Coronavirus: Don't Worry, Be Happily Informed

Reason's science correspondent explains who is getting infected, how to protect yourself, and why nobody should be freaking out. Yet.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Coronavirus: Don't Worry, Be Happily Informed

If you're freaked out by the coronavirus—the growing pandemic that is shutting down travel from China, Iran, Italy, and elsewhere and has been the cause of at least nine deaths in Washington state—stop what you're doing and listen to the new Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie. It's 30 minutes that will give you peace of mind.

Ronald Bailey, Reason's science correspondent, provides comprehensive information about the origins and extent of the coronavirus (also known as COVID-19), which steps are being taken to slow its spread, and whether the United States, President Donald Trump, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are up to the task of battling a sickness that has already disrupted global trade and travel. The short version: COVID-19 is a serious problem, especially for older, sicker people with pre-existing medical problems, but its ultimate effects will be "like a particularly bad flu season, with a case-fatality rate somewhere between 0.2 and 0.5 percent."

Audio production by Ian Keyser.

 

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

I'm not listening to Bailey. I heard he gave his DNA to the FBI via 23andMe and now the government probably knows if his genome is susceptible to the coronavirus.

[John]

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/02/study-72000-covid-19-patients-finds-23-death-rate

The death rate currently seems to be about 2.3%. It is hard to see how Bailey gets a don't worry be happy 0.5% death rate out of the data that is out there.

And that is the overall death rate. The death rate among critically ill patients is well north of 50%. So, if you or anyone you know has a serious illness, well, that is just how it goes according to Bailey.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

I've been following this closely, and really sticking to... "trusted sources", that being various epidemiologists, the WHO and the CDC. Anything lower than the 2.3% is merely speculation. There's some valid logic to assume that the death rate is/will be lower than 2.3%, but at this time, given the information we have, that's the current CFR.

The most level headed doctor on the internet, who received a glowing profile in Forbes Magazine in his ability to allay panic with facts, has been sounding the alarm on this for a while now. The linked video he solemnly reports that this is the "worst news" he's delivered since starting his video series.

Oh, and for the disclaimers here, just because one is "concerned about this disease" has fuck-all to do with panicking, believing it's the zombie apocalypse or anything like that.

Yes, it mainly kills older, infirm people with co-mobidities.
Yes, children are the least affected group.
Yes, some people react to the virus like a normal flu and quietly get over it.

None of that is the issue here. The issue is the alarming infectivity of this virus, and the fact that it really, really whacks old people. I understand, if you're not old and you don't suffer co-morbidity, no problem. But if you catch it, there's a very high chance that you will spread it to others, who'll spread it to others, and spread it to others... and then there's a nursing home full of corpses.

That may not kill off Capitalism, but it's still a really shitty thing.

[John]

I have been following it closely too and your conclusions mirror mine. The fact that it only kills the old and the infirm but not the healthy actually makes it more of a problem than it would be if it had a really high mortality rate. Ebola, for example, has never been much of a threat to be a pandemic because it kills too many of its victims too quickly to really spread.

A virus like this that can barely affect millions of people is virtually impossible to stop. And a 50% mortality rate among a few million elderly would be a catastrophe of the unlike not seen in this country since the World Wars or the 1918 epidemic. How Bailey can just write that off as just another bad flu season is beyond me.

[Paloma]

The mortality rate for those with the virus who are 80 and above is 15%. Which is pretty far from "north of 50%".

[some guy]

According to John's link the 50% death rate is for the critically ill.

[Atlas Slugged]

It doesn't seem you're putting this in the correct context(s). Its connectivity, while clearly not low, is nowhere near measles for example. If it were, public health officials would be much more concerned. The death rate among "critically ill" patients is very high, but ANY infectious illness is likely to be high in this category. If you're under age 60 and do not have a significant medical condition, this is VERY likely NOT going to kill you. Yes, if you're old & frail, be especially nervous. Otherwise, standard precautions (e.g. hand washing) apply.

[Atlas Slugged]

ability to infect, not connectivity. My kingdom for an edit button.

[JWatts]

"Its connectivity, while clearly not low, is nowhere near measles for example. "

Yes, but that's an apples to oranges comparison. A vast portion of the population has immunity to measles. No one has immunity to coronavirus. (Covid19)

The normal flu has an R0 of 1.3. Estimates are coronavirus has an R0 of 2 to 3. Those are exponential components. (The number of additional people a single person infects.)

That's a high number.

[DarrenM]

This might be the like the solution to the Social Security problem.

[DenverJ]

When all the boomers retire, it will bankrupt us. So... a disease that kills them first may be good for the economy. Also, we would all finally stop being forced to listen to the same songs that have been continuously played since the 60s and 70s. I gotta admit, I'm not going to miss "Stairway to Heaven".

[tommhan]

Why be a crude ass on a serious matter? Think it would be good to start with your parents dying first? The amount of people that really have the disease is unknown but probably a hell of a lot more than we know about and the death rate is surely much lower than 2 percent.

[pdubs2907]

A mortality rate of 2.3% is likely too high, imo. We're learning of more and more mild cases, cases in which people don't go to the hospital or seek treatment. Unfortunately, that makes it nearly impossible to stop from spreading, but it also means that the mortality rate is probably a lot lower than 2.3%.

[Rossami]

Except that it's not because the calculation that you cite ignored the much larger number of minimal symptom and asymptomatic cases that we know exist. Once we get more comprehensive testing to find and quantify those milder cases, the 0.2 - 0.5% range is far more likely.

Your second statistic is also questionable because a) it is not normalized for those critically ill would have died regardless of coronavirus and b) it is presented without context of the death rate among critically ill patients who catch common maladies like influenza. 50% sounds horrible but it is not nearly so frightening when presented as an incremental risk.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Except that it’s not because the calculation that you cite ignored the much larger number of minimal symptom and asymptomatic cases that we know exist.

We don't know they exist, we assume they exist. It's an important distinction. All know is all we know. And all we know is the CFR-- confirmed case fatality rate. We assume, we hope that yes, it's spreading throughout the population and there are probably a lot of cases that just go away. But regular flu does that every year with a CFR of .2%

Your second statistic is also questionable because a) it is not normalized for those critically ill would have died regardless of coronavirus and b) it is presented without context of the death rate among critically ill patients who catch common maladies like influenza. 50% sounds horrible but it is not nearly so frightening when presented as an incremental risk.

I strongly recommend this video series which will explain all the statistics, slowly and carefully, based on confirmed findings.

[Paloma]

Really. Where are you getting 50% mortality? For those over 100?

[some guy]

"We don't know they exist".

This is technically true, but in the same way that we don't know the sun will rise tomorrow.

This virus has a minor impact on the vast majority of healthy individuals. Of course there are a bunch of unreported cases out there. The question is how many. So 2.3% is the absolute max. The likely number based on some models and educated guesses is 0.5%. Both numbers will change over time.

[JWatts]

"The likely number based on some models and educated guesses is 0.5%. "

All the studies written by medical experts I've looked at say it's in the 2-3 range. It's also the number used by WHO, CDC, Chinese Health agency, etc. Do you have a source for the 0.5% number?

[tommhan]

You must not understand that the 2 percent is based on the total number of cases reported. It is reasonable to think that there are many more cases than what is known by diagnosis. Like the regular flu a lot of people do not go for medical help with minor symptoms.

[John]

Except that it’s not because the calculation that you cite ignored the much larger number of minimal symptom and asymptomatic cases that we know exist. Once we get more comprehensive testing to find and quantify those milder cases, the 0.2 – 0.5% range is far more likely.

That is assuming that there are a large number of unknown mild cases in addition to the 72,000 known cases. I find that assumption optimistic at best and downright absurd at worst. If we were talking about a million cases, I would agree with you. But with the virus just starting to spread, the number of unknown cases are going to be much lower than later when you are talking about millions of victims. You are making an assumption that really amounts to wishful thinking.

Your second statistic is also questionable because a) it is not normalized for those critically ill would have died regardless of coronavirus and b) it is presented without context of the death rate among critically ill patients who catch common maladies like influenza. 50% sounds horrible but it is not nearly so frightening when presented as an incremental risk.

The mortality rate for influenza among critically ill is about 26%. So doubling that rate to 50% would be a very big deal.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

I haven't read the detailed statistics regarding the CFR for various age groups, but what I do know is that CV19 is particularly deadly for people with "comorbidity". Now I'm no doctor, but I understand that to mean that you merely have another disease or chronic condition. It doesn't suggest that you must be "critically ill" to die from CV19. The doctor I linked above mentioned things like "diabetes" as being a "comorbidity". So it is my understanding (which might be wrong) that you don't have to be dying in an ICU on a respirator and catch CV19 to be at risk. You merely need to be chilling on your couch, watching TJ Hooker and checking the time for your next insulin shot to be at risk.

[Illocust]

I'd be curious if that comorbidity includes people with asthma. This is supposed to be hell on your lungs already.

[Not Applicable]

Personally, I've gone from being extremely concerned (and disgusted with health officials in my country for not doing more), to being only modestly concerned. It's starting to feel overhyped to me, partly for political reasons in the U.S. One of the things that changed my mind is that for South Korea the overall CFR is 0.6%, I believe, and they've tested a ton of people. I'm guessing that number is starting to converge on the real value. At this point, we should probably shift most of our attention to protecting the vulnerable for whom the CFR is still quite high. It's starting to look like healthy people shouldn't be all that concerned.

[JFree]

0.5% may well happen - over time - after it kills off older/sicker folks.

What surprised me most in looking at some data on Diamond Princess (an atrocious quarantine - but quite useful for providing data experiment) is that close to half of those who tested positive have remained asymptomatic. ie - so mild you don't even notice but you can infect others.

Ultimately everyone will get this - like cold or flu - and this will become endemic - like cold or flu. So the point is simply to delay people getting this so hospitals don't get overwhelmed. The older/sicker will die quicker/sooner. Presumably there will be some immunity for those who survive. So it's a question of how long that immunity lasts (our effective herd immunity rate) before we see how many people will get this each winter (like regular flu).

[John]

My guess is that it probably won't last that long because these sorts of viruses mutate so much and so quickly.

[JFree]

Viruses tend to mutate in a direction that best ensures their own survival. Kill the host too quickly or kill too many hosts and you kill yourself too. But once they've maximized their survival, then it is the mutations from that that tend to die off. A permanent annual 0.5% fatality rate among infected humans is perfectly 'survivable' for both the virus and humans. Assuming that the % of annually infected humans is closer to 10% than 100%. If long-term, this virus infects 10% of the population annually - a 0.5% fatality rate (which will still tend to pick off the newer older/sicker each year) will mean about 175,000 deaths annually. Which would put this well behind cancer and heart disease and in the same range as accidents/respiratory/stroke. And many of those 175,000 would just be 'shortening the life expectancy' of those with the different comorbidities

Right now, at least looking at the South Korea stuff, the virus is very transmissible but requires more frequent/intense contact than something like flu. Well over 60% of the cases in South Korea are in that church/cult. Not among their grocers/barbers or other local contacts in that city. So if I were guess - the 'best next mutation' for that virus is one that 'spreads a bit easier with casual contact'. The Better Butter - Now Spreadable ® version of Covid-19.

[IceTrey]

But they don't have a good number for those infected and survived so take it with a grain of salt.

[Paloma]

The death rate of 49% of those critically ill means those who have become critically ill with the COVID-19 virus. Not just anyone who happened to be critically ill and then caught it. Your chances of death increase, for instance, by 8% if you have diabetes and you catch the virus.

[tommhan]

However all diabetes cases are not severe, diabetes is many times treated early and many people have little or no symptoms and live healthy lives.

[brec]

Does "case fatality rate" mean the rate among reported cases only, or the rate among all those infected? Reported cases would be a (large?) subset of those sufficiently ill to warrant medical attention.

WHO's 3.2% was for reported cases.

[pdubs2907]

Only reported and confirmed cases, since we can't know how many unreported cases there are. This, of course, means that the fatality rate is almost certainly lower than 2.3%.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

"like a particularly bad flu season, with a case-fatality rate somewhere between 0.2 and 0.5 percent."

A "particularly bad flu season" would have to have a higher CFR than .2%. .2% is a normal flu season.

[John]

I think that many are overreacting to this, but calling it just a "bad flu season" is every bit as retarded as running out and prepping for the apocalypse over this.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

It is. Iran doesn't empty it's prisons because of a "bad flu season". South Korea doesn't declare it's "in a state of war" over the spread of the regular flu season. China doesn't enforce draconian isolation procedures for several billion people over a particularly bad flu season.

There are lots of things people are being irrational about, though.

1. Buying all the bottled water off the shelves. This isn't the zombie apocalypse. There's no reason to suspect that the water will stop flowing. Use water from you tap like always. If you're paranoid it's infected, boil it.
2. Buying all the toilet paper. Same as above. If you have to self-quarantine in your house, sure having a little extra will help. Worse comes to worst, have a non-infected friend or neighbor drop off supplies on your front door.
3. Masks. Stop it with the masks. They don't protect you (see video series I linked above). Masks are designed to protect other people from you. Masks actually make things worse because as they get damp, they actually trap and collect pathogens.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

China: 1.3 billion. Sorry. I was inserting global population in that..

[DenverJ]

Yeah, the masks. Stop it! People with real jobs really need those masks, and can't but them because of panicky morons. Last weekend I had to cut 8 holes in drywall that is old enough that it has asbestos in it. Could I find a dust mask? Of course not. Assholes.

[MikeT1986]

They also Don't Help.

[JWatts]

"3. Masks. Stop it with the masks. They don’t protect you (see video series I linked above). Masks are designed to protect other people from you. Masks actually make things worse because as they get damp, they actually trap and collect pathogens."

That's not exactly true. The most important advice is both to wash your hands and not to touch your face. Masks may well keep people from touching their face.

In addition, coronavirus is a confirmed aerosol and can be transmitted 3-6 feet through the air via coughs or sneezes. Masks keep spittle away from your mouth and nose.

And most obviously, if masks had no effect, then medical personnel wouldn't wear them.

[Paloma]

.5% is two and a half times .2%. And that would make it a particularly bad flu season.

[JWatts]

According to the CDC, over the last decade + flu has had a mortality rate between 0.1 to 0.2% in the US. Above 0.2% is high. 0.5% would actually be worse than " a particularly bad flu season.".

[John]

http://www.popsci.com/story/health/drug-supply-covid-coronavirus-china/

Maybe moving our entire pharmaceutical supply chain to China is a bad idea. I know "meh principles" apparently require large numbers of people to periodically die because the God market has dictated that all life saving medicine must come from China, but maybe we could make an exception this time.

[Geraje Guzba]

If this episode has demonstrated anything, it is that relying on China as the linchpin for global production across nearly every industry in existence is .... reckless, to say the least.

When someone has you by the balls, simple things like sneezing become unimaginable.

Isolationism may not be the answer, but having a domestic fallback option to make up for production shortfalls in times of global crisis is critical. We don't need to make everything here, but we should certainly be able to without destroying our economy.

[John]

Isolationism isn't the answer. That said, there are certain things that a country as large with an economy as rich as ours out to be able to produce on its own as a matter of national security. A base level of pharmaceuticals is certainly on that list.

[MikeT1986]

I mean we more than have the manufacturing capability to produce things, admittedly we'd have a cold-start problem. Mandating that these things be made at all times in the US would drive up day to day costs.

That said events like this help drive home the importance of diversifying your supply base both in terms of companies and geography. It's not just disease that can cause problems, weather events, politics etc.

[John]

It would drive up your day to day costs. But nothing is ever free. When you consider how wealthy we are and the potential risks, it is a price worth paying. And yes, diversifying is the key. Maybe we don't make it all here, but we make sure what isn't made here is made or can be easily obtained from somewhere besides China and the far east.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

It's a tough call. Business is cutthroat. You don't outsource and pay higher costs because you're afraid of the hidden costs of outsourcing. Your competitor doesn't give a fuck, outsources to Eritrea, and undercuts you by 40%. You hang on, knowing that at some point down the road those hidden costs for your competitor will show up. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Who cares, they just kicked your ass this quarter. Rinse, repeat.

[John]

But the US market is enormous. Making a rule that something has to be made here to be sold here just causes people to make things here because the market is so big and lucrative. For example, when Reagan put huge tariffs on Japanese and European cars, you ended up with Toyota plants in Indiana and BMW plants in South Carolina. They didn't just walk away from the market. Same thing would happen here.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Agreed, which is why I haven't waded too deeply into the tariff debates.

[Echospinner]

It is not really outsourcing. The entire big pharm industry is global and multinational. That goes from R&D through the supply chain.

There are drug shortages for different reasons from time to time. Generally not a problem because substitutes can be used.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

That's my biggest economic takeaway from this. Outsource carefully. It's no different that storing all your shit "in the cloud". It's a euphemism for someone else's computer. Instead you're storing all your economic outcomes in someone else's social and political territory.

[JesseAz]

Add france and India to the cut off supply chains. But free markets with non free market actors never have a downside per the bumper stickers economists here.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

And in the realm of making everything political:

“I understand why this facility is needed,” said Washington State Senator Joe Nguyen, who represents White Center in Olympia. “But the appearance of placing it in a neighborhood that has already been historically marginalized conveys a message about whose safety we most value in our society that is not lost on me.”

[John]

Then put it nextdoor to that guy. And put another one next door to Bailey.

[mamabug]

I... actually see his point even if the language is overly virtue-signalling. We all know that thing wouldn't have a chance in hell of getting placed in Bellevue or Mercer Island. I'm just surprised they haven't tried to stick it in Kent where they do every other NIMBY project.

[Unicorn Abattoir]

Libertarians are generally safe from coronavirus, as the comments section is a close as most of us get to human contact.

[John]

Yeah but our mom's come down to the basement once a week to change the sheets and she has human contact.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

I have a fairly hermitous friend, and I sent him an article on self-isolation in regards to CV19. He couldn't wait.

[IceTrey]

Plus all the weed we smoke keeps us safe.

[DenverJ]

What a stupid comment- it's obviously the booze.

[Shitlord of the Woodchippers]

Can’t it be both?

[I am the 0.000000013%]

Yesh

[Jerryskids]

I haven't been following the coronavirus story very closely, I am aware that a lot of the official information gets filtered through the authorities and the experts and that makes it somewhat questionable to me, like relying on the police department spokesman for the straight dope on how the mall shooting went down. It seems to me, after 9/11 and so much speculation on where the terrorists might strike next that included infecting municipal water supplies or setting off some kind of dirty bomb, this coronavirus thing that, if it's not a biological weapon is doing a pretty good imitation of one, has been unleashed should be a good test of how good the authorities are at responding and they're not doing a very good job. They barely seemed prepared at all and they're just sort of making their response up as they go along. I mean, Mike Pence is in charge of the operation? Don't we already have somebody in charge? A shortage of masks and gloves and gowns and stuff? If we didn't have a stockpile, shouldn't we at least have had plans to ramp up production quickly? Discussions involving shutting down public gatherings and so on? Shouldn't that have been covered in the procedure manual for handling a mass outbreak of an unknown infectious disease? Do we even have a procedures manual yet? What have these people been doing for the last 20 years? Oh, that's right, teen vaping and gun violence. Assholes.

[John]

Pence is in charge because someone needs to make the agencies work together. All of them think they are in charge of this and without someone from the White House making them, they largely won't work together.

And that is not a partisan issue. It is like that under any administration.

[Jerryskids]

Yeah, like I said, they're not prepared for this. Why did Trump have to name Pence head of the coronavirus response team? Why isn't this on page one of the manual? "In the event of a declaration of an emergency, the Vice-President is in charge of coordinating efforts to get our thumbs out of our butts." You've had at least 20 years to come up with a plan, where's your plan?

[Commenter_XY]

Go talk to America's Mother-In-Law. She has a plan for everything.

[Echospinner]

I think Pence is just there as a cardboard cutout to show the the White House is on top of things. He is entirely superfluous. Hopefully he has the good sense to stay out of the way and let the pros do their jobs.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

A shortage of masks and gloves and gowns and stuff? If we didn’t have a stockpile, shouldn’t we at least have had plans to ramp up production quickly? Discussions involving shutting down public gatherings and so on? Shouldn’t that have been covered in the procedure manual for handling a mass outbreak of an unknown infectious disease? Do we even have a procedures manual yet?

The Outlook calendar was stacked with meetings about obesity, sugar, trans rights, and getting more women and girls interested in STEM fields. We haven't thought about a real infectious disease breakout in years. We're simply not prepared for it.

[pdubs2907]

The thing is, what do people want the government to do? It's an airborne virus. It's going to spread, nothing you can really do about that.

[JFree]

Bailey talks about South Korea implementing 'drive-thru' testing in that podcast. The reason it works in S Korea and won't work here is because they have free at point-of-access healthcare. We don't.

There can certainly be problems of free at point-of-access for medical utilization of 'optional' types of things. But for an epidemic - where the risk is to other not self - the only way to control the disease is to eliminate anything that might be a disincentive to utilization. Including price.

If libertarians can't understand that, then once again libertarians will be useless in the policy debate.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

In a case of a serious outbreak, that's not a major factor. You can go into many places in this country and get a free flu shot. I don't think that having free, point-of-access healthcare is the only way to provide drive-thru testing for coronavirus.

Speaking on South Korea specifically, the free point-of-access is an oversimplification. Just like insured patients in the US, you must provide documents, proof of insurance and the like to get healthcare. You don't just show up and say, "My name is Kwon, hook a brother up with some healthcare!"

Price and access barriers would only nominally come into play here for under-insured or uninsured.

[JFree]

Well in the case of this drive-through stuff - you are dead wrong. Asking for documents/papers/etc is PRECISELY a disincentive. A bureaucratic one rather than a pricing one - but still a disincentive. They are not even collecting NAMES. And presumably if the test is positive, they aren't creating further disincentives to getting immediate treatment - like charging people or asking for papers.

Essentially they are moving testing out of the hospital in order to make it convenient/cheaper/safer/universal - and reduce or spread out the burden on hospitals. This is really a very brilliant public health move. Long-term, South Korea will do very well in treating this virus.

[JeremyR]

Flu shots are not free. They are only "free" if you have health insurance that covers it (and so not free at all). Otherwise they are $40 or so (that's Walmart's price)

[Echospinner]

I have given and received my share of vaccinations in my life.

Used to be more easy. Where I worked back in the day we had a nurse with her pockets full of doses she prepared. She would just go from one person to the other and “roll up your sleeve” swab of alcohol that was it. Scooby doo bandaid. Asked her for one extra to take home because my wife was a preschool teacher then. No problem. It ain’t rocket science.

Any pharmacy can give you a flu shot or other vaccines today.

[Rossami]

The reason it sort-of works in South Korea and won't work here has to do with population density and cultural attitudes toward authority and next to nothing to do with the relative cost of healthcare.

We have rich soccer moms ranting about the "dangers" of vaccines and refusing to let their kids get treated. We have poor folks turning down free healthcare - some because they don't trust the government, some because they have untreated mental illness, some out of pride, but most because they just don't believe in the need.

Cost might be a factor in why a very few Americans don't get preventative care but cost is not relevant to most of them.*

[Rossami]

* Qualifier: I am talking above about core medical care. Cost definitely is a factor in why people don't get needed preventative dental or ophthalmological care and may be a contributing factor in why people avoid psychiatric care.

[JFree]

Our healthcare system is nearly twice as expensive relative to our income as everywhere else - and cost doesn't matter?

[JeremyR]

Poor people are not turning down free healthcare. I'm not sure where you get that idea from.

[IceTrey]

Why aren't they calling it what it is SARS 2?
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/naming-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-2019)-and-the-virus-that-causes-it

[Jerryskids]

The WHO is about as competent at handling infectious disease outbreaks as the UN is at handling civil wars. They're not a "health" organization, they're a political debate organization. And the most important part of any political debate is which world resort city we're going to fly to to hold our next conference and what sort of champagne we'll have and will the caviar be flown in fresh every day or will it be like that one time where we were forced to buy that off-the-shelf shit like the commoners do?

[Colossal Douchebag]

By the end of April the whole world will be going, "Huh, that wasn't so bad."

[JFree]

That's very possible. In which case, the whole world will be gobsmacked when it returns in the fall.

[Echospinner]

My gut feeling is that will happen in the next 2-3 months. I hope so anyway. Public health measures will have had a lot to do with that if it does.

[Vancouver Nursing Home]

We are definitely watching and seeing what happens with this virus. But the elderly are the most susceptible. As the owner of a senior care center owner, we just have to stay on top of things and make sure all of the proper safety measures are taken.

[JFree]

How are you screening people who come into the nursing home? Visitors, medical, employees, etc

[Echospinner]

VNH runs a professional medical facility. I don’t think the entire intake and infectious disease control procedures are there for inspection here.

[Sumit]

This harmful virus is spreading in faster rate. It's really dangerous virus. Corona virus.

[wootendw]

"...stop what you're doing and listen to the new Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie. It's 30 minutes that will give you peace of mind."

How about publishing the transcript? I am sure I could read it in less than 30 minutes. That's why I don't own a television or listen to talk radio.

[I am the 0.000000013%]

Absolutely. Plus I can read it at my desk...

[ElvisIsReal]

AMEN

[mohammedgenius]

Deaths are increasing day by day in every corner of the world.
its really a tough time going on everywhere, only God can show his miracles and save humanity.
before it's too late, doctors should discover some cure for the filthy disease.

[Granite]

I’m praying this virus targets the people who rely on prayer to determine their fate.

[OldGuy]

The might be my fault. Several months ago I asked God to make SXSW go away. Appears she conjured up a virus. Unfortunately, the festival organizers aren't listening so far.

[Granite]

The goddamn sky fairy is dead you fucking monkeys.

[JustinSBaker]

I'am made $84, 8254 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student. Im using an online business. Here what I do,.for more information simply open this link thank you.... Read more  

[AnnetteWDuncan]

This is very Amazing when i saw in my Acount 8000$ par month .Just do work online at home on laptop with my best freinds . So u can always make Dollar Easily at home on laptop........ Read more

[Mike]

It's now April, still very scary. All wearing masks now.

[Hindi Shayari]

Education is a highly important matter today! And I’m glad to hear about any improvements occurring in that aspect of our lives.Hindi-Shayari