> Well just about none of them are substantiated with any data. You can say things like “people in the US will avoid going to the hospital because of the bill”

> Well just about none of them are substantiated with any data. You can say things like “people in the US will avoid going to the hospital because of the bill” and it sounds right because of our perception of the US health system, but is it really? Do we have actual numbers showing this is actually the case, and if so, how extensive it will be? And do we have reason to believe those numbers will hold in this exceptional circumstance? Yes, when people believe they might have the flu, they could potentially try and wait out going to the doctor. But do we believe that in an environment where we have people so acutely aware of the coronavirus outbreak that they are buying out supplies of masks, posting long twitter screeds on potential doomsday scenarios, and side-eyeing every Asian-American with a cough, that when they start to show symptoms they still are going to get hung up on the cost of a clinic visit? How dense do you have to be to assume that the default answer to pretty much all these questions is "no" or [citation needed]? It's like asking for data to prove the world is round. Sure, in isolation that's a fair enough question, but practically speaking it's idiotic. Lots of people over here would not go to a doctor when they have flu symptoms, even if it's free to do so because we're not retarded, collectively. But if it can cost money it's obvious we'd be even less likely to do so, society and 'Asians' and spread of corona-virus be damned. The common reaction to something uncommon is, well, common. I'd say it's upon the 'commoners' to provide data that this thing that experts say is worrisome is, in fact, not.