As of approximately 4 pm CDT this afternoon, Italy has the highest confirmed per capita infection rate of any substantial country. There are 978 Italians confirmed with COVID-19 for every million people. Switzerland is not far behind, at 864 per million. There are a few micro states, the largest of which is Iceland (which has a smaller population than greater Des Moines), that have higher per capita rates, but the microstates have such low denominators that they are not very useful yardsticks.
New York State has a whopping 810 cases per million residents, closing in on both Italy and Switzerland fast. And the vast majority of those cases are concentrated in the City and nearby commuter counties. Franklin County, in the Adirondacks (and where your Editor has been known to spend some time) has not yet had a single confirmed case.
By contrast, the other 49 states combined, including such hot zones as Washington and California, are at 54 cases per million residents. That puts the per million infection rate in the “other 49” just between Australia and North Macedeonia. Or China, if you care to believe Commie numbers. Which we don’t.
One question, of course, is whether the rest of the country is just “behind” New York by a few days, or whether there are important differences that should inform policy. We suspect some of both is true. Yes, New York is the land of stainless steel subway poles, where the virus once deposited will linger a particularly long time, cheek-by-jowl restaurant tables, and terribly crowded sidewalks. But New York is also testing heaving masses of people, so it may be revealing its own infections more completely than other states that will soon catch up in the world’s most dubious league table.
Regardless, the vast difference in the apparent rate of infection between downstate New York and the rest of the country (and the considerable differences among the remaining 49 states) suggests that we need not apply precisely the same policies in every jurisdiction. Even in New York State, we do not understand the logic, beyond mere political calculus, for imposing the same burdens on the already poor towns of the Adirondacks as are the bare minimum, if that, in the boroughs.
We are doing enough damage to the economy as it is without doing more than is necessary by treating everywhere, even everywhere in New York State, as if it were the Times Square subway station. Poverty kills as surely as Covid-19, and it may be the one thing we are producing as fast as virus particles.
Fearless state and local leaders, please use a scalpel, not a hacksaw, even if the Manhattan-headquartered national media demands a universal, maximum response everywhere.
10 Comments
Thank you.. I have been saying this to my family (on whatsapp groups) with exactly these thoughts. Here is what I posted today..
—
US is not one monolith geography.. it is probably 25-30 mini geographies..
a. They are ALL not getting impacted equally at the SAME time..any US level full blown tactical response makes little sense.
b. This virus is rolling out each with its own “epidemic curve” .. this will most likely drag out over many weeks with fatalities coming down over time due better preparedness, development of more effective treatment protocols etc
c. Currently the high number of deaths are mostly focused in predominantly high density urban areas
d. The suburbs and rural areas have natural social distancing and hence not seeing many deaths – FL could change that, lets see?
e. The approach to be ready at the state level and empower states to manage this – including helping them with surge resource requirements in urban areas – with federal government in support role makes sense.
My assessment – US situation will be dragged out and our fatalities will be much lower than predicted by the time this is all done
Agree, but we will have tragic catastrophes in some of our cities.
We may have “tragic catastrophes.” It’s too early to tell.
*rolling out geography by geography..in b)
[…] Blueberry Town: […]
yes..specifically in compact cities (for ex, LA or Phoenix are spread out) and that is what we need to address, aggressively. Also, the virus kills people with underlying conditions and then older people. This vulnerable population should be identified, quarantined and supported.
I think a narrow targeted (80-20 principle) approach needs to be deployed.. rather than “boiling the ocean” which is leading to catastrophic financial consequences for the masses
If you let the cat out …..you will never catch it!!!
I’m talking about the coronavirus which is highly contagious. Even though I live in Texas with more space between homes, there’s been thousands confirmed with the covid 19 virus and less than 1000 dead….but, how many people should we sacrifice before we wake-up and protect our citizens?
[…] Disaster in New York does not require the same policy everywhere […]
We’re quite a bit under 1,000 dead in Texas. By about 990…
Thanks for an excellent article. I’d add that the efficacy of stop the spread techniques varies depending greatly on the infection rate. in a region To exaggerate the numbers a bit, here are some principles.
1. If only one person in a thousand has this virus, then it is rather pointless for the other 999 to isolate themselves from one another or businesses to be shut down. They aren’t going to spread what they don’t have. The smart move is to test widely, locate that one, and isolate that one and everyone thy’ve been in close contact with until they can no longer infect others.
2. If one region has that one in a thousand infection rate and another has a hundred in a thousand, then it makes sense to prevent those in the more infected area from traveling to the less infected one without tests and a period of isolation.
I believe those policies may be why Taiwan, although at high risk from nearby China, has managed to keep this virus at very low levels. They practiced the second to keep the virus from spreading to them from China and, because they kept the number of those infected low enough the social isolation could easily be restricted to those with the disease or in close contact with those with the disease.