An Interesting Map and Graph When evaluating COVID management effectiveness by State or Region, I like to use Jul2020 as a starting point. I mean by then we all had information and COVID was starting to show up in all states. Before that the International Travel hubs were worst hit, which makes sense and should not be held against them. They were the canaries in the coal mine.
Another key date is Jan 2021 because vaccines became available. Now that we have knowledge and vaccines, the people in States / Regions where the hospitals are full are just idiots and have near criminal politicians in charge. :-O
I am happy I live in MN. :-)
Amazing that all the states with the highest hospitalizations
per 100K are COVID deniers and obstructers :-O
69 comments:
Go ahead. Start when this SEASONAL virus starts to affect southern [red] states as people move inside into the AC. Why not show the effectiveness of mask mandates and shutdowns by state, per capita. There is NO CORRELATION between virus effects and government action/inaction. You wish there was, so you find statistics which seem to show that politics matters. I point out that, unlike you, the virus has no political bias.
Oh, and did you notice the "superspreader" Sturgis rally never happened?
You have to be kidding... :-)
NO, just laughing at your attempt to redefine everything in political terms, reality be d**d.
Nothing political about this statement...
"Now that we have knowledge and vaccines, the people in States / Regions where the hospitals are full are just idiots"
And of course I am against state governors mandating what localities can do. Aren't you?
whether you made the statement or simply quoted it, the only way it is NOT political is if you suddenly have renounced everything you have ever said on the subject. This virus has no idea whether you are in a red state or blue state, and any correlation you might draw from the data is evidence ONLY of your own extreme bias on the subject. Calling people "idiots" for getting sick is heartless and stupid. sorry
Jerry,
They are not idiots for getting sick and dying...
They are idiots for not masking, distancing, getting vaccinated...
God has given them all the tools they need to keep themselves and others safe...
And instead of helping themselves and others, they resist, deny and wait for some "miracle"...
So yes the Darwin principle correctly predicts their death...
It is kind of like that couple who has unprotected sex...
And then complain when an unplanned pregnancy occurs...
I guess if you don't like the term idiots, then maybe irresponsible, delusional, other?
I am simply suggesting a logical look at your proposition, that a) the effect of the disease is entirely determined by government acton/inaction on it and b) that such action/inaction is entirely determined by the political party of the governor of each state. There is ZERO evidence for that proposition, and definitive proof against it. What do you want to do about that?
a) actually I said the effect and spread of the disease is determined by the public masking, distancing, getting vaccinated...
b) only one party and political persuasion has been openly against encouraging / enforcing these healthy behaviors... Even going so far as trying to stop local governments and businesses from requiring them...
And therefore the people and hospitals in those states are suffering the consequences of those choices and actions. Natural consequences are a wonderful learn opportunity.
Hosp /100K Vaccinated
Florida › 73 = 53%
Alabama › 63 = 39%
Georgia › 59 = 42%
Mississippi › 56 = 38%
North Dakota › 54 = 42%
Kentucky › 51 = 49%
Texas › 50 = 48%
Louisiana › 49 = 42%
Arkansas › 44 = 42%
South Carolina› 44 = 44%
Tennessee › 42 = 42%
Oklahoma › 41 = 44%
Nevada › 39 = 48%
West Virginia › 37 = 40%
Missouri › 37 = 45%
Wyoming › 34 = 39%
North Carolina› 33 = 47%
Indiana › 32 = 46%
Arizona › 29 = 48%
Oregon › 29 = 58%
Idaho › 28 = 39%
Kansas › 27 = 49%
Delaware › 26 = 56%
Montana › 24 = 46%
Washington › 23 = 60%
South Dakota › 23 = 49%
Ohio › 23 = 48%
California › 22 = 56%
New Mexico › 21 = 60%
Alaska › 21 = 47%
Virginia › 20 = 57%
Iowa › 20 = 52%
Wash, D.C. › 20 = 57%
Illinois › 18 = 51%
Nebraska › 18 = 52%
Wisconsin › 17 = 54%
Pennsylvania › 16 = 55%
Colorado › 15 = 57%
Maryland › 15 = 62%
Utah › 15 = 48%
New York › 13 = 60%
Michigan › 12 = 51%
New Jersey › 12 = 62%
Connecticut › 12 = 66%
Rhode Island › 12 = 65%
Minnesota › 12 = 56%
Maine › 12 = 66%
New Hampshire › 8 = 60%
Massachusetts › 7 = 66%
Vermont › 5 = 68%
United States 31 = 53%
By the way, that data is for the last 7 days.
The people in those COVID denier / anti-public health step states sure are suffering.
And as usual the deaths will follow the hospitalization up.
And as usual, you have no evidence whatsoever that the masking, distancing, etc., mandated or otherwise, produces the effect you are trying so feverishly to prove. The problem is the data isn't cooperating. Red states and blue states seem to be equally bad and equally good, depending on something entirely other that red/blue.
Cherry-picking data from the last seven days simply proves the virus is largely seasonal, and that old people in Florida are more likely to be hospitalized. We knew that (well, maybe you didn't). If you really insist on going down this path, then I insist you include not only hospitalizations, but suicides, drug overdoses, business closures and all the other bad effects your blue-state fearmongering has created, and that red-state common sense has avoided.
You are amusing...
Like the whole continental US is not using A/C in July and August... Or even June this year.
I never thought that vaccines and masks were a reason for committing suicide and over dosing? Some folks must really be scaredy cats.
The simple reality is that for the most part the highly vaccinated and masked states are at the bottom of the list. The states you like have full hospitals and are turning away other patients. :-(
"The simple reality is that for the most part ..." And you reject reality and substitute your own. I mean really, if you want to claim that vaccination percentage is the sole determinant, then your data should show that. It doesn't. If you want to claim red/blue is the determinant, sorry, not true. If you want to claim mask mandates matter, prove it, don't just speculate because I don't believe you and have evidence to the contrary. Just repeating your assertions does not make them any more convincing.
Please prove your assertions then.
Unlike Climate Change, actions / consequences have a very quick cycle time in this case.
Many of those who resist vaccinations, masks and social distancing end up in the hospital or dead, as it should be. :-O
Updated...
Vaccinations
Hospitalized
Sorry, I don't read the NYT. Or Pravda.
Those who "resist" the measures YOU BELIEVE matter to the spread of the virus do, indeed, fall victim to it. So do those who do not. Just like climate change, you want to attribute all undesirable things to human CO2, when in fact such attribution is simply not possible and indistinguishable from natural variation. Recent studies, for example, show that the vaccines are less effective than believed, ranging from 95% down to 65%. That leaves a lot of room for the "vaccinated" to still get sick. And I can't find a single study that says "face diapers" do much of anything except with symptomatic carriers. And they may even be harmful for some.
I guess you can wish people dead for believing in "my body, my choice," but that speaks rather ill of you.
Try some CDC data. I copy.
"Despite media claims that “We Can’t Turn the Corner on Covid,” the numbers of Covid-19 cases, new hospitalizations, and deaths nationwide peaked and started to decline around the beginning of September. The combination of this milestone, new findings from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showing widespread levels of vaccination and natural immunity, and improved availability of treatments suggests that, outside of isolated pockets, Covid-19 is likely to become a diminishing health risk in the United States.
The CDC looked for evidence of prior infection or vaccination in the blood of approximately 1.5 million blood donors from around the country between July 2020 and May 2021. Based on the antibodies found in the specimens, they were able to distinguish between those who had been vaccinated and those with antibodies resulting from infection. As of the end of May, the combined vaccine and infection seroprevalence (indicating the proportion of the population with antibodies and some level of immune protection) was 83 percent for those 16 and older (children under 16 can’t donate blood). "
And then there is this headline: "Research conducted by the University of California has found that teenage boys are six times more likely to suffer from heart problems caused by the COVID-19 vaccine than to be hospitalized as a result of COVID-19 itself."
Please share the article...
Vaccines Safer than Alternative
I hope you are correct that we are nearing an end of COVID.
That way other people who need to be in the hospital can go there. Not looking good so far for folks in low vaccinated areas.
mask mandates fail
I am unsure how that graph proves anything?
The only way it would if you compared 2 states, 1 with the mandate and 1 without.
deliberately obtuse. It DOES compare two states-- Minnesota with and Minnesota without. At no time WITH the mandates was the disease incidence lower than WITHOUT. QED.
It is almost as if masks and mandates don't matter. But seasonality does.
MN Data
SD Data
Wrong... Unless you have a crystal ball... You have no way of knowing what would have happened in MN without mandates.
At the Dec peak, SD had 232 cases per 100K residents...
Whereas MN had only 131 cases per 100k cases...
Masks and mandates cut the cases and deaths during the wave nearly in half...
As for today... MN has 49 cases per 100K
And SD has 71 cases per 100K...
Vaccines and masks save lives.
During the peak.
4.75 people / 100K died in SD
1.7 people / 100K died in MN
Denying that masks stop water droplets and the spread of viruses is so silly.
"Masks and mandates cut the cases and deaths during the wave nearly in half... "
Absolutely wrong. Living in MN cut problem in half (according to your numbers). As for "what would have happened in MN," that is about the weakest argument you could make. The MN numbers are TERRIBLE, WITH the mandate. To argue they would have been worse is entirely without any factual basis, since we DID have the mandate, and we cannot go back and run the "experiment" otherwise. Nor would YOU want to increase "cases and deaths" just to prove a point.
Yes, those puny cloth masks "stop water droplets." At what distance? Does it matter whether the masked person is infected or not, or whether the person supposedly getting the virus is masked or not? If infected droplets land on your mask, does the virus die or does it go right through the mask? I know you think you are seeing the effect you WANT to believe is true, but the graph shows clearly that, all things being equal, the mask is ineffective (mandated or otherwise) at stopping the spread of the disease. Nothing silly about acknowledging that reality, and nothing moral or human about wishing death on those who do not comply.
Jerry,
Yes, living in MN was a good thing for people who wanted to stay healthy and alive.
Yes, karma is a bitch sometimes. I do find it amusing when stupid, selfish and fearful folks who put their wants before their neighbors needs end up paying for their choice.
Again, that is YOUR haughty, holier-than-thou, typically progressive interpretation of the data. So, if I do not wear a mask and my neighbor gets COVID, am I morally responsible? If I DO wear a mask and he gets it anyway, what then? If I deprive him of the freedom to choose to wear a mask, or to be vaccinated, or not, has he been harmed? How about if I demand he close his business so /I/ do not get sick? Is he harmed, then? Totalitarianism as you propose always has a price. Having government tell you that you MUST do something because it is "good for you," (even if they do not follow their own rules) is vastly different then government telling you what you SHOULD do, especially on such flimsy evidence as you keep trying to push.
For example, are MN and SD identical in population density? ethnicity? public transportation use? climate? wealth/poverty? age distribution? Again, the graph of MN alone, mandate/no mandate, is a FAR better comparison, but it does not show what you want it to show. Too bad.
As I said... Karma is a bitch sometimes...
Please feel free to name a "RED" "No Vaccine / No Mask" state more similar to MN.
I provided a list above. The ones you are looking for are towards the top of the list. :-O
How about we just compare MN to MN? Why are you so reluctant to compare apples to apples?
You are still adamant that the only indicator of the virus' effects are whether the state is "Red" or "Blue" and I cannot imagine that this virus can really tell the difference. I am certain that it is determined by a whole host of other factors. Otherwise, why would NY have the highest, or near highest, mortality, since it's a blue state?
Not possible, there is no data for a no mandate MN.
NY unfortunately for them was "Ground Zero", they had a disaster and experienced most of those cases / deaths while most other states could not even spell covid. (before May2020)
Where as the COVID denier states experienced their losses after everyone else got a clue.
Pick the "deaths" tab on the graphs and you can really see this.
I even added the NY vs FL graph to the post for your convenience.
Your interpretation of the data, again. NY had a huge die-off because they all ride subways, and because the now ex-Gov. sent infected old people into nursing homes, among the most vulnerable. And every other state is different, in more ways than just red/blue! You just said so!
The data for a "no-mandate MN" is RIGHT THERE, in the chart. Before the mandate started, and after the mandate was ended. I see that confirmation bias is almost impossible to overcome.
NY had the problems 3 months before "fly over country" because they have a LOT more international contact.
They still have subways and old folk, and yet no surge in deaths like FL.
I am not seeing it... Maybe I need to drink some of the kool aid you are drinking.
"I am not seeing it..." a canned response
Actually, you already made the "kool aid." You have admitted that NY is different than FL. Then you want to blame FL for being different than NY? I will say it again. This virus doesn't have any clue as to whether you live in a red state or a blue state, or whether you live under a mask mandate or not. It's gonna do what it's gonna do. Once President Trump delivered the vaccine in record time and bought enough doses for everybody, we were on our way to learning to live with the disease, just like we live with the flu or the common cold. I wish our overlords would allow it.
The virus may be color blind...
But it does know who is not protected against it.
And who is its willing means of transport.
So it thrives where vaccinations and mask usage is low.
Which just happens to be the folks who live in RED states...
As the data clearly shows.
Though I may need to study Oregon a little closer... :-O
And yet the most vaccinated states, like Vermont, still have high rates of COVID. And the data does not "clearly show" anything, at least on a state vs state basis. You are inventing a distinction which does not exist, to suit a political agenda. How about we just withhold life-saving medications from Florida, since they refuse to comply with your dictates? Or just because they are a red state?
BUT... They do NOT have full hospitals which leads to DEAD people for many reasons.
Data is taken from HHS and was last updated Sept. 17. States are listed in order of hospitalization rate percent increase over the last two weeks.
Vermont
14-day change: 18 percent increase
Hospitalizations per 100,000 people: 6
Kentucky
14-day change: 11 percent increase
Hospitalizations per 100,000 people: 58
Hospitalization Data
So, vaccinations decrease COVID problems? So why is this: why are case rates exploding in areas with high levels of vaccination?
Data without underlying knowledge and reason is not the same as information. You are engaging in circular reasoning, that because a higher (mortality, whatever) occurs in a certain state at a certain time, it is BECAUSE that is a red state, or doesn't have a mask mandate, or has too few vaccinated. You do not have enough trusted data to even begin a proper multivariate analysis. You are bootstrapping to defend your political biases, and I'm not buying it.
That is why I focus on hospitalizations and deaths...
People getting the sniffles is not too concerning, even if it covid.
As I wrote above...
The virus may be color blind...
But it does know who is not protected against it.
And who is its willing means of transport.
So it thrives where vaccinations and mask usage is low.
And more of those people are hospitalized and/or die.
Alleluia... God works in mysterious ways !!!!
Be self centered and put others at risk, at your own risk.
It also thrives where vaccinations and mask usage is high. That's what happens when you let government "experts" mandate that you be "safe."
"SAFE" being a relative term...
Let's look at some real data...
"What is “relative risk” and why it matters
Relative risk means we compare the risks for COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death in unvaccinated people relative to vaccinated people.
The boxes in the dashboard’s top line show the relative risk of infection (positive test), hospitalization, and death for unvaccinated people, compared with those who are fully vaccinated. For example, in the month leading up to August 26, unvaccinated people in King County were:
7 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 than vaccinated people
49 times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated people
32 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than vaccinated people."
I think the governments recommendations DEFINITELY make people SAFER.
As long as 32 irresponsible self centered idiots die
as compared to each responsible civic minded smart person...
Maybe the trade off is acceptable.
"Relative risk means we compare the risks for COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death in unvaccinated people relative to vaccinated people. "
Not correct. Relative risk means that each /individual/, masks mandated, recommended or voluntarily chosen, and vaccinated or unvaccinated, voluntarily chosen, should assess their personal risk relative to NOT following the government recommendations, and should have that freedom of choice that MANDATES prevent. If it's really a good thing, people will choose it. In the case of vaccinations, most have, and mandating that everyone get it is probably slowing acceptance of the idea rather than advancing it, which is an idea flawed to begin with.
And why are you always wishing for people to die?
MOST certainly have not chosen to do the correct thing for the health of American citizens or our economy... Especially in those states with the full hospitals and morgues...
Unless you think ~40% is most in your funny numbers world. Personally I think MOST would be 90%... And we can not even get there in MN...
Sorry... But I love the idea of karma and just desserts... It just seems inherently fair to me...
If you consciously decide to support the spreading of a virus, the filling of hospitals and the death of your fellow citizens through your irresponsible choices...
Then I am fine with you experiencing those exact consequences?
An interesting question...
Did you get vaccinated because you fear death with a tube stuck down your throat?
or
To help our citizens and country shake of this insidious virus as soon as possible?
An interesting question...
Did you get vaccinated because you fear death with a tube stuck down your throat?
or
To help our citizens and country shake of this insidious virus as soon as possible?
Thus lowering healthcare costs, saving lives, etc...
Now isn't this a kicker
Alabama had more people die last year during the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic than births, a top health official said, as the US continues to grapple with rising coronavirus cases and deaths.
"This past year, 2020, is going to be the first year that we know of in the history of our state where we actually had more deaths than births," Alabama Health Officer Dr. Scott Harris said Friday during a news briefing.
"Unless you think ~40% is most in your funny numbers world. Personally I think MOST would be 90%... And we can not even get there in MN..."
Apparently you missed the CDC study that said 83% of Americans had either been vaccinated (63%) or developed natural immunity (20%). It begs the question, how did those folks DEVELOP that natural immunity? Of course, it was because they took, for them, a small risk and contracted the disease, and survived, like 99.98% of those under 50 do! Meanwhile, while researching restaurants for an upcoming trip, I find a few restaurants saying "we will not re-open." and others that are permanently closed but have not said so. That is real damage, caused by government-ordered lockdowns, not by customers dying off. Demanding people with natural immunity be vaccinated is at minimum wasteful, and probably harmful.
I am FINE with government "highly recommending" a sane course of action, such as an effective lockdown of elder care facilities, or taking a safe, effective vaccine. Certainly Trump's quick travel bans and rapid vaccine development were excellent and necessary steps, with minimal infringement on personal freedom. But Biden denies life-saving drugs to Florida? I'm sorry, you are pitching for the evil team.
Did you get vaccinated because you fear death with a tube stuck down your throat?
or
To help our citizens and country shake of this insidious virus as soon as possible?
Thus lowering healthcare costs, saving lives, etc...
Enlightened self-interest, every time. What does my personal choice (or yours) have to do with what government should mandate, one size fits all?
Simple...
Answer one means you are a a self centered coward... :-(
Answer two means you are a responsible citizen who cares for your fellow citizens. :-)
And you are someone who cannot win a debate on the merits and must resort to ad hominem.
Answer two says you are a horrible judge of character, basically a bigot.
Well if an enemy is working to kill American citizens, I think it is the duty of every American to fight that enemy with the tools available.
You want to make excuses for citizens who choose to fraternize with the enemy, instead of taking a shot...
Maybe we should put all the COVID sympathizers in internment camps... :-O
By the way, you never answered if you were the coward or the good citizen...
I think I DID answer. I said I exercised my best judgment, with "enlightened self interest." That makes me neither of your choices, but rather a free, intelligent American. Why you want to deny that choice to every other American marks you as a totalitarian, and one "willing to give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety." You have an idea of what each person should do? Fine. YOU do that, and feel free to recommend that to all you know, or you can [reasonably, even] expect government to /recommend/ scientifically sound actions.
But remember "two weeks to flatten the curve"? How about that expensive and empty morgue the taxpayers bought? The hospital ships that were turned away, unneeded? The discouraging lies and failure to recognize natural immunity, Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, monoclonal antibody treatment? Government is simply not smarter than all the rest of us put together. Americans ARE using the tools available, it is government fighting against them.
"enlightened self interest"... :-) Well we are happy you capitulated to fear.
You feel free to keep protecting the cowards that won't do their part to help fight this enemy. You may feel that deserters should feel free to desert... I disagree, I think they should be shot.
Speaking of Lies
Explain to me the clear difference between "fear" and "reasonable precautions." Then explain to me the similarities between fear and demanding that you make medical decisions for other people.
You do not allow for a warranted and healthy skepticism, or reasonable assessment of personal risk. For those under 50, a 99.99% survival rate is a pretty low risk, and for some of the younger cohorts, the risk of coronary problems from the vaccine exceeds the risk from the virus. Why do you want these people to die? Never mind, I think I know. It is because at heart you are a coward and a brutal dictator.
Jerry,
You have no problem making medical decisions for people. (ie abortion, physician assisted suicide, gender reassignment, birth control, etc) So you have no credibility in this area.
"Reasonable Precautions" like vaccines and masks are how we can stop this enemy from killing our friends and neighbors. Fear drives people to use or resist those Reasonable Precautions.
So in your case you feared for your health and life, therefore you got vaccinated.
Since you apparently fear government control more than you fear for the lives of your friends and neighbors, you resist efforts to promote / mandate "Reasonable Precautions" within our society. You are fine with people dying for your beliefs.
The chance of harm from the vaccine is far far lower than the risk COVID death and health concerns. I personally have no fear of COVID, Vaccines or Masks, however I do think it is the duty of every American to do everything they can do to slow its transmission for the sake of the elderly and infirm who it may kill.
"You have no problem making medical decisions for people." Liar.
Reasonable precautions are NOT what YOU arbitrarily decide are reasonable. Is it reasonable to close thousands of small businesses arbitrarily and indefinitely as a "precaution"?
I very rightly fear government controls more, since I have almost no fear for the lives of friends and neighbors. And I take reasonable precautions there. Apparently you fear enough for both of us, but no thanks.
"The chance of harm from the vaccine is far far lower than the risk COVID death and health concerns." That is one interpretation of the available medical evidence. But since the risk of death from COVID is almost vanishingly small in some subsets of the population, one-size-fits-all statements, and the mandates that follow, have to be considered
unwarranted at best.
As for my "patriotic duty," I don't see it. Intelligent and caring human being that I am, I feel a moral and rational obligation to protect myself and my neighbors from the flu, cold, measles, and syphilis. I do this by taking reasonable precautions that are particular to me, the particular disease, and my neighbors' medical condition. But Dr. John wants to write one prescription, for one particular illness, and insist that everybody take it without question.
I still say that the mandates themselves have done more to invoke rejection of these reasonable precautions than to promote them. Want me to do something? Convince me it is the best course of action; don't "Karen" me.
Good then you will start supporting a woman and a person's right to choose what they do with their body...
I am not talking about closing anything... Just vaccines and masks...
Yes. Masks and vaccines are reasonable.
The right has been in denial about COVID since Trump promised that would not come here. ~630,000 dead Americans later and they continue to deny reality.
The same mentality that mandates masks and vaccines also mandated business closures. That is not a reasonable mindset. And how is a mandated injection of /something/ NOT a matter of "a person's right to choose what they do with their body"?
Usually mandates come with a choice...
- get the shot(s)
or
- subject to regular testing / wear a mask
The alternative is forcing everyone else to "put more of the virus" into their body... Where are their rights to a safe work place / community.
"Usually mandates come with a choice..." LOL! The CHOICE existed prior to the mandate, and what the mandate does is impose a penalty for not making the "approved" choice.
The alternative is to allow people to make an informed choice. Where is their right to work, safely or otherwise, and feed their family if you force their business to close? Remember "two weeks to flatten the curve"? Somehow government stupidity means never having to change policy, or say you're sorry, regardless of the facts and the very real consequences.
You keep forgetting that there are more freedoms at stake than those of the anti-vaxxers.
Our society has a long history passing laws to protect the public from the irresponsible choices of others. Especially when the lives of other citizens are at risk.
- no smoking in public spaces
- stop signs
- DWI laws
- no texting and driving
- seat belts
And some of your favorites:
- anti-Prochoice legislation
- anti End of Life Laws
- anti LGBT laws
You were probably one of those who resisted anti-smoking, DWI, and other laws that save lives and encroach on people's ability to do irresponsible things.
Wow, talk about a very sloppy collection of supposedly analogous situations! Fundamentally, you are arguing that we must balance freedom and responsibility. I'm fine with that, but... To make the case you are trying to make, you must prove that those things you propose strike a proper balance, and I do not see how you can justify that. For example, a federal vaccine mandate not only denies the freedom to choose one's medical care (while arguing "my body, my choice" so women have unfettered freedom to choose abortion), but denies the very real variations in people, their medical history, age, environment, susceptibility to the disease, natural immunity, immunosuppression, and the known and unknown risks of the vaccine itself. That's not balance; that's unthinking and uncaring tyranny. Since one of the most "anti-VAX" groups are African-Americans, how do you propose we get these niggas to knuckle under, master?
Post a Comment