4 ms·

No its not, for instance just population density is a huge factor in the spread of a virus. If you live in an area where people are fairly isolated or travel ou

by surge 7y ago

No its not, for instance just population density is a huge factor in the spread of a virus. If you live in an area where people are fairly isolated or travel outside their region very little, than you don't need to do the same extreme lockdowns or shut down the economy to the same degree to prevent the spread. I live in a state that's barely being touched by this, and not because we don't have it, but because there are two large cities that have maybe 100+ cases or significant hospital load, and the spread is insignificant because its very easy for people to avoid each other and take basic precautions during interaction to prevent the spread. If you live in apartment buildings, 6 feet from your neighbor with only a wall to separate you stacked stories high with shared elevators, stairwells, hallways, and the majority of transport requires people to be in close proximity on sidewalks, buses, or trains, the factors and extreme measures needed to stop its spread are very different than someone living in Alaska or Idaho. Those people don't need to stay in their homes, they just need to avoid going anywhere unnecessary with large groups of people and wash their hands and cover their mouths. Some states have higher rates of obesity or other risk factors, some states have higher populations of elderly than others. One size fits all measures doesn't work, you need focused precision efforts determined by locals and the only thing they need from the umbrella governments is support in their efforts for needs they've determined are necessary.

eli 7y ago
Population density and demographics vary widely between New York City and the farms upstate and the old steel towns in western New York State. Maybe we should make each mayor fight the virus alone since they know their community better than the governor? Big differences between Manhattan and Staten Island too, maybe each borough is on its own?
- leereeves 7y ago
  The feud between DeBlasio and Cuomo in NYC is one instance in which the mayor did know better. Mayor DeBlasio wanted to lockdown the city sooner, but Governor Cuomo blocked it. https://nypost.com/2020/03/17/cuomo-de-blasio-clash-over-possible-shelter-in-place-system-for-nyc/ https://nypost.com/2020/03/17/cuomo-de-blasio-clash-over-pos...
  - surge 7y ago
    DeBlasio was telling people on March 2 to go out on the town and watch a movie on Twitter. Trump is an easy scapegoat for obvious reasons, so politicians and local people use him when not wanting to accept personal responsibility for the consequences of their own actions, or lack there of. If you already take the position that the President can't be relied on and should be out of office, why would you delay taking action yourself to prevent a scenario where you're waiting on hospital ships and the US Army to assist, or acting like you're the only place in the US that needs help, then complaining later that the President didn't do more? It's schizophrenic and hypocritical.
greedo 7y ago
You don't know how many cases your state has because we're doing a piss poor job of testing. Unless you're in Alaska, Wyoming, or North Dakota, your state has more than 300+ cases, and probably a magnitude more. This idea that states with smaller populations aren't at risk is a foolish one. Sure you may not end up with death counts like NYC, but you'll still end up with some; hopefully you won't overtax your healthcare system.
- surge 7y ago
  I figured someone would say that, the testing tells you if its spreading in asymptomatic or mild cases, but the reason for that is because we want to stop serious cases. We know how many people are in the hospital. Honestly, that's all that matters, if we have less people in the hospitals relative to our population, then we have less spread. We have less capacity relative to population size, and they're not being overrun. You don't need testing to know if your hospitals and ICU's are overrun. >This idea that states with smaller populations aren't at risk is a foolish one. I never said that, I said the risk factors are different and the actions you need to take to prevent spread might be less drastic. I'm arguing against the idea of a one size fits all solution, something that needs to be done to stop the spread in a place like NYC is unnecessarily restrictive and dampening in the local economy in a small town, where people can just wash their hands, avoid going anywhere but work and shopping for necessities, and businesses taking basic precautions like WFH and avoiding direct interaction where possible, and avoiding gatherings of large groups. I can leave my house, go out in my yard, and walk down my street and possibly not even see anyone else out, much less come within 6 feet of them. I can get in my car and go somewhere else and not have to come in contact with anyone. You can't do that in a city center, people have to stay in their apartments for two weeks, without leaving or wear protective gear when they do leave, because leaving their residence without interacting with people is impossible, you're liable to run into someone in the hallway, stairwell, elevator, sidewalk, bus, or train/subway, all of which are rolling the dice on infection. If you're in the same apartment building, its possible you're breathing the same air, and have the cruise ship effect. Someone in Oklahoma doesn't have those same risk factors, they don't interact with the same number of people going about their daily business, just avoiding travel is enough to keep the whole community isolated. Nothing much is gained by having them restricted to their house at all times, they just need to avoid certain things that would put them in more interaction with others than normal, or traveling outside their region and vice versa. What is being done now is probably best, you set baseline restrictions for the nation as a whole, and then each regional government increases or adds on to those restrictions based on the needs of their area.

by surge 7y ago

eli 7y ago

Population density and demographics vary widely between New York City and the farms upstate and the old steel towns in western New York State. Maybe we should make each mayor fight the virus alone since they know their community better than the governor? Big differences between Manhattan and Staten Island too, maybe each borough is on its own?

leereeves 7y ago
The feud between DeBlasio and Cuomo in NYC is one instance in which the mayor did know better. Mayor DeBlasio wanted to lockdown the city sooner, but Governor Cuomo blocked it. https://nypost.com/2020/03/17/cuomo-de-blasio-clash-over-possible-shelter-in-place-system-for-nyc/ https://nypost.com/2020/03/17/cuomo-de-blasio-clash-over-pos...
- surge 7y ago
  DeBlasio was telling people on March 2 to go out on the town and watch a movie on Twitter. Trump is an easy scapegoat for obvious reasons, so politicians and local people use him when not wanting to accept personal responsibility for the consequences of their own actions, or lack there of. If you already take the position that the President can't be relied on and should be out of office, why would you delay taking action yourself to prevent a scenario where you're waiting on hospital ships and the US Army to assist, or acting like you're the only place in the US that needs help, then complaining later that the President didn't do more? It's schizophrenic and hypocritical.

greedo 7y ago

You don't know how many cases your state has because we're doing a piss poor job of testing. Unless you're in Alaska, Wyoming, or North Dakota, your state has more than 300+ cases, and probably a magnitude more. This idea that states with smaller populations aren't at risk is a foolish one. Sure you may not end up with death counts like NYC, but you'll still end up with some; hopefully you won't overtax your healthcare system.

surge 7y ago
I figured someone would say that, the testing tells you if its spreading in asymptomatic or mild cases, but the reason for that is because we want to stop serious cases. We know how many people are in the hospital. Honestly, that's all that matters, if we have less people in the hospitals relative to our population, then we have less spread. We have less capacity relative to population size, and they're not being overrun. You don't need testing to know if your hospitals and ICU's are overrun. >This idea that states with smaller populations aren't at risk is a foolish one. I never said that, I said the risk factors are different and the actions you need to take to prevent spread might be less drastic. I'm arguing against the idea of a one size fits all solution, something that needs to be done to stop the spread in a place like NYC is unnecessarily restrictive and dampening in the local economy in a small town, where people can just wash their hands, avoid going anywhere but work and shopping for necessities, and businesses taking basic precautions like WFH and avoiding direct interaction where possible, and avoiding gatherings of large groups. I can leave my house, go out in my yard, and walk down my street and possibly not even see anyone else out, much less come within 6 feet of them. I can get in my car and go somewhere else and not have to come in contact with anyone. You can't do that in a city center, people have to stay in their apartments for two weeks, without leaving or wear protective gear when they do leave, because leaving their residence without interacting with people is impossible, you're liable to run into someone in the hallway, stairwell, elevator, sidewalk, bus, or train/subway, all of which are rolling the dice on infection. If you're in the same apartment building, its possible you're breathing the same air, and have the cruise ship effect. Someone in Oklahoma doesn't have those same risk factors, they don't interact with the same number of people going about their daily business, just avoiding travel is enough to keep the whole community isolated. Nothing much is gained by having them restricted to their house at all times, they just need to avoid certain things that would put them in more interaction with others than normal, or traveling outside their region and vice versa. What is being done now is probably best, you set baseline restrictions for the nation as a whole, and then each regional government increases or adds on to those restrictions based on the needs of their area.