Its not an outliar. It's quite common.

Which is? To catch the disease while isolated in your home? Or get a positive test result after staying isolated at home?

The latter seems like it would be far more common than the former.

That is an extremely poor and dangerous characterization of this pathology.

I'll quote some people smarter than me.

“In the beginning, our model for understanding this infection was to treat it like another respiratory virus like influenza,” said John Swartzberg, clinical professor emeritus of infectious diseases and vaccinology in the UC Berkeley-UCSF Joint Medical Program. “I think one of the most unfortunate and interesting things about this virus is that its interaction with us is actually far more complicated than that.”

"This virus is unusual and it's hard not to take a step back and not be impressed by how many manifestations it has on the human body" author of https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0968-3

The "majority" (87%) still experience symptoms months later https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768351 including scar tissue on the heart and lungs, blood clots, up to 37% experience acute kidney injury.

Please don't imply that 87% of cases suffer long term effects. This study is limited to COVID patients who experienced acute symptoms, a small subset of all COVID patients.

This is not the flu, but if it sounds too scary to believe, it probably is when it comes to COVID.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "acute symptoms" because that is not a distinction made by the paper. The subjects in the study were simply all cases discharged from the hospital with a negative test, not meeting some acute standard you set. only 12% of them were ever admitted to ICU, for instance.

You are free to infer what you want from the lack of data about the other cases which the paper did not cover, but that is not how i interact with science. A complete lack of data should never be the basis of your hypothesis.