LINK Between Governor's PARTY, & COVID, Per Capita DEATH RATES

That's not true; one need only begin the comparison after those states initially hit, brought their infections under control.

This is from the article, of my first link (the Johns Hopkins study/analysis):

...Republican-led states on average began to have more positive tests, COVID-19 cases, and more COVID-19 deaths. The transition occurred for testing-positivity on May 30, for COVID-19 case diagnoses on June 3, and for COVID-19 deaths on July 4. The differences between the two groups of states peaked in the period from late June to early August—for example, on August 5 the relative risk of dying of COVID-19 was 1.8 times higher in GOP-led states. <end SNIP>


I want to now bring in Heartburn (the person).

[QUOTE="Heartburn, post: 1072512886, member: 69803"]

I appreciate the attempt to separate partisanship from the appraisal of what efforts are most effective at combatting this type of infectious illness, as we cannot be sure the next one will be a century away. But, as you must know, the virus did not limit itself to one lap through the states, so after the initial, surprise awakening to widespread Coronavirus, esp. in the New York City area (including Connecticut, New Jersey, & possibly Massachusetts), a comparison can be made (since those later states did have advance warning). To be fair, we could even wait until Covid arrived back for its second visit to the two coasts.

I will quote more of the article, here (continued from above):


Testing rates were similar for the two sets of states until late September when Republican-led states began to have lower testing rates.

Other studies have found evidence that Republican governors in 2020 were broadly less strict than their Democrat counterparts in setting policies on mask-wearing, social distancing, and other pandemic-related measures. The researchers say that those studies, along with the links they found between Republican governorship and greater COVID-19 impact, are consistent with the idea that the political polarization of the COVID-19 response has contributed to less effective COVID-19 policies and worse case-related statistics in some states.
<end SNIP>

It is not unreasonable to believe that different types of responses would yield differing results, is it?

 

And what date is that?

 

Well you cannot say that they WOULD have been down. Although, I think that we can very safely say that trade would have gone down due to less customers.

An "enclosed, public place" like a bookstore?

 

Remember when you asked, what things I considered homework assignments from you? Do I have access to different information than you do? And certainly, as you have told me that I should not take your word for anything, you would not take mine, after my taking the trouble to sift through all the data; so my effort would all be for naught.

I'm willing to accept the timelines mentioned in the article, which has Red States surpassing Blue states in diagnosed cases in early June, & in deaths in early July. The excerpt I posted to you further said that, "the differences between the two groups of states peaked in the period from late June to early August—for example, on August 5 the relative risk of dying of COVID-19 was 1.8 times higher in GOP-led states." By August, I believe the virus had returned to my general area such that schools did not open as usual, in September. But I'm sure it must vary from state to state.

If you doubt the report's conclusions, I would suggest you look at all the states w/ Democratic governors, month by month, to find their worst month after their initially bringing the virus relatively under control (I seem to recall the yardstick being 14 days in a row with the # of newly-diagnosed cases falling every day from the prior day). Then add up the cases & deaths for the states with Republican governors, for that month. All that would then be left to do would be to get the population numbers for all those Dem & Repub-led states, so you could convert the raw numbers to a per capita basis.

Alternately, you could look for the month, from September on, when Red-governor states had their best results, then compare the Blue-governor states' numbers for that month. Of course, that would only be one month, but I would think of it as a victory of sorts, if I were you. If you find this to be the case, just show all your work, i.e., give all the data you used, broken down by state, so I (& anyone else) could check it. As I don't believe one will find Red States, once Covid had made its way all across the country, outperforming Blue States, I hope you understand my unwillingness to go through all that trouble.

 

Yes, IF NOT FOR THE PROPER PRECAUTIONS/ "RESTRICTIONS!" That was my point-- that these safeguards encouraged MORE people to come out to shop than would have done so had their NOT been safety regulations.

 

You don't think that I'm suggesting that their shouldn't have been any safety regulations, do you?

 

Okay, so you admit that the only data we have is what I have already presented.

 

It's really not clear, Chris. You are slow to reluctant in giving your own views; you mostly question the other person's view. This does NOT always sound like you are knocking the other poster's perspective. In fact, in our earliest interactions, you seemed most interested in just understanding the way I thought about an issue, with the only test in the questions being to make sure I knew why I felt a certain way or had a particular opinion.

Your questions & comments about Covid rules, particularly as they affect(ed) businesses, however, have had an overall critical tone to them.

I would love to know, specifically, which Covid protocols you support being mandated, & which ones you think go too far (as well as any suggested, alternate regulations). As a reminder, full shutdowns were not really a thing, except in special circumstances (perhaps in parts of NYC, as after the invisible, immigrant virus first began showing up, having had a couple of weeks to spread freely beforehand, in this highly-concentrated, large population center).

 

Just to clarify, by "full shutdowns were not really a thing", do you mean that there was never a time (except in special circumstances) where every single non-essential industry was shut down?

 

We didn't, "have," that data-- you looked it up. The other data I mentioned is probably all available, but it sounds as if you don't feel, either, like looking it all up. So what's the point of your question that your earlier data about NY & FL being, " the only data we have?"
1) You make it sound as if there is some relevance to the fact that you only chose to look up something that seems to reflect poorly on New York.
1-B) The info you presented was incomplete, because you did not separate the early NY cases, before we even realized it was in the country, and when we were basically in a trial-&-error, learning phase for treatment of the virus, which will, naturally, make NY's overall #s look worse. You asked at what point you should start. The fairest point would be whenever NY's ongoing event & Florida's later, newer infection-event, brought their numbers of daily infections closest to even. In lieu of that, it would be after NY had ts initial outbreak under control (as I'd explained) & also Florida had suffered significant numbers of infections.
2) That's NOT the only data we have: there is data in my OP linked article, from the Johns-Hopkins analysis. Some of this info, as the 1.8 × the chance of death in a Republican-led state, on the given day of Aug. 5th, as in Democrat-led state.

 

That is my belief, largely from my own experience, as I've several times stated it to you.

 

Okay, so that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about full shutdowns for certain industries, which I'm sure that you had in your state.

 

And what is this "point?"

Alright, well I shall look at that article.

 

I left out the phrase, this last time, "except for short periods." Basically, only when it was totally uncontrolled, which was only at the beginning, here, & never SHOULD HAVE needed to occur in other states.

 

You're the one offering the data, to prove some point. Going through the past, daily numbers, then, would be part of that.

 

You really don't know a whole lot. Take a look at this and see how New York restaurants were NOT in fact only shut down in the beginning: https://ny.eater.com/2020/12/30/22203053/nyc-coronavirus-timeline-restaurants-bars-2020

 

You're completely and utterly confused. The starting point of MY data is the beginning of the pandemic! YOU'RE the one who says that an alternative starting point should be used.

 

I misread your previous post: I only saw the words, "FULL SHUTDOWNS," and from our drawn-out, preceding conversations, I assumed you were still talking about ALL non-essential businesses. I missed your insertion, this time, of the words, "certain industries." This question I have ALREADY, previously, addressed with you. YES! The RESTAURANT Industry, in PARTICULAR, has been disproportionately affected by Covid restrictions, BECAUSE the Restaurant Industry is a PARTICULARLY high-risk operation, when it comes to spreading the virus.

Hence, in order to shut down the virus, restaurants needed to be shut down. In most places, take-out was allowed. If this was more problemmatic or took longer to transition to-- I've not yet followed your link because I don't know how it's relevant to my not initially realizing you were focusing, now, on single industries, since I'm WELL AWARE that restaurants were among the few, MOST-affected businesses-- in Manhattan and/or other boroughs, this was a highly-exceptional case.
It should be noted, of course, that allowing restaurant take-out does nothing for the floor staff (waiters & bussers) or the the bartenders who've lost the ability to ply their trades.

THIS IS WHY, when you asked me if I thought that you were against Covid-restrictions, in general (as if you weren't, and found it perplexing where I might have gotten that idea), I said that you haven't made your view clear-- still true, up to the present-- but that your tone made it seem that your overall disposition was one of criticism. Are you now SWITCHING YOUR ARGUMENT from saying that the cost of SHUTTING DOWN THE ENTIRE ECONOMY is too great to be warranted by the pandemic, to making the case that the high cost to ANY ONE INDUSTRY, in particular, is not worth whatever reduction in viral transmission, & death due to the virus, is achieved by it????

And you wonder where I (or anyone) would get the impression that you do not support Covid-focused, safety restrictions?

 

This thread is based on an analysis by a highly-respected medical university, whose conclusions differentiate between the first few months of the pandemic, when the infections were essentially on the coasts, primarily in states with Democratic governors, & the rest of the time, once the virus had become more widespread. I went through this for you, in detail, in the early part of the thread. If you either cannot understand this reasoning, or choose to ignore the Johns Hopkins report behind this thread, there does not seem to be any basis, at this point, for a continued beating of this conversational dead horse.

 

Yes, which has nothing to do with which States handled the pandemic better overall.

 

Without any restrictions, yes, it is certainly a high-risk operation. But food operations can be handled in a safe way, even when cases are spiking, certainly in Los Angeles. Oh wait, no, actually, that's only if you're in the entertainment industry. I am of course referring to that LA case which you seemed to drop. Probably because you agree with me on it.

If it was literally just ONE industry like restaurants which was repeatedly shut down, but every other industry was able to operate, even with restrictions, then I would say that is an acceptable cost. But we know that this is not the case, largely due to restrictions making it impossible for some businesses or entire industries to operate. In my opinion it has all been too much. People should have largely been able to make their own choices, even if those choices were bad choices, and led to vulnerable people getting the virus and dying, which I'm sure happened alot.

And are you not also saying that the cost of SHUTTING DOWN THE ENTIRE ECONOMY (other than at the beginning) would be too great to be warranted by the pandemic?

 

What if my choice is to stand in the middle of a crowd and randomly throw rocks?
Is that my right or should potentially dangerous activities be restricted?

 

Would you have a good reason for throwing rocks? If so, then you should be allowed to throw them.

 

What would be a good reason for throwing rocks or infecting people with covid?

 

There is no good reason.