People cross borders, but isn't it fascinating how each state manages to map a distinct path. South Dakota has the fewest restrictions but is 10th lowest in deaths/million. California has the strictest restrictions but is pretty much in the middle (23rd). Different places are actually very different and call for different responses.
This is a strength of the Federal system - you can experiment and learn. New York really messed up, but everybody else learned resulting in much better outcomes elsewhere.
WalletHub has the states ranked by restrictions. From the peak group (higher is more restrictions):
Connecticut (36)
Delaware (39)
District of Columbia (26)
Illinois (25)
Indiana (21)
Iowa (6)
Louisiana (22)
Maryland (32)
Massachusetts (48)
Michigan (35)
Mississippi (19)
New Hampshire (33)
New Jersey (47)
New York (29)
Pennsylvania (50)
Rhode Island (40)
Stripping out Mississippi and Louisiana (which, by your suggestion, could have recurrences due to a lack of restrictions) the average is 33. These are thus *not* currently the most restrictive states. They still haven't popped back up.
Except the ultra orthodox community isn't in total lockdown and doesn't have the caseload (anymore). They have large weddings and camps etc.... But virtually no deaths. Sweden followed the same path... A very big initial death rate (not as high as ny) and then it fell dramatically away without particularly strong measures.
I don't argue that Sweden has been either right or wrong. My position is that we can learn from what they did. What they have to teach is that community immunity is possible. Death rates are *now* very low and they still haven't locked down.
The virus seems to be either better dealt with or less virulent. Knowing that community immunity (imperfect, but not mass death) can be reached we can look at the current danger of the virus, the current extend of T-Cell or antibody protection, and assess the costs of staying open.
Sweden paid a terrible price, but the rest of us have a chance to learn from their ongoing experiment.
Finally, Sweden death rate may have been heavily driven by their decision not to treat the elderly. 90% of nursing home residents diagnosed with the virus were never admitted to hospital. It tore through the nursing home population because of this policy (which also exposed other people in nursing homes). That was clearly a mistake. Death rates may have been significantly lower had they done more for those nursing homes.
Totally agree. We can't eradicate infection. I think we should stop seeking absolutes and be looking at tradeoffs instead. Coronavirus will be with us for a long while, we should be seeking to minimize its impact.
That will require a mix of public health, economic and other policies. But it should also take into account the changes in our ability to deal with the virus itself.
If we acquire community immunity (knocking down death rates to the rates seen by a killer like car accidents), get better at treatment or find the virus itself has gotten less dangerous then we should adjust our policies to reflect that.
1) The virus becomes so prevalent that we get community immunity. Still some level of death, but far far reduced
2) We learn how to treat actual cases. Dexomethazone is helping with critical cases and it appears that Kamada's focused antibody drug is working with early stage cases. More innovations may occur
I'm working on another project so I haven't been updating.
But my general position remains. US death rates have fallen some. It seems the second 'echo' is beginning to pass. But I expect them to rise as a third batch of states goes through a round of infection and then effective protection.
Israel's death rate is higher (they missed some cases earlier) but they had very little exposure the first time around so it makes sense.
New York's very high exposure and death rates in Ultra-Orthodox communities seems to be coinciding with a very low death rate (although continuing infections) in that community despite large weddings with multi-state attendees. They seem to be echoing Sweden. They paid a heavy price but are showing that community immunity is possible.
As I see it, the data still supports the serological survey and current mortality risk assessment approach.
Latest Comments
US Coronavirus Outlook
People cross borders, but isn't it fascinating how each state manages to map a distinct path. South Dakota has the fewest restrictions but is 10th lowest in deaths/million. California has the strictest restrictions but is pretty much in the middle (23rd). Different places are actually very different and call for different responses.
This is a strength of the Federal system - you can experiment and learn. New York really messed up, but everybody else learned resulting in much better outcomes elsewhere.
US Coronavirus Outlook
but they *don't have a outbreak now*
That's my point. They had an outbreak. And they appear to have community immunity now.
US Coronavirus Outlook
Ah you'll look back and cherish the opportunity to remember the hair loss :)
I have six kids, which is enough that they can keep each other busy.
US Coronavirus Outlook
WalletHub has the states ranked by restrictions. From the peak group (higher is more restrictions):
Connecticut (36)
Delaware (39)
District of Columbia (26)
Illinois (25)
Indiana (21)
Iowa (6)
Louisiana (22)
Maryland (32)
Massachusetts (48)
Michigan (35)
Mississippi (19)
New Hampshire (33)
New Jersey (47)
New York (29)
Pennsylvania (50)
Rhode Island (40)
Stripping out Mississippi and Louisiana (which, by your suggestion, could have recurrences due to a lack of restrictions) the average is 33. These are thus *not* currently the most restrictive states. They still haven't popped back up.
wallethub.com/.../73818/
US Coronavirus Outlook
Except the ultra orthodox community isn't in total lockdown and doesn't have the caseload (anymore). They have large weddings and camps etc.... But virtually no deaths. Sweden followed the same path... A very big initial death rate (not as high as ny) and then it fell dramatically away without particularly strong measures.
Death, Economics And Coronavirus
I don't argue that Sweden has been either right or wrong. My position is that we can learn from what they did. What they have to teach is that community immunity is possible. Death rates are *now* very low and they still haven't locked down.
The virus seems to be either better dealt with or less virulent. Knowing that community immunity (imperfect, but not mass death) can be reached we can look at the current danger of the virus, the current extend of T-Cell or antibody protection, and assess the costs of staying open.
Sweden paid a terrible price, but the rest of us have a chance to learn from their ongoing experiment.
Finally, Sweden death rate may have been heavily driven by their decision not to treat the elderly. 90% of nursing home residents diagnosed with the virus were never admitted to hospital. It tore through the nursing home population because of this policy (which also exposed other people in nursing homes). That was clearly a mistake. Death rates may have been significantly lower had they done more for those nursing homes.
Death, Economics And Coronavirus
All of this is why I've suggested restructuring the tax and social support systems to supercharge the economy. talkmarkets.com/.../empowering-america?post=265437
Death, Economics And Coronavirus
Totally agree. We can't eradicate infection. I think we should stop seeking absolutes and be looking at tradeoffs instead. Coronavirus will be with us for a long while, we should be seeking to minimize its impact.
That will require a mix of public health, economic and other policies. But it should also take into account the changes in our ability to deal with the virus itself.
If we acquire community immunity (knocking down death rates to the rates seen by a killer like car accidents), get better at treatment or find the virus itself has gotten less dangerous then we should adjust our policies to reflect that.
Death, Economics And Coronavirus
Or:
1) The virus becomes so prevalent that we get community immunity. Still some level of death, but far far reduced
2) We learn how to treat actual cases. Dexomethazone is helping with critical cases and it appears that Kamada's focused antibody drug is working with early stage cases. More innovations may occur
3) The virus itself becomes less dangerous
Death, Economics And Coronavirus
I'm working on another project so I haven't been updating.
But my general position remains. US death rates have fallen some. It seems the second 'echo' is beginning to pass. But I expect them to rise as a third batch of states goes through a round of infection and then effective protection.
Israel's death rate is higher (they missed some cases earlier) but they had very little exposure the first time around so it makes sense.
New York's very high exposure and death rates in Ultra-Orthodox communities seems to be coinciding with a very low death rate (although continuing infections) in that community despite large weddings with multi-state attendees. They seem to be echoing Sweden. They paid a heavy price but are showing that community immunity is possible.
As I see it, the data still supports the serological survey and current mortality risk assessment approach.