corona virus alerts - Latest cruising Information for vessels/locations/rules

[fivecapes]

Originally Posted by delmarrey

In the USA, to date 4/22, 1/4th of 1% has caught the virus. (.0025)

And of those in the USA with the virus 5.5% have died.

In Canada 1% has caught the virus.

And of those 4.9 has died.

In Australia .025% (.00025) has caught the virus.

And of those 1% has died.

🤷

Canada
Case/test 6.7%
Death/test 0.3%

Australia
Case/test 1.5%
Death/test 0.02%

US
Case/test 19.6%
Death/test 1.1%

[stevensuf]

These numbers are only showing the ratio of testing/found cases vs deaths, look at diamond princess for death rate on older people - 2%, look at Chinese hospital workers for death rate 0.4%, it will probably end up around 0.3% once younger people are included in the numbers.

[Woodland Hills]

The only % that matters to me is that if I die, it’s 100%........

[smbdyiam2]

Originally Posted by Woodland Hills

The only % that matters to me is that if I die, it’s 100%........

and if that happens the % doesn't matter again.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Well. That certainly boosts my 'theory' that the fatality rate is directly proportional to vitamin D deficiency.



And this boosts my 'theory' that those who live sheltered lives are more at risk for negative responses to infection.


We'll let y'all decide how serious, or not, I'm being...

I think you’re being sarcastic about some of this but since I’m not very familiar with you or your sense of humor, I can’t tell for sure. But I’m interested in understanding your comment regarding vitamin D and the homeless shelter. Would you mind explaining that one for me?

[dwedeking2]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I think you’re being sarcastic about some of this but since I’m not very familiar with you or your sense of humor, I can’t tell for sure. But I’m interested in understanding your comment regarding vitamin D and the homeless shelter. Would you mind explaining that one for me?

There were some reports that exposure to Vitamin D (being outside) helps keep the symptoms mild. I'm not sure of the validity of that. I think that the health and hygiene issues associated with homelessness would be more of a factor... to the negative.

[Montanan]

Coronavirus computer modelers revise their dates for easing state shutdowns
Alan Boyle
GeekWire April 21, 2020

http://https://www.yahoo.com/news/co...021424815.html


Being a Montanan, I am glad to read that Montana is modeled to be the State that could first safely loosen social distancing restrictions, May 1st. The persons in our State have been very compliant, albeit this being calving and lambing season one does see ranchers out tending to the new born and of course rolling out hay to feed their herds. 2.5 million cows, 1 million people, I am reassured that so far cattle are not vectors, because there will be a vastly greater number of cow / calve pairs due to the new births..

Reference article for map indicating the projected timing for safely loosening restrictions.

The latest computer projections from the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation deliver a double dose of discouragement about the course of the coronavirus outbreak, especially for those in the institute’s home state.

Today’s assessment estimates that conditions could be acceptable for Washington state to loosen its shelter-at-home restrictions on May 26 — which is eight days later than Friday’s estimate. Moreover, that assessment assumes that public health officials will have adequate resources for testing patients, conducting contact tracing and isolating those who become infected — which is not assured.

The other discouraging word is that the projected U.S. death toll through Aug. 4 has been raised, from 60,308 to 65,976. There’s a wide interval of uncertainty to that figure: The institute says it could end up as low as 45,375 or as high as 124,120.

Epidemiologists at the IHME based their projected “threshold” dates for loosening restrictions on the date when the model suggests the rate of new daily infections will fall below 1 per million residents in a given state. They acknowledged that the dates are later, on average, than they were on Friday.

“The main driver of these later predictions is the increase in reported deaths since the last release, as well as predictions of longer (and flatter) epidemic peaks for several states,” they wrote in today’s status report.

The first state to hit its threshold date is Montana, on May 1. The latest state on the list is right next door: North Dakota has a projected threshold date of July 12.

Like every computer model, IHME’s projections make a lot of assumptions about the extent of shelter-at-home orders and how closely they’re followed. “These projections could change as new data become available or different policies are implemented,” the institute said.

If some states loosen their restrictions before the threshold date, that would presumably change the model’s assessments for the eventual number of cases and deaths — and probably not in a good way.

Some experts have criticized the IHME’s methods and its models, complaining that the projections vary too widely from week to week and may leave policymakers either confused or complacent. The institute’s director, Christopher Murray, acknowledged last week that the projections were likely to shift earlier or later depending on the data.

“As the quality and quantity of our data increase, we will offer policymakers refined views of the pandemic’s course,” Murray said.

For the record, the current modeling projects 779 total deaths in Washington state due to COVID-19 by Aug. 4, compared with 23,741 deaths in New York and 65,976 deaths in the nation. Johns Hopkins University’s coronavirus tracker currently reports 824,147 confirmed COVID-19 cases and 45,039 deaths in the United States. Over the past few days, the cumulative death toll in North America has been growing by roughly 2,000 daily.

[Montanan]

As doctors see coronavirus-kidney link, worry grows over dialysis machines
The novel coronavirus exposes another potential shortage in U.S. healthcare.
By
Dr. L. Nedda Dastmalchi,
Jay Bhatt
and
Lucien Bruggeman
April 22, 2020,

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/doctor...posts_card_hed

Jamal Uddin’s coronavirus story began like many others: His health deteriorated, he was hospitalized, he tested positive for COVID-19, and he was treated. Then his health began improving. He was going to be taken off the ventilator -- until his potassium levels spiked.

A sudden increase in potassium levels, a result of kidney damage, can be treated with a dialysis machine. But at the hospital in hard-hit New York City where Uddin was being treated, his family says every dialysis machine was already in use – a sign, experts say, of the growing connection between COVID-19 and kidney problems.

Doctors attempted creative workarounds to treat Uddin – including peritoneal dialysis, which removes fluid through a tube coming from the abdomen – but to no avail. He died within days.

“They said that other patients are doing a lot worse than him,” said Uddin’s wife, Jesmin, who recounted his story to ABC News. “Everyone is advertising there are not enough ventilators, that's what I was afraid of -- whether he was going to have a ventilator or not. People are getting better from the ventilator. The lung is getting clearer, but they're not getting dialysis. And that's why people are dying."

A possible dearth of various life-saving equipment has for weeks nipped at the heels of the novel coronavirus’ spread. But as the disease has begun to appear linked to kidney issues, a new round of ethical questions are being raised about who gets treatment and who doesn’t – and Uddin’s case illustrates fears that otherwise potentially preventable deaths might occur as a result of dialysis equipment shortages.

There's also the question of how to balance the use of dialysis machines for coronavirus patients with the needs of the more than 500,000 Americans with pre-existing kidney disease who already rely on them.

Guidelines developed at the state level are meant to provide a framework for healthcare providers to prioritize care for certain patients in the event of a crisis that could lead to a scarcity of resources. Critics say some states use broad rules and algorithms -- rather than the on-the-ground opinion of doctors -- that could put patients with chronic kidney disease at risk of not getting the care they need.

Concern among experts is so grave that two leading advocacy organizations for kidney illness penned a letter in recent days to state leaders calling on a shift in policy.

“A one-size-fits-all category that denies care to all patients with kidney failure is short-sighted, arbitrary, unethical, and discriminatory,” the presidents of the American Society of Nephrology (ASN) and the National Kidney Foundation in a letter to the National Governors Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures wrote last week. Nephrology refers to medical specialization in kidneys.

“Blanket policies that categorically restrict the access of kidney patients, and other vulnerable populations, to critical care are scientifically unfounded and inappropriately interfere with the trusted patient-physician relationship as well as disregard basic principles of medical ethics,” the groups added. “Unilateral guidance should never outweigh sound, individualized medical judgment.”

An estimated 40 million adults in the U.S. have chronic kidney disease, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Experts anticipate even more Americans will develop kidney ailments as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, but the extent of the kidney damage in confirmed coronavirus patients remains unclear.

The ASN and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are “working to get better numbers – harder numbers – than the impressions of nephrologists,” according to Dr. Alan Kliger, a Yale nephrologist and co-chairman of the ASN coronavirus task force.

What is clear, experts say, is that a substantial proportion of critically ill coronavirus patients – those on ventilators in the intensive care unit – require dialysis machines. The number of those needing dialysis range from 20-40% of that severely ill subgroup of positive cases, according to Kliger.

Studies and clinical anecdotes indicate that the coronavirus can attack the kidneys, leading to kidney failure or, in patients with existing kidney disease, exacerbate matters. Compounding the issue is that kidney disease is made worse in patients who require mechanical ventilation, like many patients with severe cases of the coronavirus. Without dialysis, fluid can accumulate in the lung when the kidneys can't remove enough fluid and toxins from the body.

“These patients generate the toxins that are removed by dialysis at a phenomenal rate – a rate that will make your eyes pop out,” said Dr. Joel Topf, the medical director of St. Clair Nephrology Research in Detroit, Michigan. “We are finding we need to dialyze these patients every day using high doses of the dialysis to clear off these toxins … and that really adds to the stress on resources.”

Experts cited a growing need for both dialysis machines and the fluid required to dialyze patients. Because manufacturing new machines can be an arduous process, Dr. Sunny Jha, a USC anesthesiologist, suggested states with fewer cases donate machines to the “hot spots” – not unlike the reallocation of ventilators in recent weeks.

“We have had trouble getting the fluids needed for dialysis. Machines are needed as well but getting them can be complicated,” said Dr. Jha. “One way that we can address this is by asking those not seeing as much kidney disease and coronavirus to reallocate their supplies to the hot spots.”

The creative spirit hospitals are exercising to preserve resources extends beyond supplies, experts suggest. Staffing shortages – nurses and dialysis machine technicians – are also being stretched thin.

“Physicians are having to be creative in these circumstances and other types of dialysis machines require specifically trained dialysis nurses which are hard to find,” said Dr. Nwamaka Eneanya, Nephrologist and Assistant Professor of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

Topf echoed that sentiment, noting that the coronavirus “is just wearing down the nurses, and we are really asking a lot of them.”

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Waveguide

Regardless of how the COVID virus emerged, Lab Nerds shouldn't be allowed to play with deadly viruses. We don't yet know how to do that with total safety.

No one should be allowed to literally "play" with these viruses - and I can't imagine one would want to. But we most definitely do want researchers to be allowed to work with them. And the risk will never be zero - what I am interpreting your "total safety" to mean. It is a common misconception that such risks can be reduced to zero - but it is not possible. It can be very, very low, but assuming that you actually want people to do the work, you must accept some small level of risk. The SARS-CoV-2 virus is subject to a mix of BSL-2 and BSL-3 level biosafety standards. This is in contrast to something like Ebola virus, which is BSL-4. The interim CDC guidelines for SARS-CoV-2 are below if you are interested.

Risk-benefit is something sailors know well - no one in their right mind would suggest that you not leave the dock unless you can sail with "total safety". Like sailors, microbiologists reduce risk to acceptable levels but still allow the task to get done.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...uidelines.html

[Sand crab]

Originally Posted by Montanan

The other discouraging word is that the projected U.S. death toll through Aug. 4 has been raised, from 60,308 to 65,976. There’s a wide interval of uncertainty to that figure: The institute says it could end up as low as 45,375 or as high as 124,120.

How old is this data and do they mean newly added deaths from now on? The US will pass 45,375 deaths today. We're already at 45,150.

[rbk]

Originally Posted by Montanan

As doctors see coronavirus-kidney link, worry grows over dialysis machines
The novel coronavirus exposes another potential shortage in U.S. healthcare.
By
Dr. L. Nedda Dastmalchi,
Jay Bhatt
and
Lucien Bruggeman
April 22, 2020,

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/doctor...posts_card_hed

Jamal Uddin’s coronavirus story began like many others: His health deteriorated, he was hospitalized, he tested positive for COVID-19, and he was treated. Then his health began improving. He was going to be taken off the ventilator -- until his potassium levels spiked.

A sudden increase in potassium levels, a result of kidney damage, can be treated with a dialysis machine. But at the hospital in hard-hit New York City where Uddin was being treated, his family says every dialysis machine was already in use – a sign, experts say, of the growing connection between COVID-19 and kidney problems.

Doctors attempted creative workarounds to treat Uddin – including peritoneal dialysis, which removes fluid through a tube coming from the abdomen – but to no avail. He died within days.

“They said that other patients are doing a lot worse than him,” said Uddin’s wife, Jesmin, who recounted his story to ABC News. “Everyone is advertising there are not enough ventilators, that's what I was afraid of -- whether he was going to have a ventilator or not. People are getting better from the ventilator. The lung is getting clearer, but they're not getting dialysis. And that's why people are dying."

A possible dearth of various life-saving equipment has for weeks nipped at the heels of the novel coronavirus’ spread. But as the disease has begun to appear linked to kidney issues, a new round of ethical questions are being raised about who gets treatment and who doesn’t – and Uddin’s case illustrates fears that otherwise potentially preventable deaths might occur as a result of dialysis equipment shortages.

There's also the question of how to balance the use of dialysis machines for coronavirus patients with the needs of the more than 500,000 Americans with pre-existing kidney disease who already rely on them.

Guidelines developed at the state level are meant to provide a framework for healthcare providers to prioritize care for certain patients in the event of a crisis that could lead to a scarcity of resources. Critics say some states use broad rules and algorithms -- rather than the on-the-ground opinion of doctors -- that could put patients with chronic kidney disease at risk of not getting the care they need.

Concern among experts is so grave that two leading advocacy organizations for kidney illness penned a letter in recent days to state leaders calling on a shift in policy.

“A one-size-fits-all category that denies care to all patients with kidney failure is short-sighted, arbitrary, unethical, and discriminatory,” the presidents of the American Society of Nephrology (ASN) and the National Kidney Foundation in a letter to the National Governors Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures wrote last week. Nephrology refers to medical specialization in kidneys.

“Blanket policies that categorically restrict the access of kidney patients, and other vulnerable populations, to critical care are scientifically unfounded and inappropriately interfere with the trusted patient-physician relationship as well as disregard basic principles of medical ethics,” the groups added. “Unilateral guidance should never outweigh sound, individualized medical judgment.”

An estimated 40 million adults in the U.S. have chronic kidney disease, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Experts anticipate even more Americans will develop kidney ailments as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, but the extent of the kidney damage in confirmed coronavirus patients remains unclear.

The ASN and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are “working to get better numbers – harder numbers – than the impressions of nephrologists,” according to Dr. Alan Kliger, a Yale nephrologist and co-chairman of the ASN coronavirus task force.

What is clear, experts say, is that a substantial proportion of critically ill coronavirus patients – those on ventilators in the intensive care unit – require dialysis machines. The number of those needing dialysis range from 20-40% of that severely ill subgroup of positive cases, according to Kliger.

Studies and clinical anecdotes indicate that the coronavirus can attack the kidneys, leading to kidney failure or, in patients with existing kidney disease, exacerbate matters. Compounding the issue is that kidney disease is made worse in patients who require mechanical ventilation, like many patients with severe cases of the coronavirus. Without dialysis, fluid can accumulate in the lung when the kidneys can't remove enough fluid and toxins from the body.

“These patients generate the toxins that are removed by dialysis at a phenomenal rate – a rate that will make your eyes pop out,” said Dr. Joel Topf, the medical director of St. Clair Nephrology Research in Detroit, Michigan. “We are finding we need to dialyze these patients every day using high doses of the dialysis to clear off these toxins … and that really adds to the stress on resources.”

Experts cited a growing need for both dialysis machines and the fluid required to dialyze patients. Because manufacturing new machines can be an arduous process, Dr. Sunny Jha, a USC anesthesiologist, suggested states with fewer cases donate machines to the “hot spots” – not unlike the reallocation of ventilators in recent weeks.

“We have had trouble getting the fluids needed for dialysis. Machines are needed as well but getting them can be complicated,” said Dr. Jha. “One way that we can address this is by asking those not seeing as much kidney disease and coronavirus to reallocate their supplies to the hot spots.”

The creative spirit hospitals are exercising to preserve resources extends beyond supplies, experts suggest. Staffing shortages – nurses and dialysis machine technicians – are also being stretched thin.

“Physicians are having to be creative in these circumstances and other types of dialysis machines require specifically trained dialysis nurses which are hard to find,” said Dr. Nwamaka Eneanya, Nephrologist and Assistant Professor of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

Topf echoed that sentiment, noting that the coronavirus “is just wearing down the nurses, and we are really asking a lot of them.”

This is a larger underlying issue related to overall health and less to do with the virus. Fighting a major infection whether viral or bacterial can be similar to running a marathon, energy stores are used, essential vitamins and minerals are used at an extremely fast rate and low/high levels can cause a myriad of health issues. When someone who has spent a lifetime (young or old) eating poorly, not exercising with reduced levels of essential nutrients, reduced lung capacity, inefficient bodily systems and functions are in turn asking their bodies to run a two week or more marathon fighting this viral infection the body is simply overwhelmed. To keep it cruising related it’s like taking an old boat that has sat dockside unmaintained for 20,30,60 years and sailing it around Cape Horn in a gale, sh*ts gonna break and a good chance it’ll sink. This has been a major issue for decades, we know all the increased risks related to obesity, unhealthy, inactive lifestyles and is one of the most preventable issues in the first worlds counties today, and costs billions of dollars a year in healthcare. If our population was healthier with better diets the mortality rates, cost and overall impact from covid would be drastically reduced, but hindsight is 20/20.

[rbk]

Originally Posted by lestersails

No one should be allowed to literally "play" with these viruses - and I can't imagine one would want to. But we most definitely do want researchers to be allowed to work with them. And the risk will never be zero - what I am interpreting your "total safety" to mean. It is a common misconception that such risks can be reduced to zero - but it is not possible. It can be very, very low, but assuming that you actually want people to do the work, you must accept some small level of risk. The SARS-CoV-2 virus is subject to a mix of BSL-2 and BSL-3 level biosafety standards. This is in contrast to something like Ebola virus, which is BSL-4. The interim CDC guidelines for SARS-CoV-2 are below if you are interested.

Risk-benefit is something sailors know well - no one in their right mind would suggest that you not leave the dock unless you can sail with "total safety". Like sailors, microbiologists reduce risk to acceptable levels but still allow the task to get done.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...uidelines.html

we are much further ahead on this new virus with what we’ve learned from SARS and MERS, although it may not feel like it. While different there are many similarities. It’s really too bad funding for these dropped off as the viruses disappeared. There is a good chance that if a vaccine had been developed for either it would be a shorter road toward one for covid.

[Montanan]

Recovered, almost: China's early patients unable to shed coronavirus
By Brenda Goh
ReutersApril 21, 2020,
http://https://www.yahoo.com/news/re...052535874.html

WUHAN, China (Reuters) - Dressed in a hazmat suit, two masks and a face shield, Du Mingjun knocked on the mahogany door of a flat in a suburban district of Wuhan on a recent morning.

A man wearing a single mask opened the door a crack and, after Du introduced herself as a psychological counsellor, burst into tears.

"I really can't take it anymore," he said. Diagnosed with the novel coronavirus in early February, the man, who appeared to be in his 50s, had been treated at two hospitals before being transferred to a quarantine centre set up in a cluster of apartment blocks in an industrial part of Wuhan.

Why, he asked, did tests say he still had the virus more than two months after he first contracted it?

The answer to that question is a mystery baffling doctors on the frontline of China's battle against COVID-19, even as it has successfully slowed the spread of the coronavirus across the country.

Chinese doctors in Wuhan, where the virus first emerged in December, say a growing number of cases in which people recover from the virus, but continue to test positive without showing symptoms, is one of their biggest challenges as the country moves into a new phase of its containment battle.

Those patients all tested negative for the virus at some point after recovering, but then tested positive again, some up to 70 days later, the doctors said. Many have done so over 50-60 days.

The prospect of people remaining positive for the virus, and therefore potentially infectious, is of international concern, as many countries seek to end lockdowns and resume economic activity as the spread of the virus slows. Currently, the globally recommended isolation period after exposure is 14 days.

So far, there have been no confirmations of newly positive patients infecting others, according to Chinese health officials.

China has not published precise figures for how many patients fall into this category. But disclosures by Chinese hospitals to Reuters, as well as in other media reports, indicate there are at least dozens of such cases.

In South Korea, about 1,000 people have been testing positive for four weeks or more. In Italy, the first European country ravaged by the pandemic, health officials noticed that coronavirus patients could test positive for the virus for about a month.

As there is limited knowledge available on how infectious these patients are, doctors in Wuhan are keeping them isolated for longer.

Zhang Dingyu, president of Jinyintan Hospital, where the most serious coronavirus cases were treated, said health officials recognised the isolations may be excessive, especially if patients proved not to be infectious. But, for now, it was better to do so to protect the public, he said.

He described the issue as one of the most pressing facing the hospital and said counsellors like Du are being brought in to help ease the emotional strain.

"When patients have this pressure, it also weighs on society," he said.



DOZENS OF CASES

The plight of Wuhan's long-term patients underlines how much remains unknown about COVID-19 and why it appears to affect different people in numerous ways, Chinese doctors say. So far global infections have hit 2.5 million with over 171,000 deaths.

As of April 21, 93% of 82,788 people with the virus in China had recovered and been discharged, official figures show.

Yuan Yufeng, a vice president at Zhongnan Hospital in Wuhan, told Reuters he was aware of a case in which the patient had positive retests after first being diagnosed with the virus about 70 days earlier.

"We did not see anything like this during SARS," he said, referring to the 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome outbreak that infected 8,098 people globally, mostly in China.

Patients in China are discharged after two negative nucleic acid tests, taken at least 24 hours apart, and if they no longer show symptoms. Some doctors want this requirement to be raised to three tests or more.

China's National Health Commission directed Reuters to comments made at a briefing Tuesday when asked for comment about how this category of patients was being handled.

Wang Guiqiang, director of the infectious disease department of Peking University First Hospital, said at the briefing that the majority of such patients were not showing symptoms and very few had seen their conditions worsen.

"The new coronavirus is a new type of virus," said Guo Yanhong, a National Health Commission official. "For this disease, the unknowns are still greater than the knowns."

REMNANTS AND REACTIVATION

Experts and doctors struggle to explain why the virus behaves so differently in these people.

Some suggest that patients retesting as positive after previously testing negative were somehow reinfected with the virus. This would undermine hopes that people catching COVID-19 would produce antibodies that would prevent them from getting sick again from the virus.

Zhao Yan, a doctor of emergency medicine at Wuhan's Zhongnan Hospital, said he was sceptical about the possibility of reinfection based on cases at his facility, although he did not have hard evidence.

"They're closely monitored in the hospital and are aware of the risks, so they stay in quarantine. So I'm sure they were not reinfected."

Jeong Eun-kyeong, director of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has said the virus may have been "reactivated" in 91 South Korean patients who tested positive after having been thought to be cleared of it.

Other South Korean and Chinese experts have said that remnants of the virus could have stayed in patients' systems but not be infectious or dangerous to the host or others.

Few details have been disclosed about these patients, such as if they have underlying health conditions.

Paul Hunter, a professor at the University of East Anglia's Norwich School of Medicine, said an unusually slow shedding of other viruses such as norovirus or influenza had been previously seen in patients with weakened immune systems.

In 2015, South Korean authorities disclosed that they had a Middle East Respiratory Syndrome patient stricken with lymphoma who showed signs of the virus for 116 days. They said his impaired immune system kept his body from ridding itself of the virus. The lymphoma eventually caused his death.

Yuan said that even if patients develop antibodies, it did not guarantee they would become virus-free.

He said that some patients had high levels of antibodies, and still tested positive to nucleic acid tests.

"It means that the two sides are still fighting," he said.

MENTAL TOLL

As could be seen in Wuhan, the virus can also inflict a heavy mental toll on those caught in a seemingly endless cycle of positive tests.

Du, who set up a therapy hotline when Wuhan's outbreak first began, allowed Reuters in early April to join her on a visit to the suburban quarantine centre on the condition that none of the patients be identified.

One man rattled off the names of three Wuhan hospitals he had stayed at before being moved to a flat in the centre. He had taken over 10 tests since the third week of February, he said, on occasions testing negative but mostly positive.

"I feel fine and have no symptoms, but they check and it's positive, check and it's positive," he said. "What is with this virus?"

Patients need to stay at the centre for at least 28 days and obtain two negative results before being allowed to leave. Patients are isolated in individual rooms they said were paid for by the government.

The most concerning case facing Du during the visit was the man behind the mahogany door; he had told medical workers the night before that he wanted to kill himself.

"I wasn't thinking clearly," he told Du, explaining how he had already taken numerous CT scans and nucleic acid tests, some of which tested negative, at different hospitals. He worried that he had been reinfected as he cycled through various hospitals.

His grandson missed him after being gone for so long, he said, and he worried his condition meant he would never be able to see him again.

He broke into another round of sobs. "Why is this happening to me?"

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by rbk

This is a larger underlying issue related to overall health and less to do with the virus.
. . .

but hindsight is 20/20.

Hindsight will be about 2020.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Woodland Hills

The only % that matters to me is that if I die, it’s 100%........

That's a great comeback, funny and very true