To be fair, it has not been in the U.S. long at all. It's spreading pretty quickly. That 800 cases line can quickly change to a 100,000 line and so on.
I am not a medical doctor and I am not giving anyone medical advise. I don't think anyone knows very much about what's happening with the Coronavirus. I have worked in the healthcare racket as a trained specialist allied to the practice of medicine, and this is what I think I know. Corrections welcome from anyone:
FWIW / IMHO it would be great if it was that simple. I don't think it is. You would think form listening to the news media that there is a test to identify Coronavirus infections same as there is a test to identify venereal disease, for example. At present, so far as I know, there is no such test. Many credentialed experts say the same thing. There are tests that
suggest a Coronavirus infection. Let's put it this way: If you are running a high fever and you're experiencing difficulty breathing, well, that's a pretty good indication that you have a serious respiratory tract infection! At that point, it probably doesn't matter if its Coronavirus, or not, as far as treatment goes. It's a matter of contagion.
Yet, the testing protocols are very weak at present and make it hard to determine just exactly what the virus is actually doing. A PCR test for Coronavirus won't be very accurate for at least another six months until sufficient genetic data is gathered on the virus to make a proper identification actually possible. Even then, PCR will never be specific. Additional genetic data will only make the test more specific than it is now. Similarly, a serological test that looks for specific antibodies cannot actually differentiate a Coronavirus from other viruses with a high degree of certainty. Current testing protocols may be useful if someone is experiencing symptoms of Coronavirus infection to guide treatment. Maybe. But to understand just exactly what it means when someone says there is a "confirmed" case of Coronavirus, one would have to know just exactly what the criteria are for making such a statement. Is it that a non-specific test has been performed twice? What is the published and peer reviewed error rate on these tests, i.e., what is the false positive and false negative rate? Have any such rates been determined? How would you determine that?
I'm not suggesting we shouldn't take precautionary measures.
Nor do we have the right to disobey the authorities, something that may become frighteningly clear as time goes on because you won't have the right to argue with orders or instructions if they are handed down from on high.
By all means, do what you need to do. But pay attention to what's going on and do some reading on the subject! You might be surprised what you learn.
While dialog is still possible, remember that Wuhan China where the outbreak originated has air pollution levels from their coal fired power plants that would quickly shut down a city here in the US. Schools would close and children and the elderly would be told to remain indoors. Temporary shutdowns like this happened here in the US all the time until the Clean Air Act had a chance to take effect. Excessively high pollution levels in Whuan are virtually permanent. Ask yourself this question: What is it about inhaling sulpheric acid droplets into the lungs, do you think, that might exacerbate a viral respiratory tract infection and contribute to its spread? Combined with that, how much do you think smoking two to three packs of cigarettes a day as many men do in China might contribute to the problem? Added to these two factors, does anybody know the biological effect on the immune system of massive 5G deployment in Wuhan? Answer. Nope. The public health situation in other hard hit countries may not be as bad as it is in China where people eat feral bats for dinner (thought by some scientists to be the animal source of the virus). But the public health establishments in these other countries are not good either, and this may strongly contribute to the problems there.
My last comment to give people something to think about (while commenting is still allowed) is this: The Grand Princess cruise ship that recently docked in Oakland, California, reportedly had 3,500 passengers and crew on board. Out of these 3,500 people, 46 of them were "tested" for Coronavirus, indicating that these 46 people were sick. We (presently) have the right to ask just how unusual is it for 46 out of 3,500 people on a cruise ship to be sick"? The tests reveal that 21 of the people had a viral infection suggestive of Coronavirus. See above regarding these "tests".