If there are hotspots of COVID-19 outbreaks, why is the PM blaming all Israelis? Who do we all have to be more careful if only some of us are neglecting their responsibilities? However, that may not be true.
* * *
The newest figures say that in Chaired neighborhoods in Jerusalem, the virus spreads twice as fast as in the rest of the Capital.
But — big but — of the newly infected, 72% are members of the same nuclear family in the same household of someone infected already.
Everyone knows that the number of children (and grownups) in Chareidic circles is at least twice as high as in secular homes. In other words: There are only more Chareidic COVID-19 patients now because they have more people per household. Not because they are more careless.
In other words, the hotspots are not hotspots.
I would not be surprised if the same is true for Arab Jerusalem.
Much as I think that we religious Jews should be held to a higher standard than less-religious Jews — as my blog posts regularly show, in this case, the figures don’t show that in Chareidic neighborhoods the behavior is less responsible. So: no lockdown selectively for the hotspots that aren’t.
On a happier note, a faster spread of the infection might point to a virus mutation that makes it more susceptible. That would be good news because generally, that would make it also less deadly — as I explained before. However, less deadly in percentage may also kill more people, because less dead in more infected could still elevate the death toll.
The overall moral: be more careful with avoiding crowded, closed places for longer than 15 minutes (and especially places where people shout or sing), avoiding people who do not wear masks, wear a mask, wash your hands for 20 seconds with soap after touching public surfaces before eating or touching your face, and stay home if you can. You don’t only avoid a small chance to die from the infection, and a chance to infect others, and a chance to get a horrible sickbed but you also avoid having a mild form that could make you exhausted for many months.
It seems to me that an overlooked factor that may heavily influence how much the coronavirus may sicken someone is the amount of virus we breathe in. That is not just an all-or-nothing issue of being infected or not. That, in infected, a low amount of virus making it into the lungs may be less bad for your health. Not only is the greatest chance when infected that you survive. But if you get infected minimally, your survival chances may be enormously greater. Just yet another reason to use your brain and prevent getting infected as much as possible.
Also, the later one gets the infection, if at all, the better it is. Because the virus likely will be less aggressive, the physicians will know better what to check and how to help you with healing, there will be less chance of infecting others because more people got it already, and there will always be a chance that you’ll have the vaccine before the virus gets to you.
The trophy for the most ridiculous piece of writing about COVID-19 this week goes to an article that asks if our life expectancy will go down since COVID-10 tends to kill mostly the elderly. Any 6-year-old can understand that life expectancy would go down much more if the coronavirus would kill mostly younger people. With a mortality rate of 0.5 and a spread in the population of 5% per year, no effect on how old we’ll get is to be expected.