monkeybarry
Jack Jull
If "survival of the fittest" is your final solution, what was the point of your original question?If the medically controlled environment can keep younger people safer without them there, yes.
If "survival of the fittest" is your final solution, what was the point of your original question?If the medically controlled environment can keep younger people safer without them there, yes.
Whilst I consider it a compliment that you think any of my questions might be original in their nature, I'm fairly sure none of them are.If "survival of the fittest" is your final solution, what was the point of your original question?
Whilst I consider it a compliment that you think any of my questions might be original in their nature, I'm fairly sure none of them are.
Which question do you mean?
I'm 41 todayScara's daydreaming about his sexy Logan's Run fantasy. No one makes it past 40.
Is it? It's a genuine question."Is it worse than keeping them in hospitals where there are young people around?"
I'm 41 today
*may not be true....Happy birthday!
I'm 41 today
Hopefully it stays on zero, unlike the previous 17 times...
Professor Devi Sridhar has just retweeted this... combination of more testing, younger people being infected and doctors developing better treatment protocols is their hypothesis...So read a piece earlier but not very definitive...
Number of cases still increasing (obvs this includes asymptomatic), but hospital admissions and death rate decreasing. So what's causing the differential? Why are people still clocking in with the virus but survival rate seems to be on a more positive trend so to speak? Fascinating stuff, anyone have any links on this?
Only piece i've come across thus far is here but as i said, all conjecture (which it will be for foreseeable future)