The point about “comorbidity” is that the most effective measures in a viral outbreak would involve protecting the vulnerable, not isolating 100% of the population.
Good post!
I am very happy to tell both of you that I have been practicing isolation for a good bit of time now, probably several days before Trump’s suggesting that we all enjoy our house for 15 days.
I got no problem doing that. I’m actually scared to leave. I did stock up, a good supply, but I can’t always stay sadly.
Might have to take Max the Dog to the vet here soon if I can’t get control of him licking one of his paw pads. So just things like this that were the basics of life a few days ago are now significant sources of anxiety for me.
“... the most effective measures in a viral outbreak would involve protecting the vulnerable...”
Unless you want to go to church in Louisiana...then it’s Katy-bar-the-door...”I’m going to church come Hell or high water. To heck with the vulnerable.”.
That’s the real takeaway. The idea that someone with co-morbidities did not actually die of Covid-19 and should not be considered part of the death count is silly. And it is not clear from the text of the article how many medical records were reviewed to indicate that only two have died without any co-morbidities.
But if only a statistically insignificant number of deaths are people without specific pre-existing conditions, that gives us a pretty good means of defining who needs to be protected while we allow the vast majority to go on with life.