.

I agree. However, I also think if this had started in the US, rather than China, it may have actually taken longer to discover it's existence due to the for profit insurance healthcare system in the US does not provide for testing for unknown diseases in the general population and the cases would have been likely dismissed as a " bad flu season" for quite some time before it was noticed. You would have to pay out of pocket for the additional tests to determine the exact cause as insurance would not cover it to begin with which would delay detection and action further. We have unknown respiratory illnesses in the US all the time in long care facilities, but since they usually fizzle themselves out, they go unreported and unnoticed. Often, unknown respiratory illnesses would be misdiagnosed as the flu, a cold, or just as " an upper respiratory infection". That is still being done in states such as Alabama even when we know it is COVID-19 because the state is still intentionally trying to under report their numbers by even misreporting cases who tested positive for COVID-19 as another cause. Most of the time in the US, an autopsy is not done unless the family pays $5000 + or a crime is suspected and there is a court order to do so and it being an unknown virus, it could still go misdiagnosed for some time even by the medical examiner. Considering one in 3 cause of deaths on death certificates were inaccurate before COVID-19, I can only imagine that the bodies piling up in hospital rooms and left in trucks at the morgue, and being dumped into mass graves isn't helping the situation either. It appears the Chief of the mortality statistics branch at the National Center for Health Statistics agrees with me.

One in 3 death certificates were wrong before coronavirus. It's about to get even worse.

 

[stroopwafel]

As soon as they had significant numbers of people dying they shut down Wuhan in a way far more draxonian than basically every other country. And their health system was better prepared for outbreakes due to ealier experiences.

Underreporting in China is still a thing. But the total infection number is certainly not off by degrees of magnitude. It stayed pretty much the same for many weeks now. Don't you think that if still hundeads of thousends new infected would be delivered to hospitals it would be noticed that this is wrong ? They had it contained. And even if they didn't report every other death, they would still have a death toll miniscule compared to what the US has. The Chinese death rate is not actually an outlier as well which further hints at there not being much underreporting.

There is no way it is anywhere close to as bad in China as it is in the US. Of course some Americans don't want to believe that because their misguided pride does not allow for that. But as it seems the US, The UK, Brazil, Russia and Belorussia are the countries that are the worst at handling the pandemic in the whole world. Though some countries like India are in as early a stage that they are hard to judge.

Yes, China might have started even earlier and that would have been way better. But even if they wasted a month, that is less time wasted than several western countries. And afterwards they were incredibly thorough.

You have to account for population differences as well. There are African countries with high infection rate that don't quarantine at all but have an almost negligent amount of severe complications or fatalities. This is also despite their healthcare systems being of significantly lesser quality. But the fact is that their population is much younger and more vital.

That the covid casualty rate is so high in eg the U.K. and U.S. also has to do with their populations that are by and large old, sick and fat. When all is said and done, given say a five year period, I don't think any of the quarantine/distancing measures will matter one iota on the total death figure. China is in a somewhat similar boat as having an aging population. At best you could argue covid somewhat accelerated the demise of geriatric societies.

Ofcourse every life is worth preserving and we live in an enlightened culture(historically speaking) that is why I also think distancing measures should be defended but I have no illusions that it will make any difference on the long term.

 

[lil devils x]

You have to account for population differences as well. There are African countries with high infection rate that don't quarantine at all but have an almost negligent amount of severe complications or fatalities. This is also despite their healthcare systems being of significantly lesser quality. But the fact is that their population is much younger and more vital.

That the covid casualty rate is so high in eg the U.K. and U.S. also has to do with their populations that are by and large old, sick and fat. When all is said and done, given say a five year period, I don't think any of the quarantine/distancing measures will matter one iota on the total death figure. China is in a somewhat similar boat as having an aging population. At best you could argue covid somewhat accelerated the demise of geriatric societies.

Ofcourse every life is worth preserving and we live in an enlightened culture(historically speaking) that is why I also think distancing measures should be defended but I have no illusions that it will make any difference on the long term.

There are other factors impacting this as well. Much of our immune response is determined by our environment and our genes.

Immune response determined by our genes, study shows

A team of international researchers say they have discovered that our genes may play a role in how our immune system responds to disease.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

Study of twins reveals genetic effect on Covid-19 symptoms

Scientists find genetic factors explain 50% of differences between people’s symptoms

www.theguardian.com

Immune System Shaped by Environment More Than Genes

By analyzing twins, researchers determined that most of the variability in the immune system is due to environmental factors, rather than genes.

www.nih.gov

So while yes, the overall health of the general population does greatly impact outcomes, so does their environment and the genetic makeup of their immune system. For example, a person who lives in low income housing with low indoor air quality or in an area with a great deal of pollution is far more likely to have recovery complications than someone who does not. We also have to factor in high stress environments vs low stress environments as well in terms of susceptibility to worse outcomes.

Stress, Inflammation, Immunity

Ways to Boost Your Immune System

Are you doing all you can to strengthen your immune system? WebMD tells you which habits might be costing you immunity – and ways you can fight back.

www.webmd.com

That is why we can still have some populations who are less physically fit still do better than others who are due to the additional factors such as genetics, environment and stress impacting their severity of illness.

Having the combination of genetic disposition, poor environment, high stress and comorbidities is a recipe for disaster however. In the US, frighteningly, all of the above is extremely common as well due to the lack of social safety net, high stress work environments, lack of safe affordable housing and promotion of sedentary lifestyles with unhealthy diets. These issues all being prevalent all across the US also make it much more dangerous to allow it to become more widespread without taking more precautions than would be needed elsewhere.

 

[Hawki]

Looking at the death toll by country, 7/10 are in Europe. My guess is that it's a combination of a population with a high median age, plus a continent with high population density.

 

[lil devils x]

Looking at the death toll by country, 7/10 are in Europe. My guess is that it's a combination of a population with a high median age, plus a continent with high population density.

We also have the issue of sedentary lifestyles, which are common in most western nations, are extremely harmful to your health. Sitting more than 4 hours a day has been shown to have detrimental effects on your health.

"Over the course of these studies, people who sat for prolonged periods of time had a higher risk of dying from all causes — even those who exercised regularly. The negative effects were even more pronounced in people who did little or no exercise. Harvard Health Publications "

» Risks of sitting for more than 4 hours a day

atlascorps.org

Sedentary lifestyle cancels out heart benefits of having a normal weight for adults, UF study finds - UF Health

Starting to slip with your New Year’s resolution to exercise more? A new University of Florida study may provide some motivation. Researchers have found that…

ufhealth.org

Physical inactivity a leading cause of disease and disability, warns WHO

Physical inactivity can have serious implications for people’s health, said the World Health Organization today on the occasion of World Health Day. Approximately 2 million deaths per year are attributed to physical inactivity, prompting WHO to issue a warning that a sedentary lifestyle could...

www.who.int

 

[Phoenixmgs]

As soon as they had significant numbers of people dying they shut down Wuhan in a way far more draxonian than basically every other country. And their health system was better prepared for outbreakes due to ealier experiences.

Underreporting in China is still a thing. But the total infection number is certainly not off by degrees of magnitude. It stayed pretty much the same for many weeks now. Don't you think that if still hundeads of thousends new infected would be delivered to hospitals it would be noticed that this is wrong ? They had it contained. And even if they didn't report every other death, they would still have a death toll miniscule compared to what the US has. The Chinese death rate is not actually an outlier as well which further hints at there not being much underreporting.

There is no way it is anywhere close to as bad in China as it is in the US. Of course some Americans don't want to believe that because their misguided pride does not allow for that. But as it seems the US, The UK, Brazil, Russia and Belorussia are the countries that are the worst at handling the pandemic in the whole world. Though some countries like India are in as early a stage that they are hard to judge.

Yes, China might have started even earlier and that would have been way better. But even if they wasted a month, that is less time wasted than several western countries. And afterwards they were incredibly thorough.

The virus was there at least as early as mid-November and the lockdown started late January. There's no way in a city bigger than NYC and in a country with over a billion people that less than 5,000 died from the virus when it had 2 free months to spread. Any data that can be gathered about concerning China's death toll points to it be massively under reported. Tons of people were turned away from hospitals in China because their health care was indeed overwhelmed. Official intelligence reports say the same thing. I live in Cook County (Chicago's county) and there have been 2,700 deaths so far and they turned McCormick place into a hospital and treated less than 3 dozen patients whereas China built at least 2 hospitals in Wuhan because of how overwhelmed they were. Are you going to say that the entire country of China doesn't even have double the death toll of a single American county that didn't have its health care near as overwhelmed? That just doesn't make sense. China constantly lies about its numbers like its GDP/crime statistics/organ donations, this isn't anything new. I couldn't care less how good or bad America looks, I'm not a very prideful American and I'm well aware other countries do most things better than we do. Part of the reason Taiwan has done so well is because they didn't fucking believe China to begin with.

AND No, we would not necessarily have more information yet on the percentages of population this will impact long term yet because we have ZERO long term data. We had no information on Shingles happening in patients who had chickepox as children until it happened years later. Unnecessarily exposing millions of people and then finding out later we overlooked something extremely serious is terribly irresponsible. This is not the sort of thing you can only act retroactively on, you have to do everything you can now to prevent exposure so that we will have more tools in our arsenal before we take that risk. The biggest concern with the delayed Kawasaki disease like symptoms we are seeing in children is we do not know why it is happening. We actually do have children come down with a delayed shingles response as well after having mild chickenpox. Not knowing why it is happening with COVID-19 means we do not know if it could happen in adults as an onset delayed reaction either, and such a response in adults who had a previous exposure, which could prove far more dangerous to adults than even children due to the differences in the immune system response. This means it is still possible that adults who had mild cases of COVID-19 then later have these delayed lethal Kawasaki disease like symptoms later. We do not have enough data yet to be able to make that determination.

Increasing general population exposure to the virus when only having a small amount of short term data is reckless and dangerous, not by any means, what should be used to make policy.

You keep misinterpreting what I said. I said that if people are getting reinfected at even say the low clip of 10%, we'd have data pointing to that happening and we don't. That has nothing to do with long term data. Either you're immune to getting it again (which we have no idea how long that could be because ZERO long term data) or you're not immune from reinfection. If the latter was happening, I definitely think it would've been discovered by now. That's what I said we'd have enough data on to be able to point one way or the other on it, which doesn't require long term data.

You are talking about all these very low probability things that could possibly happen. For example, how many known diseases exhibit the chicken pox/shingles property of getting something later in life from a disease? And even in that case shingles isn't very deadly. All the other odd things that are happening from the virus are happening in such low numbers. You said we don't know how bad the virus will be on American young people with undiagnosed conditions but we have no numbers pointing to young people dying at higher rates than other countries. Keeping lockdowns and shutdowns in place cause deaths too. That's what you have to go off of when making policy for new diseases.

Nobody is saying to go out there and just have everyone get infected and not worry about it but to take common sense measures to limit the spread as much as possible. Banning sugar from drinks would save far more lives than overreacting to a virus that has a fatality rate well under 1%.

 

[Sneed's SeednFeed]

The virus was there at least as early as mid-November and the lockdown started late January. There's no way in a city bigger than NYC and in a country with over a billion people that less than 5,000 died from the virus when it had 2 free months to spread. Any data that can be gathered about concerning China's death toll points to it be massively under reported. Tons of people were turned away from hospitals in China because their health care was indeed overwhelmed. Official intelligence reports say the same thing. I live in Cook County (Chicago's county) and there have been 2,700 deaths so far and they turned McCormick place into a hospital and treated less than 3 dozen patients whereas China built at least 2 hospitals in Wuhan because of how overwhelmed they were. Are you going to say that the entire country of China doesn't even have double the death toll of a single American county that didn't have its health care near as overwhelmed? That just doesn't make sense. China constantly lies about its numbers like its GDP/crime statistics/organ donations, this isn't anything new. I couldn't care less how good or bad America looks, I'm not a very prideful American and I'm well aware other countries do most things better than we do. Part of the reason Taiwan has done so well is because they didn't fucking believe China to begin with.

You know, it's possible both can be true at the same time - China could be covering up its numbers within a reasonable range that is not degrees out of order, it could also have a much better healthcare system than the US because its a command economy with a booming private sector. Every country in the world has been misreporting numbers, either due to systematic errors or intentionally. I have no doubt China was too, but at the same time you have to ask how they were able to have reopened so fast without a second major outbreak being reported by major news outlets that are anti or critical of China that aren't sponsored by the US state department or by Taiwan.

In short, the US would've been boned even if China was transparent. Even the most competent and the most totalitarian governments that know when its citizens eat and shit would have a vested interest to prevent the spread of disease to keep up appearances, (and also because they can't magic up money or reassure global investors) both within its own borders and outside of them, since this virus has been proven to be incredibly strong.

 

[lil devils x]

The virus was there at least as early as mid-November and the lockdown started late January. There's no way in a city bigger than NYC and in a country with over a billion people that less than 5,000 died from the virus when it had 2 free months to spread. Any data that can be gathered about concerning China's death toll points to it be massively under reported. Tons of people were turned away from hospitals in China because their health care was indeed overwhelmed. Official intelligence reports say the same thing. I live in Cook County (Chicago's county) and there have been 2,700 deaths so far and they turned McCormick place into a hospital and treated less than 3 dozen patients whereas China built at least 2 hospitals in Wuhan because of how overwhelmed they were. Are you going to say that the entire country of China doesn't even have double the death toll of a single American county that didn't have its health care near as overwhelmed? That just doesn't make sense. China constantly lies about its numbers like its GDP/crime statistics/organ donations, this isn't anything new. I couldn't care less how good or bad America looks, I'm not a very prideful American and I'm well aware other countries do most things better than we do. Part of the reason Taiwan has done so well is because they didn't fucking believe China to begin with.


You keep misinterpreting what I said. I said that if people are getting reinfected at even say the low clip of 10%, we'd have data pointing to that happening and we don't. That has nothing to do with long term data. Either you're immune to getting it again (which we have no idea how long that could be because ZERO long term data) or you're not immune from reinfection. If the latter was happening, I definitely think it would've been discovered by now. That's what I said we'd have enough data on to be able to point one way or the other on it, which doesn't require long term data.

You are talking about all these very low probability things that could possibly happen. For example, how many known diseases exhibit the chicken pox/shingles property of getting something later in life from a disease? And even in that case shingles isn't very deadly. All the other odd things that are happening from the virus are happening in such low numbers. You said we don't know how bad the virus will be on American young people with undiagnosed conditions but we have no numbers pointing to young people dying at higher rates than other countries. Keeping lockdowns and shutdowns in place cause deaths too. That's what you have to go off of when making policy for new diseases.

Nobody is saying to go out there and just have everyone get infected and not worry about it but to take common sense measures to limit the spread as much as possible. Banning sugar from drinks would save far more lives than overreacting to a virus that has a fatality rate well under 1%.

Where are you getting your data? You keep making these claims but not using citations for your data and claim to know more than our doctors currently do.

Mortality Analyses - Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center

How does mortality differ across countries? Examining the number of deaths per confirmed case and per 100,000 population. A global comparison.

coronavirus.jhu.edu

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You know, it's possible both can be true at the same time - China could be covering up its numbers within a reasonable range that is not degrees out of order, it could also have a much better healthcare system than the US because its a command economy with a booming private sector. Every country in the world has been misreporting numbers, either due to systematic errors or intentionally. I have no doubt China was too, but at the same time you have to ask how they were able to have reopened so fast without a second major outbreak being reported by major news outlets that are anti or critical of China that aren't sponsored by the US state department or by Taiwan.

In short, the US would've been boned even if China was transparent. Even the most competent and the most totalitarian governments that know when its citizens eat and shit would have a vested interest to prevent the spread of disease to keep up appearances, (and also because they can't magic up money or reassure global investors) both within its own borders and outside of them, since this virus has been proven to be incredibly strong.

The fact that the virus had 2 free months and there still is no treatment means it doesn't really matter how good your health care system is. The key to all the countries that have done really well in the number of deaths have been limiting the spread, which China couldn't have done since it started there and had plenty of time to spread before actions could be taken. Also, the lockdown China employed was different than the lockdown in the US where everyone here still can go pretty much anywhere they want. A more draconian lockdown will suffocate the virus spread more than what we have here in the US.

I'm not using China as a scapegoat at all, I don't care about the optics or the politics of such things. The US could've done their own research like Taiwan, it's really not that complex of a situation, just figure out the R0 (spread rate) and how it's spread basically. The information was out there even if you wanted to copy someone else's work and I'm sure our experts knew it too but the people that make the calls don't listen. Calling the US response incompetent is quite an understatement and I don't think China being completely transparent would've changed how we responded much.

Where are you getting your data? You keep making these claims but not using citations for your data and claim to know more than our doctors currently do.

Mortality Analyses - Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center

How does mortality differ across countries? Examining the number of deaths per confirmed case and per 100,000 population. A global comparison.

coronavirus.jhu.edu

What am I claiming that is completely off by the numbers we have? You can google search pretty much them all very easy if you wanna check them.

According to Statista, here are the deaths via age group for NYC and Italy for example. Where's the data pointing to younger people in the US dying at noticeably higher rates than Italy (or insert other country)? I wouldn't be surprised if the US has a slight uptick because people are less healthy than other countries but the numbers aren't showing anything substantial. Pennsylvania's numbers show the average age of death is 79.

The fatality rate below 1% is from antibody surveys going on (a simple google will show the articles), which do have their share of issues, and are showing anywhere from 20x to 50x more people have been infected than the official numbers. Even with the issues those surveys have, I doubt any medical expert would question that a conservative 10x more people were actually infected. Even at that conservative 10x, that puts the fatality rate below 1% quite easily. Tons of people couldn't get tested. Not to mention all the kids (under 20) really had no reason to get tested unless they were very unlucky and actually got somewhat decent symptoms. You can't calculate an accurate fatality rate when you don't have an accurate denominator.

 

[tstorm823]

Pennsylvania's numbers show the average age of death is 79.

To be fair, here in Pennsylvania, we locked down pretty exceptionally hard on regular life for most people, while protecting assisted living facilities was variable by county. Some places did that thing New York did and pushed recovering patients back into nursing homes. It's a bit of a local controversy at the moment, the health secretary in PA approved covid patients being returned to nursing homes, and initially included hotels in the businesses being shut down before doctors who had traveled to more infected places to help complained they needed to live somewhere. Meanwhile, that health secretary's mother fled her assisted living facility to stay at a swanky hotel.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

To be fair, here in Pennsylvania, we locked down pretty exceptionally hard on regular life for most people, while protecting assisted living facilities was variable by county. Some places did that thing New York did and pushed recovering patients back into nursing homes. It's a bit of a local controversy at the moment, the health secretary in PA approved covid patients being returned to nursing homes, and initially included hotels in the businesses being shut down before doctors who had traveled to more infected places to help complained they needed to live somewhere. Meanwhile, that health secretary's mother fled her assisted living facility to stay at a swanky hotel.

I was mainly pointing out to lil devils that young people in the US don't seem to be dying at higher rates than other nations regardless if I'm looking at Pennsylvania data or NYC data. In fact, looking at just NYC data (where it was the most spread before any lockdowns, which does make for the best numbers and trends most likely), you literally have a 2x greater chance of dying from a car crash during your life than dying from the virus (if you get infected) if you're under 65. Of course, dying from the virus keeps going like exponentially down as you keep deducting years. Lil Devils was worried about the virus being more deadly to younger people in the US due to possible undiagnosed conditions or just being less healthy overall, and I was saying why don't we have data pointing towards that already if that were true.