#covid 19 case

[halorvic]

Futurama S11E07

[cb-writes-stuff]

Hey guys?

What are we gonna do when our kids get homework about COVID in their History classes to interview us about it?

[goodbuttaken]

stranou pozornosti měl dneska narozky tenhle krasavec.

už je mu pět! 🥳

[neverenoughmarauders]

In the summer of 2023 I was hiking in the mountains of Scotland and Norway.

In the summer of 2024 I found myself in a wheelchair because I cannot travel without airport assistance.

I no longer work. Or leave the house (except for doctor's appointments). Or watch a movie in one sitting.

I hardly ever see my friends or family, and never for long.

COVID is not just a cold. COVID is not just a flu.

The risk of getting long COVID is cumulative.

[nando161mando]

Many such cases :(

[mixelation]

Once again I am Posting to give you all a friendly reminder that most popular Covid-19 posts on this site contain some level of misinfo. Common types of misinfo include:

"heard from a friend of a friend" medical advice, including "twitter thread of things a nurse told me" or "opinion of a random unverified doctor on social media"-- NEVER follow this type of health advice without checking with proper sources first

anecdotal data provided as fact

misunderstandings or misrepresentations of what disease agencies like the CDC are doing, should be doing, or what it would even be possible for them to do

assigning numbers and statistics to things OP just made up. this ranges from saying something like "only 2% of people mask" to mean "anecdotally i see only a very small number of people masking in my community"* but the actual number is misleading to seem to seem like a real statistic.... leading all the way to people just making numbers up

overly dramatic language**

assigning moral values to things which have no moral weight (e.g., "I haven't gotten covid because I'm a good person who....")

misrepresenting the conclusions of current research. this one is tricky because you'd think linking a study in a high-tier medical journal would be a good source, but I frequently see the following mistakes: overly definitive language, including asserting causation when causation has not been established, or claiming a single study definitively has definitely proven something; not understanding appropriate extrapolations from a study's design (something that happens to cell in a petri dish is NOT definitive of what happens in a body); incorrect biological conclusions/assumptions, or else oversimplification that loses nuance; cherrypicking studies. Remember that Covid-19 is still a very new disease and the research is still evolving. A study that seems extremely important in one year might turn out to be bunk later, not because the study was poorly designed, but because we were missing key info. There is a lot we simply do not know and cannot know and we need to careful of our language when reporting on it.

just straight up made-up facts

Please keep this in mind if you choose to interact with a covid-19 post. Remember to click through on any sources to verify them, to be wary of a lack of verifiable information, and that a post making you feel overly emotional is a sign to double-check the facts and message.

*Clarification: assigning an estimated number to things you see is an innocent rhetorical device in terms of informal communication, which is what tumblr is for. I say things like this in casual conversation too. It only becomes an issue when whatever post is mass reblogged. I'm not saying don't post like this..... I'm saying know to recognize this in things you choose to interact with.

**Again, emotive language is fine for blogging. It's a natural part of human communication, and I do it too. I'm not criticizing that. I'm warning you to be aware of it as a potentially misleading rhetorical device before you hit reblog.

[motsimages]

I was doing ok and a conversation with my mother left me full of anxiety. She knows I'm worried about covid, and I feel like I am the only one in all of my social circle who is worried about this and trying to do something (and I think it's the bare minimum really, masking when there is a lot of people or in closed spaces).

She told me she is sick, I told her to get a covid test. She said "well, if it's covid, bad luck". I told her that covid is supercontagious for days and that it creates inmunodeficiency for months, so that is the interest of knowing if it's covid. She still didn't care.

We were planning on eating at her place and now I don't want to because I will have to go with a mask just in case she had covid and she doesn't know.

So it's really that people do not give a shit. I understand the trauma of the pandemic and not wanting to think about it but I really can't grasp how you can just tell a person who you know is worried about covid, who has been telling you that there is a pike in covid cases, that you don't fucking care if you have covid and that you don't want to test, not even for their sake.

[nancykhemchandani]

Latest COVID-19 Developments: India's JN-1 Variant Insights

Explore insights into COVID-19, rising cases in India, and the JN-1 variant. Stay informed on preventive measures and vaccination for a healthier future.

[wendytestabrat]

tonsil trouble scene by scene rant (FROM THE VAULT [2020])

me in 2020: yeah cartman prob shouldn’t have given kyle aids

me now: fuck kyle he deserved to get infected with aids

[wowbright]

Because I keep seeing people mention how it's important to get COVID vaccination because it lessens the severity of infections, a reminder: it also prevents infections. Not 100% of them. But vaccination makes you less likely to get infected, particularly with the strain you were vaccinated for. So, when you get the newest COVID vaccination, it's really good at preventing infection with the XBB.1.5 Omicron subvariant, and almost as good at preventing infection with closely related strains. It becomes less effective at prevention the more a strain differs from XBB.1.5, but can still reduce the rate of infection, and it's still good at lessening the severity of disease.

So, if you get vaccinated, you are less likely to get infected with COVID-19. That's prevention!

[halorvic]

[existential-squid]

Bad news: I am Diseased.

Good news: The coughing is giving me chiseled abs.

[follow-up-news]

One of five people charged with attempting to bribe a Minnesota juror with a bag of $120,000 in cash in exchange for an acquittal in a fraud case pleaded guilty in federal court Tuesday. Abdimajid Mohamed Nur, 23, pleaded guilty to one count of bribery of a juror, admitting that he recruited a woman to offer the juror money as part of an elaborate scheme that officials said threatened foundational aspects of the judicial system. Four other defendants charged in the bribery scheme have pleaded not guilty. The bribe attempt surrounded the trial of seven defendants in one of the country’s largest COVID-19-related fraud cases. The defendants were accused of coordinating to steal more than $40 million from a federal program that was supposed to feed children during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nur is one of five people who were convicted in the initial fraud case. More than $250 million in federal funds were taken overall in the scheme, and only about $50 million has been recovered, authorities say.

[sage-nebula]

I've decided to make my own post because I am not an idiot, but full disclosure that this post is 50% based on thoughts I was having while I was driving home from the auto repair shop yesterday and 50% a response to a post I saw just now that conflated "redemption arcs" (things fictional characters go through in fictional stories) with "community support" (things real life people offer to other real life people in real life) and how this relates to "fixing people" (making someone who mistreats or abuses themself or others not mistreat or abuse themself or others anymore).

Read my words very carefully.

In fiction, it is more than okay to like whatever type of toxic or fantastical relationship you want. If you like to read stories about toxic, codependent people who are absolutely horrible to one another and will never, ever change, you read those stories. If you like to read stories about a tortured man who just needs The Right Person to teach him to be better, and then he is, sometimes exclusively only to them though, then you read those stories. Sometimes you want to read stories where the main character says "I can fix him" and fails spectacularly, and sometimes you want to read stories where the main character says "I can fix him" and succeeds spectacularly, and either way, you read whatever stories you want, whatever makes you happy, I'm sure it's somewhere in this vast Archive that we call Our Own.

However, in real life?

First of all, "arcs" aren't things real life people have. An arc is something that has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Real life people don't have those, because our stories don't end until we die. Unlike a character, whose life presumably continues even after their story ends (except in circumstances where they die at the end but you know what I mean), we have to keep living day by day, with all the rises and falls that come with it. Now, this does not mean that a person cannot change, or that a person can't get better and learn from their mistakes; but it DOES mean that we can't have a "redemption arc" where we complete a checklist of story beats and then suddenly we're a better person who has experienced the necessary growth to be forgiven. First off, no amount of growth or change ever requires any victims to forgive. And second, that's just not how life works. That's not how change works. Change and growth are baby steps taken each day, and sometimes you go backwards, and you get angry with yourself, but then you pick yourself up and you try again the next day, and the next, and the next. It's an ongoing journey that does not end until you die. That's life.

But second and more importantly, the real idea that I think the original post was trying to get at, but missing the mark on was . . . okay.

So, the original OP of the post (and the person who replied to OP) got angry at the idea that the strawman they had invented (the person who had theoretically said "you can't fix him!") would deny support to someone who needs that help to grow and change as a person. The person who had replied in support of OP added that the strawman clearly believed in punitive justice over rehabilitative justice as well. On the surface, I can see where they are coming from. After all, on the whole humans are a social species and do need support networks in order to not only thrive, but survive. People such as drug addicts need support and assistance in order to get into better places in their lives, and the prison system has been proven to be far less effective at preventing repeated offenses than rehabilitative programs. This is all true.

However.

The reason why "you can't fix them" is still true, and needs to be said and understood particularly by those who are susceptible to falling into abusive relationships (e.g. people who have been abused before, particularly in childhood or adolescence) is because of free will. Specifically, the free will that each of us has, but specifically the other person. Person A can want so, so, so badly to "fix" Person B so that they stop being an abusive alcoholic 75% of the time. But if Person B doesn't actually want to stop being an abusive alcoholic (even if they say they do during the 25% of the time they aren't smacking Person A around), and refuses to put in the work that it takes to become sober and be a better person, then guess what? Nothing Person A does will ever make them be a sober, non-abusive partner. They will be unable to fix Person B. It doesn't matter how much time, energy, money, or commitment they pour into that person. It doesn't matter how much they genuinely, honestly, earnestly love them. Because unless Person B wants to change, and will put the work into doing so, then they will not change, and Person A, for their own health, safety, and sanity, needs to exit that relationship.

Now, does that mean that if, ten years down the line, Person B decides they are ready to put in the work to get their alcoholism under control, no one should help them? Of course not! They should absolutely be put in touch with sober counselors, support groups, medical professionals, friends and family who can help them. Person A could potentially forgive them, if Person A chooses. But that willingness to change and put in the work has to come from within Person B first.

I've been in the position where I've seen people in awful situations just tanking their lives, people I loved and cared about, people I begged to just listen to me and get help, only for them to not . . . and ultimately I had to accept that I couldn't fix them. I could be there to offer support when they were ready to fix themselves, but the core work that needed to be done had to come from within themselves. I couldn't provide that. Not because I was inadequate, not because I didn't love them, but because I couldn't force them to do anything they didn't want, or weren't ready, to do.

So at the end of the day, "you can't fix them" isn't about not giving support. It's about recognizing your limitations as a human being. It's about knowing that:

You cannot force someone to do something they do not want to do.

You cannot force someone to do something they are not ready to do.

Not being able to help or save someone is not a moral failing of yours.

Not being able to help or save someone does not mean you do not love or care about them.

Providing support should never come at risk of your own health and safety, physical or otherwise.

When you love someone, it can be really hard to accept this. You think, "I know I can make them want to try. I know I can inspire them to want to change. I know they love me, so if I just love them a little harder, they will want to change." Nine times out of ten, though, that is just not true. And if someone is abusing you, it is not worth the literal risk to your life to keep trying. You are worth more than that. You are more than just someone else's band-aid.

Keep yourselves safe in 2024.

[tomorrowusa]

Fact checking Donald Trump is a full time, even overtime job. He told over 30,000 lies just during his term.

The problem with live news coverage of Trump is that he gets to spew lies and that the factchecking has to wait until he shuts his porcine mouth or producers cut him off.

Low information voters are therefore likely to hear Trump's semi-coherent rants but miss any attempts to call out his lies.

Having said that, MSNBC on Super Tuesday night did a decent attempt at countering a few of Trump's main lies.

Joy Reid is pointing something out that Democrats need to do much more. Trump TOTALLY botched the US pandemic response right from the start. A reminder of what Trump said at CNBC on 22 January 2020 – the day the first COVID-19 case appeared in the US.

Of course it wasn't just fine under Trump.

The Obama administration, which limited the 2014-2016 Ebola pandemic in the US to under a dozen cases, had put together a pandemic playbook. You can read it here. Trump totally ignored it. He spent 50 days after the first US COVID case doing typically idiotic Trump stuff like criticizing 2020 Oscar Best Picture winner Parasites. And afterwards he became preoccupied with quack cures for COVID as it spread throughout the US.

People who claim they had it better under Trump are hoping that the memories of voters are as impaired as Trump's cognition.

We need to be prepared to offer clear fact checks to anybody hearing Trump's lies. Of course convincing MAGA zombies is a waste of time. But when around low information voters who may not be part of the Trump cult we need to be able to offer convincing short refutations. Pointing out that Trump did nothing for the first 50 days of COVID in the US is a good start. So speak up!

Trump's lack of a competent COVID response led to a cascade of acute economic problems which took several years to sort out.

[jcsmicasereports]

Trends in incidence of COVID 19 based on performed Rapid Antigen Test by Piratheep kumar.R in Journal of Clinical Case Reports Medical Images and Health Sciences

Abstract

The COVID 19 outbreak represents a historically unprecedented pandemic, particularly dangerous and potentially lethal for elderly population. The biological differences in the immune systems between men and women exist which may impact our ability to fight an infection including SARS-2-CoV-2. Men tended to develop more symptomatic and serious disease than women, according to the clinical classification of severity. Age-related changes in the immune system are also different between sexes and there is a marked association between morbidity/mortality and advanced age in COVID-19. This is a single-center, retrospective, data oriented study performed at the private hospital, in Central Province, Sri Lanka. The data of the patients who performed the Rapid Antigen Test (RAT) to know whether they have infected by SARS-CoV-2 or not, were taken for analysis. Test performed date, age, sex, number of positive and negative cases, number of male and female patients were extracted. Finally the data were analyzed in simple statistical method according to the objective of the study. Totally 642 patients performed RAT within the period of one month from 11.08.2021 to 11.09.2021. Among them 426 (66.35%) are male and 216 (33.64%) are female. 20.4% (n=131) of male obtained positive result among the total male population (n=426). Likewise 11.4% (n=73) of female obtained positive result among the total male population (n=216).  Large number of positive cases was observed (34.89%) between the age group of 31-40 years in both sexes. The age group of 21-30 and 41-50 years also were shared the almost same percentage (17.13% & 17.75). The large number of positive male patients observed among the age group of 41-50 years. Almost same number of patients was observed in the age group of 21-30 and 31-40. The least number of positive cases (0.7% and 0.9%) observed almost in 0-10 and 81-90 years. When considering the females, large number of positive female patients observed among the age group of 31-40 years.

Key words: Rapid Antigen Test, Covid-19, SARS-CoV-2

Introduction

A rapid antigen test (RAT) or rapid antigen detection test (RADT), is a rapid diagnostic test suitable for point-of-care testing that directly detects the presence of an antigen. It is used to detect SARS-CoV-2 that cause COVID-19. This test is one of the type of lateral flow tests that detect protein, differentiate it from other medical tests such as antibody tests or nucleic acid tests, of either laboratory or point-of-care types. Generally 5 to 30 minutes only will take to get result and, require minimal training or infrastructure, and cost effective (1).

Sri Lanka was extremely vulnerable to the spread of COVID-19 because of its thriving tourism industry and large expatriate population. Sri Lanka almost managed two waves of Covid-19 pandemic well, but has been facing difficulties to control the third wave. The Sri Lankan government has executed stern actions to control the disease including island-wide travel restrictions. The government has been working with its development partners to take necessary action to mobilize resources to respond to the health and economic challenges posed by the pandemic (2) (3).

The COVID 19 outbreak is dangerous and fatal for elderly population. Since the beginning of the actual SARS-CoV-2 outbreak there were an evident that older people were at higher risk to get the infection and develop a more severe with bad prognosis. The mean age of patients that died was 80 years. The majority of those who are infected, that have a self-limiting infection and do recover are younger. On the other hand, those who suffer with more severe disease require intensive care unit admission and finally pass away are older (4).

Sandoval.  M., et al mentioned that the number of patients who are affected by SARS-CoV-2 with more than 80 years of age is similar to that with 65–79 years. The mortality rate in very elderly was 37.5% and this percentage was significantly higher compared to that observed in elderly. Further their findings were suggested that the age is a fundamental risk factor for mortality (5).

Since February 2020, more than 27.7 million people in US have been diagnosed with Covid-19 (6). Rates of COVID-19 deaths have increased across the Southern US, among the Hispanic population, and among adults aged 25–44 years (7). Young adults are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 because of exposure in work, academic, and social settings. According to the several database of different health organizations young adult, aged 18-29, were confirmed Coid-19 (9).

Go to:Amid of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic, much emphasis was initially placed on the elderly or those who have preexisting health conditions such as obesity, hypertension, and diabetes as being at high risk of contracting and/or dying of Covid-19. But it is now becoming clear that being male is also a factor. The epidemiological findings reported across different parts of the world indicated higher morbidity and mortality in males than females. While it is still too early to determine why the gender gap is emerging, this article point to several possible factors such as higher expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE 2; receptors for coronavirus) in male than female, sex-based immunological differences driven by sex hormone and X chromosome. Furthermore, a large part of this difference in number of deaths is caused by gender behavior (lifestyle), i.e., higher levels of smoking and drinking among men compared to women. Lastly, studies reported that women had more responsible attitude toward the Covid-19 pandemic than men. Irresponsible attitude among men reversibly affect their undertaking of preventive measures such as frequent handwashing, wearing of face mask, and stay at home orders.

The latest immunological study on the receptors for SARS-CoV-2 suggest that ACE2 receptors are responsible for SARS-CoV-2. According to the study by Lu and colleagues there are positive correlation of ACE2 expression and the infection of SARS-CoV (10). Based on the positive correlation between ACE 2 and coronavirus, different studies quantified the expression of ACE 2 proteins in human cells based on gender ethnicity and a study on the expression level and pattern of human ACE 2 using a single-cell RNA-sequencing analysis indicated that Asian males had higher expression of ACE 2 than female (11). Conversely, in establishing the expression of ACE 2 in the primary affected organ, a study conducted in Chinese population found that expression of ACE 2 in human lungs was extremely expressed in Asian male than female (12).

A study by Karnam and colleagues reveled that CD200-CD200R and sex are host factors that together determine the outcome of viral infection. Further a review on association between sex differences in immune responses stated that sex-based immunological differences contribute to variations in the susceptibility to infectious diseases and responses to vaccines in males and females (13). The concept of sex-based immunological differences driven by sex hormone and X chromosome has been well demonstrated via the animal study by Elgendy et al (14) (35). They were concluded the study that estrogen played big role in blocking some viral infection.

The biological differences in the immune systems between men and women may cause impact on fight for infection. Females are more resistant to infections than men and which mediated by certain factors including sex hormones. Further, women have more responsible attitude toward the Covid-19 pandemic than men such as frequent hand washing, wearing of face mask, and stay at home (15).

Most of the studies with Covid-19 patients indicate that males are mostly (more than 50%) affected than females (16) (17) (18). Although the deceased patients were significantly older than the patients who survived COVID-19, ages were comparable between males and females in both the deceased and the patients who survived (18).

A report in The Lancet and Global Health 5050 summary showed that sex-disaggregated data are essential to understanding the distribution of risk, infection and disease in the population, and the extent to which sex and gender affect clinical outcomes (19). The degree of outbreaks which affect men and women in different ways is an important to design the effective equitable policies and interventions (20). A systematic review and meta-analysis conducted to assess the sex difference in acquiring COVID-19 with 57 studies that revealed that the pooled prevalence of COVID-19 confirmed cases among men and women was 55% and 45% respectively (21). A study in Ontario, Canada showed that men were more likely to test positive (22) (23). In Pakistan 72% of COVID-19 cases were male (24). Moreover, the Global Health 5050 data showed that the number of COVID-19 confirmed cases and the death rate due to the disease are high among men in different countries. This might be because behavioral factors and roles which increase the risk of acquiring COVID-19 for men than women. (25) (26) (27).

Men mostly involved in several activities such as alcohol consumption, being involved in key activities during burial rites, and working in basic sectors and occupations that require them to continue being active, to work outside their homes and to interact with other people even during the containment phase. Therefore, men have increased level of exposure and high risk of getting COVID-19 (28) (29) (30).

Men tended to develop more symptomatic and serious disease than women, according to the clinical classification of severity (31). The same incidence also noticed during the previous coronavirus epidemics. Biological sex variation is said to be one of the reasons for the sex discrepancy in COVID-19 cases, severity and mortality (32) (33). Women are in general able to stand a strong immune response to infections and vaccinations (34).

The X chromosome is known to contain the largest number of immune-related genes in the whole genome. With their XX chromosome, women have a double copy of key immune genes compared with a single copy in XY in men. This showed that the reaction against infection would be contain both innate and adaptive immune response. Therefore the immune systems of females are generally more responsive than females and it indirectly reflects that women are able to challenge the coronavirus more effectively but this has not been proven (32).

Sex differences in the prevalence and outcomes of infectious diseases occur at all ages, with an overall higher burden of bacterial, viral, fungal and parasitic infections in human males (36) (37) (38) (39). The Hong Kong SARS-CoV-1 epidemic showed an age-adjusted relative mortality risk ratio of 1.62 (95% CI = 1.21, 2.16) for males (40). During the same outbreak in Singapore, male sex was associated with an odds ratio of 3.10 (95% CI = 1.64, 5.87; p ≤ 0.001) for ITU admission or death (41). The Saudi Arabian MERS outbreak in 2013 - 2014 exhibited a case fatality rate of 52% in men and 23% in women (42). Sex differences in both the innate and adaptive immune system have been previously reported and may account for the female advantage in COVID-19. Within the adaptive immune system, females have higher numbers of CD4+ T (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) cells, more robust CD8+ T cell cytotoxic activity (49), and increased B cell production of immunoglobulin compared to males (43) (50). Female B cells also produce more antigen-specific IgG in response to TIV (51).

Age-related changes in the immune system are also different between sexes and there is a marked association between morbidity/mortality and advanced age in COVID-19 (52). For example, males show an age-related decline in B cells and a trend towards accelerated immune ageing. This may further contribute to the sex bias seen in COVID-19 (53).

Hence, this single center, retrospective, data oriented study performed to identify the gender age influences the RAT results and the rate of positive cases before and after the lockdown.

Methodology

This is a single-center, retrospective, data oriented study performed at the private hospital, Central Province, Sri Lanka. The data of the patients who performed the Rapid Antigen Test (RAT) from 11.08.2021to 11.0.2021 to know whether they have infected by SARS-CoV-2 or not, were taken for analysis. The authors developed a data extraction form on an Excel sheet and the following data from main data sheet. Test performed date, age, sex, number of positive and negative cases, number of female patients and number of male patients were extracted. Mistyping of data was resolved by crosschecking. Finally the data were analyzed in simple statistical method according to the objective of the study.

Results and discussion

Totally 642 patients performed RAT within the period of one month from 11.08.2021 to 11.09.2021. Among them 426 (66.35%) are male and 216 (33.64%) are female. Men mostly involved in several activities such as alcohol consumption, being involved in key activities during burial rites, and working in basic sectors and occupations that require them to continue being active, to work outside their homes and to interact with other people even during the containment phase. Therefore, men have increased level of exposure and high risk of getting COVID-19 (28) (29) (30). The present data descriptive study also were supported certain previous research findings.

The number of male patients got positive result in RAT among the total male patients who performed RAT on every day. According to that, 20.4% (n=131) of male obtained positive result among the total male population (n=426). Philip Goulder, professor of immunology at the University of Oxford stated that women’s immune response to the virus is stronger since they have two X chromosomes which is important when talk about the immune response against SARS-Cov-2. Because the protein by which viruses such as coronavirus are detected is fixed on the X chromosome. This is exactly looks like females have double protection compare to male. The present study also showed that large number of RAT positive cases were observed in males compare to females. Gender based lifestyle would have been another possibility for large number of males got positive in RATs. There are important behavioral differences between the sexes according to certain previous research findings (54).

Shows that the number of female patients got positive result in RAT among the total female patients who performed RAT on every day. According to that, 11.4% (n=73) of female obtained positive result among the total male population (n=216).

The relations between the number of positive cases before and after the lockdown. The lockdown declared by the tenth day from the initial day when the data was taken for analysis. The red vertical line differentiates the period as two such as before and after the lockdown. Though there was no decline observed as soon as immediately considerable decline was observed after the 21 days of onset of lockdown. Staying at home, avoiding physical contacts, and avoiding exposure in crowded areas are the best way to prevent the spread of Covid – 19 (54). However the significant decline would be able to see after three weeks only from the date of lockdown since the incubation period of SARS-CoV-2 is 14-21 days. The continuous study should be conducted in order to prove it. However the molecular mechanism of COVID-19 transmission pathway from human to human is still not resolved, the common transmission of respiratory diseases is droplet sprinkling. In this type of spreading, a sick person is exposed to this microbe to people around him by coughing or sneezing. Only the way to prevent these kind of respiratory diseases might be prevent the people to make close contact (54) (55). Approximately 214 countries reported the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases (56). Countries including Sri Lanka have taken very serious constraints such as announced vacation for schools, allowed the employers to work from home and etc. to slow down the COVID 19 outbreak. The lockdown days differ by countries. Countries have set the days when the lockdown started and ended according to the COVID-19 effect on their public. Some countries have extended the lockdown by many days due to COVID-19 continues its influence intensely on the public (57) (58).

The incidence of Covid-19 and age group. Accordingly large number was observed (34.89%) between the age group of 31-40 years in both sexes. The age group of 21-30 and 41-50 years also were shared the almost same percentage (17.13% & 17.75). A study provides evidence that the growing COVID-19 epidemics in the US in 2020 have been driven by adults aged 20 to 49 and, in particular, adults aged 35 to 49, before and after school reopening (59). However many researches pointed out that adults over the age of 60 years are more susceptible to infection since their immune system gradually loses its resiliency.

The relations between the positive number of male & female patients and the age group of total patients. According to that the large number of positive male patients observed among the age group of 41-50 years. Almost same number of patients was observed in the age group of 21-30 and 31-40. The least number of positive cases (0.7% and 0.9%) observed almost in 0-10 and 81-90 years. When considering the females, large number of positive female patients observed among the age group of 31-40 years. In USA Ministry of Health has reported 444 921 COVID-19 cases and 15 756 deaths as of August 31. For men, most reported cases were persons aged 30–39 years (22.7%), followed by 20–29 year-olds (20.1%) and 40–49 year-olds (17.1%). Most reported deaths were seniors, especially 70–79 year-olds (29.5%), followed by those aged 80 years and older (29.2%), and 60–69 year-olds (22.8%). Also found a similar pattern for women, except that most deaths were reported among women aged 80 years and older (44.4%) (60).

Conclusion

The present study showed that the male are mostly got positive in RAT test than female. Further comparing the old age young age group in both sexes were noticed as positive in RAT. Moreover there were no relationship observed before and after the lockdown and trend of Covid-19

 The limitations of the study

This study has several limitations.

Only 1 hospital was studied.

More than the absence of specific data on mobility patterns or transportation, detail of recovery, detail of mortality etc.

The COVID-19 pandemic is still ongoing so statistical analysis should continue. There are conflicting statements regarding lockdown by countries on COVID-19.

The effect of the lockdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic on human health may be the subject of future work.