So, did the heavy lockdown states end up doing better than the free states?

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Tishabet

.......There is solid data available on cases per state, so pretty easy to get the rankings of states by cases per 100k residents.........

Despite the recent surge in Michigan that state is 12th from the bottom?

Old data or the recent surge just hasn't taken it's toll yet enough to bump it closer to the top?

[1990C4S]

Originally Posted by kach22i

Despite the recent surge in Michigan that state is 12th from the bottom?

Old data or the recent surge just hasn't taken it's toll yet enough to bump it closer to the top?

Variants matter. Apples versus oranges. The data is evolving, if the variants spread to all states the numbers will be very different.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by 1990C4S

Variants matter. Apples versus oranges. The data is evolving, if the variants spread to all states the numbers will be very different.

I agree, if all the states were being hit equally hard by the UK Variant that is 10 times more contagious there would be more of an even playing field data wise.

Michigan was one of the early Remdesivir (NOT Molnupiravir - oops) experimental drug states, and that saved lives and therefore changed the data.

A year ago:

Posted May 12, 2020
Experimental coronavirus drug remdesivir arrives in select Michigan hospitals
https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2020/05/experimental-coronavirus-drug-remdesivir-arrives-in-select-michigan-hospitals.html

[vash]

In my very humble opinion. There wasnt a single state in the union that was fully compliant. I don’t see much difference between fully opening up the state vs “let’s lock it down” but half the population is non-compliant. We only hear that they locked it down.

Now if we compare it to Taipei which has no access to a vaccine yet, they have had less than 50 cases for most of this debacle. They went full lock down with a compliant population. If they git a single new case, it made national news. Which was no good for a pilot cheating on his wife.

Personally im stunned the mask thing was such a big deal. I’ll be glad when this is in the rear view.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by vash

Now if we compare it to Taipei.........

I have to admit that I don't know too much about Taipei culture, just some of their history.

A smaller country that has to fight for survival everyday against great odds probably has a disciplined population is my best guess.

They are used to waiting for the marshmallow, and have been doing it for generations.

[flatbutt]

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

its probably better to compare covid19 measures by country, seeing as how inter mixing of the states and no travel ban kinda created a patchwork in the USA that turned kinda into a average, rather that distinct chunks.

norway and sweeden, very similar countries in demographics, weather, social order, healthcare systems, etc but very different approaches to covid19, and lets take a look.

Sweden:
population: 10 million
Cases: 892k
deaths: 13.7k

Norway:
Population: 5 million
Cases: 105k
Deaths: 707. not 707 thousand, 707 total

so even adjusted for population, norway was about 4-5x better place to be during covid than sweden. largely due to norways early and much more effective lockdowns compared to sweden.

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

i love how everyone just glossed over the actual data and has kept just spouting opinions like they mattered.

lol.

I "love" how you think locking down 5 million people is equivalent to trying to lock down more than 300 million.

lol

[island911]

Originally Posted by brainz01

North Dakota and South Dakota is a far better comparison. One was locked down, one wasn't. No difference in outcome.

Fair.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

[pwd72s]

Dr Fauci: "Kamala. where would you like these goalposts?"

[Tishabet]

Originally Posted by Tervuren

Using solely that logic Tishabet, Turkmanistan's government "did the best" compared to any US state.
A direct problem with comparing cases per 100K is it might just show who was better at testing for positives per capita instead of who had a lesser percentage of CV19 cases per capita.
If a state banned testing, banned masks, banned mention of CV19, they'd top the charts for best CV19 response by data.

You're 100% correct, the data is fallible and imperfect and yet I know of none better... this is the state-level data direct from he CDC and is fresh as of yesterday.

What other methodology could you use to answer OP's question, "So, did the heavy lockdown states end up doing better than the free states?" Is there some other measure you think mclovin had in mind than "how many people caught Covid?"

[Sooner or later]

Do you take into account the number or tests per 100,000? Quite a spread.
NY at 250,000
Illinois 170,000
Michigan 128,000
Virginia 100,000
Colorado 49,000

[pwd72s]

Originally Posted by vash

In my very humble opinion. There wasnt a single state in the union that was fully compliant. I don’t see much difference between fully opening up the state vs “let’s lock it down” but half the population is non-compliant. We only hear that they locked it down.

Now if we compare it to Taipei which has no access to a vaccine yet, they have had less than 50 cases for most of this debacle. They went full lock down with a compliant population. If they git a single new case, it made national news. Which was no good for a pilot cheating on his wife.

Personally im stunned the mask thing was such a big deal. I’ll be glad when this is in the rear view.

If you had a problem with heart or lungs that results in a lower than normal oxygen intake, you may have a greater understanding of why it's a big deal for some. Rebreathing carbon dioxide is beyond uncomfortable in that case. I have afib...just bought a mask that actually pumps fresh air into the mask. Thanks to Zeke for the pm on those. It isn't perfect, but at least I can tolerate a mask for more than the few minutes the other masks I tried allowed before feeling like I was about to black out.

[McLovin]

Yes, part of the problem is it is hard to define “doing better.”
Cases or confirmed cases is problematic because that is so dependent on the level of testing. Test very little and you’ll show many less cases.
I guess deaths may be a better measure, but of course that is somewhat problematic too.
Looking at deaths per population, I’m not sure I see any discernible difference between lockdown states and more free states, trying to compare similar states. Florida v California, for example, have similar deaths per population.
It would be interesting to see a chart that ranks the states on “level of lockdown” and then includes deaths per 100k people. California, for example, would probably rank 100 on a 0-100 lockdown scale. Florida would be much less. NY, Illinois and Michigan would be high. Etc.
That of course would be far from perfect, but would be interesting to see.

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by Sooner or later

Do you take into account the number or tests per 100,000? Quite a spread.
NY at 250,000
Illinois 170,000
Michigan 128,000
Virginia 100,000
Colorado 49,000

What is that?
Number of positive tests per 100,000 tests administered would seem like a decent stat for trying to see whether lockdown states were effective. At least as one possible data point.

[Sooner or later]

Originally Posted by McLovin

What is that?
Number of positive tests per 100,000 tests administered would seem like a decent stat for trying to see whether lockdown states were effective.

Number of total tests per 100,000 population. Along with that we would want to see positive test rate.

It is nearly impossible to compare states or countries. So many variables to take into account.

A few...
Population density
Testing
Test % positive
Age/health demographics
% of compliance to restrictions
Localized outbreaks...look at Gallup, NM and how the area was decimated within the Indian population