Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Someday, ya all will be old, God willing. I am a little peeved at how the elderly are being represented. (Guess, cause I am there, now.) Our governor said (we are like Russian roulette and we need to stay home.) I am not a happy camper, at the moment. Maybe, we should get out there and protest. It has not been easy at times, to get to this age.
What really bugs me is the price of nursing/assisted living and this is how people are treated? Lots of mud to sling around, with this virus.
If it was all due to population, then why is California doing relatively well? And wtf is up with Vermont? There is not even a real city there.
Idaho is also higher than I'd expect.
Exclude New York metro and Long Island from the numbers and the United States is not even in the Top Ten for Coronavirus deaths or incidents per million among world countries. Here's the number of cases per capita (per million) as of April 18, from Center for Systems Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University:
Spain (4,100.67)
Belgium (3,208.30)
Switzerland (3,166.40)
Italy (2,851.95)
Ireland (2,831.23)
France (2,284.94)
United States (2,135.43)
Portugal (1,930.52)
Netherlands (1,853.88)
United Kingdom (1,698.42)
Now. Take New York out of the mix.
Downstate New York (16,230.65)
Spain (4,100.67)
Belgium (3,208.30)
Switzerland (3,166.40)
Italy (2,851.95)
Ireland (2,831.23)
France (2,284.94)
Portugal (1,930.52)
Netherlands (1,853.88)
United Kingdom (1,698.42)
The United States outside of Downstate New York comes in at #13.
Now, let's look at the fatality rate per capita per million:
Belgium (470.51)
Spain (428.68)
Italy (376.19)
France (286.53)
United Kingdom (228.28)
Netherlands (210.86)
Switzerland (155.29)
United States (112.04)
Ireland (107.34)
Portugal (67.37)
Now, let's separate New York and environs from the equation once again.
Downstate New York (848.45)
Belgium (470.51)
Spain (428.68)
Italy (376.19)
France (286.53)
United Kingdom (228.28)
Netherlands (210.86)
Switzerland (155.29)
Sweden (149.61)
Ireland (107.34)
The US outside of New York comes in at #11. But that also doesn't take into account countries that either didn't accurately report or outright downplayed their numbers (China and Iran as two examples).
All of this makes complete sense. Not only is New York incredibly dense in terms of population, but it is also home to three international airports. So given the slow manifestation of the disease and short of barring all international flights by the beginning of February, it likely never had a chance.
None of this is to say that New York is the problem and the rest of the country is safe. But it serves to underscore how population density is an enormous factor in the spread of the disease.
New York is not the rest of the country. Should states with far less dense populations need to undertake the same rigorous measures as those places where infection rates are stratospheric? I don't think so. Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach regardless of population density and overall rates of infection, public education and reasonable precautions in those locations will likely be sufficient to prevent the spread.
Last edited by MinivanDriver; 04-21-2020 at 07:02 AM..
If the number of new cases falls week by week one has to determine why. Is it the virus just simply slowing or was it social distancing that’s now about to lift? Again sensationalism is your opinion and no one knows what the numbers will be. What’s silly is the folks whom simply say oh it’s like the common flu.
No. Sensationalism is saying the current weekly death count will remain the same for the next 52 weeks. None of the other countries who are a few weeks or more ahead of our time line have that happening. So you have nothing beyond trying to sensationalize the numbers as rationale for doing that. Why would you think that would be the case here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations
Social distancing helped no matter how it’s sliced. Without it there would be more deaths without question and so again back to projections, how do you project future mortality of a virus when you shut everything down and are about to reopen? You don’t know, I don’t know but calling something sensationalism just because you don’t agree is lazy at best. More than 40,000 deaths in 7 weeks time within the US with extraordinary measures nearly country wide to distance ourselves from one another and shut damn near everything down is worthy of being worrisome
Lazy? Don't even know what is suppose to mean. Yes we have a 7 week time line with 40K deaths. But if we do not have 7 weeks of shut down. Its about 4 weeks. And about 10 days where the new cases have leveled off. So just taking 40k deaths over 7 weeks and multiplying it over a 52 weeks is lazy math. There are other variables to consider. I think we should get away from using the biggest possible numbers just to scare people.
No. Sensationalism is saying the current weekly death count will remain the same for the next 52 weeks.
I never did say it would say the same
Quote:
None of the other countries who are a few weeks or more ahead of our time line have that happening. So you have nothing beyond trying to sensationalize the numbers as rationale for doing that. Why would you think that would be the case here?
Never did I say I thought the death rate would stay the same.
Quote:
Lazy? Don't even know what is suppose to mean. Yes we have a 7 week time line with 40K deaths. But if we do not have 7 weeks of shut down. Its about 4 weeks. And about 10 days where the new cases have leveled off. So just taking 40k deaths over 7 weeks and multiplying it over a 52 weeks is lazy math. There are other variables to consider. I think we should get away from using the biggest possible numbers just to scare people.
Lazy as in not having a worthwhile discussion. Are you saying without a shutdown people would have only died in the US for 4 weeks? How many deaths do you project would have occurred during these magic 4 weeks without a shutdown?
There are plenty of people downplaying there virus and the deaths and annualizing the 7 week figures is not lazy at all but rather simply using the only data we have. You are correct there are other variables but the fact is we don’t know the impacts.
Never did I say I thought the death rate would stay the same.
Your math simply extended what has happened in 7 weeks and extending the same numbers for a year. So by doing the math you are saying it is possible. Although all the evidence so far from this virus and past pandemics indicates that it won't stay the same for a year. You are even walking back your numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations
Lazy as in not having a worthwhile discussion. Are you saying without a shutdown people would have only died in the US for 4 weeks? How many deaths do you project would have occurred during these magic 4 weeks without a shutdown?
If you look at states who did not shut down and compare them to similar states who did that will give you some idea. Social distancing and other personal hygiene measures do help greatly. All states have been doing that. The question is does shutting entire states down decrease deaths more than just social distancing and optional shutdowns by individual areas within a state? There is nothing definitive that says yes. Only guarantee is the economy is ruined. That is the reason I created this topic. The red states that decided against a statewide lock down were blasted by the media and others as dangerous, wreckless and almost guaranteeing higher death and case numbers than other states. And that has failed to transpire.
I am fine with states suggesting businesses and people to use caution but I have an issue with threatening and incarcerating people for not following orders unless a particular hot spot emergency occurs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations
There are plenty of people downplaying there virus and the deaths and annualizing the 7 week figures is not lazy at all but rather simply using the only data we have. You are correct there are other variables but the fact is we don’t know the impacts.
Then do the math for 10 years, why stop at one? If the whole point is to come up with a very large number? You cannot prove that the virus will end in 10 years. You see my point? Just scaring people to be scaring people does no good at all.
Last edited by Oklazona Bound; 04-21-2020 at 08:27 AM..
Your math simply extended what has happened in 7 weeks and extending the same numbers for a year. So by doing the math you are saying it is possible. Although all the evidence so far from this virus and past pandemics indicates that it won't stay the same for a year. You are even walking back your numbers.
I never said the death rate said the same. I also didn’t walk back any numbers
Quote:
If you look at states who did not shut down and compare them to similar states who did that will give you some idea. Social distancing and other personal hygiene measures do help greatly. All states have been doing that. The question is does shutting entire states down decrease deaths more than just social distancing and optional shutdowns by individual areas within a state? There is nothing definitive that says yes. Only guarantee is the economy is ruined. That is the reason I created this topic. The red states that decided against a statewide lock down were blasted by the media and others as dangerous, wreckless and almost guaranteeing higher death and case numbers than other states. And that has failed to transpire.
Without a doubt shutting down contributed a lot to the amount of social distancing. To think otherwise is foolish imo. Basic common sense would say if everyone or most were still going into work the amount of human to human contact would be higher
Quote:
Then do the math for 10 years, why stop at one? If the whole point is to come up with a very large number? You cannot prove that the virus will end in 10 years. You see my point? Just scaring people to be scaring people does no good at all.
3mm would be the 10 year carried number. It’s not invalid data just because you don’t like it. Who was scared by my post? No one, talk about sensationalism
Original post is trying to compare data on a timeline that's inconsistent across states. States that locked down later led the job losses later. The interesting fact is that Georgia was one of the last to lockdown but it's no. 5 overall in job losses. It has more to do as to where the economic hubs reside since Atlanta is a major hub nationally and in the Southeast.
I never said the death rate said the same. I also didn’t walk back any numbers
You posted the numbers but would not take responsibility for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations
Without a doubt shutting down contributed a lot to the amount of social distancing. To think otherwise is foolish imo. Basic common sense would say if everyone or most were still going into work the amount of human to human contact would be higher
Social distancing helped. As did not allowing large gatherings. Did not allowing someone to go to work who would have followed social distancing just because whatever industry they were in is not deemed essential save lots of lives? There are doubts about that. That is part of why I started this thread. The numbers indicate there are other factors more important. Like dense populations or high risk people. There is nothing to say that low risk people in lightly populated areas who do proper social distancing add much to the numbers. However in banning economic activity, the economic damage is 100% certain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations
3mm would be the 10 year carried number. It’s not invalid data just because you don’t like it. Who was scared by my post? No one, talk about sensationalism
You contribute to the chatter, the white noise of negativity. I did not say you were successful at scaring anyone, only you attempted to do so. There are lots of people reading this sort of thing that are unstable, depressed, mentally ill. It does not take much to push them over the edge. This sort of sensationalism can cause deaths. One needs to choose their words responsibly.
So, in what universe do the words "possible" and "could" mean absolute?
I showed the predictions have been revised downward. Who said absolute?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
