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.
Density DOES matter, you just chose 2 opposite extremes and went "THAT proves my point!". Studies should work on the average for any area, not the far sides of any situation.
I'm not saying everything in the study is wrong, I'm just seeing some heavily skewed data being pushed in one direction. Anyway, it's a working paper no matter what title they put on it.
I've repeatedly explained the problem with density excuses over the past 1.5 years with regards to Covid.
The issue is that most of the people in the US have no real idea how rural states operate and function.
1: Two identical cities of 100,000 people, now add 2,000 square miles of farm land to one of those cities. Did it suddenly lower the covid risk for one versus the other?
2: People in more rural areas GATHER together at resource centers like grocery stores, churches, walmarts and so forth just like people in urban areas, they just have to drive a bit to get there. Kinda negates the whole concept that population density keeps them *safe* when they have to go through many of the same interactions everyone has.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
The WSJ wouldn’t have used the NBER if it didn’t agree with their methods and conclusion.
When it comes to crunching large numbers and extracting relationships, few disciplines are better than economists (some kinds of physicists maybe the other).
When it comes to understanding what to focus from a public health standpoint, they consulted an epidemiologist.
One of the thing that was always messed up with this pandemic is we put public health bureaucrats in charge (not even epidemiologists) on the task force with no room for economists and others. A solution like lockdowns and school closures have wide ranging effects.
Ah you're right, that would be a typo! Happens all the time. Does not distract from the study.
No- it doesn't change the study but the umbrage that was taken here, really made me laugh. People were so upset at what they perceived as a negative comment about the study and covid mortality, that they failed to read either the study or the comment carefully.
I find the entire exchange of non-ideas so funny - I'm still laughing.
However, I think that morality should have been included.
1. Is it moral to shut down businesses that are the results of a lifetime of work?
OTOH, 2. Is it moral to expose strangers to possible contagion?
3. Is it moral to keep children from the learning environments they need?
OTOH, 4. Is it moral to force children into potentially dangerous environments?
No- it doesn't change the study but the umbrage that was taken here, really made me laugh. People were so upset at what they perceived as a negative comment about the study and covid mortality, that they failed to read either the study or the comment carefully.
I find the entire exchange of non-ideas so funny - I'm still laughing.
However, I think that morality should have been included.
1. Is it moral to shut down businesses that are the results of a lifetime of work?
OTOH, 2. Is it moral to expose strangers to possible contagion?
3. Is it moral to keep children from the learning environments they need?
OTOH, 4. Is it moral to force children into potentially dangerous environments?
I had to re-read it 2 times to spot they said morality. I read it as they intended - mortality.
1. No it's not moral.
2. Strangers can make their own risk calculations.
3. No.
4. Children are not at risk from this virus. The death rate from COVID in children is statistical noise.
Everything is a trade-off. I can indulge in more delicious deserts, at the cost of gaining fat or having to exercise frenetically to burn the calories; or I can pursue a trim figure, eschewing the desert. But sometimes just a little bit going easy on the desert, results in lots of health benefits… and other times, despite eating mounds of chocolate, the weight-gain is only moderate.
The most unfortunate scenario is when we try hard, give up a lot, and nevertheless get mediocre outcomes. We sustained the pain, but didn’t garner the gain. This seems to the evidence with Covid. Look for example at Hong Kong, with their aggressive (to put it mildly) anti-Covid sacrifices… and the eventual result.
Returning to my analogy, my conclusion would be, that if I’m destined to get fat anyway, might as well indulge in the deliciousness of desert.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl_G
This may artificially skew Flordia's numbers then. Florida had no mandated lockdown but due to many of our elderly living in concentrated areas those communities and places sort of Self-imposed a lockdown.
Might one not argue, that such a targeted set of measures is precisely the most sensible compromise, between public health and individual liberty? In other words, it would appear that Florida, far from being a head-in-the-sand know-nothing rejector of both compassion and wisdom, was actually the reverse?
Can confirm, NJ Governor directly is responsible for much of the early on deaths.
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.
Ranking States at Handling Covid, Utah #1, New Jersey #50
