This is some serious NPC shit. 🤦🏻♀️
This study looked at 1,000 people in New York City who’d been hospitalized for the coronavirus, and lo and behold, 66% were non-essential workers who were “staying at home”.
But “staying at home” does not entail hard quarantine. In the context of this study, all it means is not working outside the home
There is nothing to suggest that these people were infected at home. They could have easily gotten infected “by going out to get groceries or other essential items, or from seeing people outside of work” — and if they hadn’t, all that says is that they’d come in contact with someone who had. (Or with contaminated materials.)
Somebody had to get the supplies, and given NYC’s insanely high population density, that someone was most likely a member of their household — perhaps even someone who had been working outside the home.
BOTTOM LINE: People are NOT more likely to get infected by “staying at home”. The infected are more likely to be people who are not currently working outside the home because the vast majority of New Yorkers are not currently working outside the home.
Minimizing person-to-person transmission is not going to make a pandemic worse, and attempting to draw general conclusions about infection rates by looking at an already high-risk population (96% had underlying health conditions) is just atrocious methodology.