3 ms·
New York ends up being a problematic comparison point, because they were at zero restrictions until mid March 2020, so most of the infections through near the e
by rallison 5y ago
New York ends up being a problematic comparison point, because they were at zero restrictions until mid March 2020, so most of the infections through near the end of March were effectively a "no restrictions" test case. I.e. people testing positive late March were the highly symptomatic cases (because of limited test availability), so these were generally people infected 10+ days before, which means they were before any restrictions. Restrictions on mass gatherings happened on March 12th, but the stay-at-home order didn't happen until March 22nd.
What I'm getting at is that, if you want to use New York as a test comparison for loose vs tight restrictions, you're going to have a much deeper analysis to do, and a large portion of the deaths in New York were effectively resulting from a period when there were zero to minimal restrictions.
- chrismcb 5y agoHow is this problematic? I thought California was the first to lockdown and the stay at home order was issued on the 19th.
- rallison 5y agoI'm not sure what California has to do with the point I was making? Anyway, it's problematic because around half of the total recorded deaths for New York state, for the entire pandemic up to now, likely resulted from infections that happened during the no/minimal restrictions period in March of 2020. Presumably the original poster wanted a "strong restrictions" vs "light restrictions" comparison w.r.t. to deaths. And that's fine; it's just that New York is going to give you a poor starting point for that comparison unless you dive deeper.