This is pretty obvious: modern conecptions fueled by misrleading WP entries. A death room can mean different things: place where it did happen, where one is transported to where it then will/does happen, and laying in state on display, for a wake etc.

So the function gives a most often temporary designation for a room that's usually called a salon (french,, not 'saloon'), parlour, drawing room, gute stube, gesellschaftszimmer statt sterbezimmer/totenzimmer, etc. The conflation arises out of unfamiliarity of life cycle rites of passage back then (dying and aurevoirs as a public affair) and overstatements or just confabulations by WP-editors? "were corpses are stored", that'll be the morgue then?

@fredsbend There are no correlations indicating a positive aspect as advertised. But there are such that indicate the exact opposite, crucially for the most at risk populations: Relation of severe COVID-19 in Scotland to transmission-related factors 2 and risk conditions eligible for shielding support: REACT-SCOT 3 case-control study

And there again: lowest risk for people with ample contact to kids, teachers with the lowest of all. I'd really like to see a study that brings in small, snotty, playful noses into care homes. Make sure it is not 2019corona, then let them play and enlighten the old'uns. Or just allow the elderly to see their own grandkids. I do not see that as being ethically worse than what happened last year. To the contrary.

Theory, models, decree, and the silencing of dissenters, discarding of established sceince and pandemic planning, resistance to do a proper job: in looking for true prevalence for example, or standardising the testing kits, regimes, strategies. Or eveluating the NPIs, with ample funding of RCTs, where possible.

Nothing of that sort comes forward in meaningful amounts. Instead more GiGo studies, models, meaningless math built on parameters that are known to be flawed, often without any connection to reality.