Anyone going to Sturgis on a sports bike next month?

Holeshot

Super Moderator
Staff member
That’s cute.

Please explain how a state with an incredibly low population density has a significantly higher death rate

That isn't the point of my comment. My comment is that actual deaths matter, not extrapolated rates as a basis for comparison. That comparison has been used here almost solely to put an exclamation point on small states with a far lower death count than the larger state of CA, where most everyone here is affected.

I understand statistics just fine. 24K deaths VS 1,200 deaths only has significance in the real world as + 23.8K dead and yet I'm supposed to be shocked by ND's death rate in proportion. I'm not. I'm shocked by total deaths per state.

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/us-coronavirus-deaths-by-state-july-1.html

In comparison:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1103688/coronavirus-covid19-deaths-us-by-state/

I understand the medical world prefers incidents per metric and why, but for the layman, deaths are a metic we've lost sight of, IMO.
 

bojangle

FN # 40
Staff member
That isn't the point of my comment. My comment is that actual deaths matter, not extrapolated rates as a basis for comparison. That comparison has been used here almost solely to put an exclamation point on small states with a far lower death count than the larger state of CA, where most everyone here is affected.

I understand statistics just fine. 24K deaths VS 1,200 deaths only has significance in the real world as + 23.8K dead and yet I'm supposed to be shocked by ND's death rate in proportion. I'm not. I'm shocked by total deaths per state.

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/us-coronavirus-deaths-by-state-july-1.html

In comparison:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1103688/coronavirus-covid19-deaths-us-by-state/

I understand the medical world prefers incidents per metric and why, but for the layman, deaths are a metic we've lost sight of, IMO.

Total deaths do matter. And it is relevant that California has a lot more death, well, because more is more.

But it's the rates that are more significant in making decisions on how to manage a pandemic. For just think of how many dead people we would have in California if the rates here were close to what they are in the Dakotas.
 

Holeshot

Super Moderator
Staff member
But it's the rates that are more significant in making decisions on how to manage a pandemic. For just think of how many dead people we would have in California if the rates here were close to what they are in the Dakotas.

Rates with trends, agree absolutely. However, relative to this thread's focus: ND, I believe rolling active positive cases and rolling death counts have qualified info that is beneficial to policy and medical management decisions. I don't believe comparing CA to ND (or any other states for that matter) have much value aside from political hot bugging.

We're really not even sure what's working and what's not; what's effective and what's not with societal data to confirm any findings, are we? There's supposition and belief that actions we're taking are working, but no real data yet. We're still in the middle of the pandemic. What we learn and know is truth will come at the end of the pandemic, for use in the next pandemic (or phase of this one; mutation, etc).

We should continue the efforts we feel are working (individually) and work to keep ourselves and those around us safe and infection free. That is probably the most effective we can be combating Covid as individuals.
 

Climber

Well-known member
Rates with trends, agree absolutely. However, relative to this thread's focus: ND, I believe rolling active positive cases and rolling death counts have qualified info that is beneficial to policy and medical management decisions. I don't believe comparing CA to ND (or any other states for that matter) have much value aside from political hot bugging.

We're really not even sure what's working and what's not; what's effective and what's not with societal data to confirm any findings, are we? There's supposition and belief that actions we're taking are working, but no real data yet. We're still in the middle of the pandemic. What we learn and know is truth will come at the end of the pandemic, for use in the next pandemic (or phase of this one; mutation, etc).

We should continue the efforts we feel are working (individually) and work to keep ourselves and those around us safe and infection free. That is probably the most effective we can be combating Covid as individuals.
I have a niece who lives in North Dakota. There have been no mask mandates, all children have attended school as if there was no pandemic. People don't wear masks in most places.

The results show. They were long before they got hit, but they have since got hammered, they are now #4 on the per capita list for deaths even though their cases climbed long after we have learned how best to treat for best results.

Talking about total deaths per state is almost meaningless, not that the deaths don't have value, but deaths per capita puts all states on a level playing field to understand trends. It's not being exploited for political gain or for power, it's providing the information that policy could and should be based upon. In a sparsely populated state, the number of cases should be lower, but as we all know there are many factors. It is a colder state than many, the ceilings are lower, the stores are smaller and people got forced indoors earlier than other states.

Yes, this state is getting hit hard now. I think there are many factors, among them the sports events, especially the 400-500 team soccer tournament that most certainly featured hundreds of California teams along with their parents and families mixing with others in hotels, restaurants, bars, etc.

There is no one single way that the virus gets around, in that manner, it's an equal opportunity infector.

We're all in this together, and yet this nation has seen itself massively divided by the politicians and media, and that has only accomplished killing off more people and making it much harder to reopen businesses.

IMHO, had there been no anti-masker movement, most businesses would be reopened and the pandemic wouldn't be raging nearly to the extent that it has been.
 

Holeshot

Super Moderator
Staff member
I like your post Brett, but see that you're as much taking educated guesses at reasons for the increases in CA as in ND. As you've pointed out; these two states couldn't be further apart in makeup and landscape.

CA has had a mask mandate and the strictest policies in the county. As CA sees 340 deaths (along with Ny,Fl, TX, NJ being high), the focus is on ND, SD, IA, NB due to pushing the metric of "deaths/ 100K".

A normalization takes the heat off of the larger states.

Edit: I wonder if Vitamin D levels is a contributing factor in some of the deaths in certain areas. Everyone should have their levels checked, IMO.
 
Last edited:

Climber

Well-known member
No doubt that California is doing very badly now.

I think a large part of it is pandemic fatigue. People are tired of the restrictions and it's like lane sharing, nothing bad happened yet (to me) to we don't have to work at it as we have been.

I think it was a colossal blunder, on the CA leadership's part, to have the get together at the French Laundry, that was a striking Do As I Say, Not As I Do. His entire message and that of the health experts got seriously undermined. The mandates became pretty much unenforceable following that, how is any LEO going to charge a business for doing something that the top leadership did and didn't have any consequences for?

Also, this state has been very unintelligent with how it's shut down businesses, parks and other venues. There is no gray areas, where there should be, only black and white, one size fits all.

Far too many businesses have failed due to the poorly designed restrictions and nobody can fully back up the policies anymore. They've had plenty of time to evolve them, but they haven't.
 
Last edited:

bojangle

FN # 40
Staff member
It was legal to dine inside in Napa County on November 6th. I'm sure there were capacity limitations, and suggestions to only dine with those in one's household, but I'd say the laws allowed their dinner at the time.

I agree the mixed message hurt efforts to keep infections down. Indoor dining itself didn't do us any favors, and was a mistake that didn't last long.
 

GAJ

Well-known member
CA has had a mask mandate and the strictest policies in the county. As CA sees 340 deaths (along with Ny,Fl, TX, NJ being high), the focus is on ND, SD, IA, NB due to pushing the metric of "deaths/ 100K".

I live in Sonoma County, my oldest brother in Denton County TX, my younger brother in Dade County FL and my sister in Gwinnett County GA.

I put this together for them and it is interesting to see how those County per 100k number (far right column) compare to the State as a whole.

SONOMA COUNTY 494,336 4.94336 182 37
DENTON COUNTY 887,207 8.87207 320 36
DADE COUNTY 2,717,000 27.17 4127 152
GWINNETT COUNTY 936,250 9.3625 591 63

CALIFORNIA 39,510,000 395.1 24220 61
TEXAS 29,000,000 290 27062 93
FLORIDA 21,480,000 214.8 21134 98
GEORGIA 10,620,000 106.2 10352 97

The largest City in each County are:
Santa Rosa
Denton
Miami
Peachtree Corners


Miami parties like it's 1999 unlike the three other largest cities in the Counties in which my siblings and I reside.

The results speak for themselves.
 
Last edited:
But it's the rates that are more significant in making decisions on how to manage a pandemic. For just think of how many dead people we would have in California if the rates here were close to what they are in the Dakotas.

Yep, but the death numbers alone really don't mean much.

What I would like to see is how the states compare demographically per capita. Only then do you start seeing true trends.

If ND has a higher % of older people with 3 or more comorbidities, then it makes complete sense they have a higher rate of death.

You do this so your sample populations all sit equal. This is basic statistics. Can’t compare if the sample has variance.

FWIW: I only use the deaths per capita as an inference on how affected a hospital may be. If a state has a significantly higher death rate, I make the assumption that their hospitals are constrained. It tends to hold out valid.
 
Last edited:

Marcoose

50-50
Isn’t something like this posted in every thread? :twofinger

Yes, certainly. Thankfully very few threads touch the subject of 340,000 deaths, on pace to be the #1 cause of deaths in America. (I know, the pesky annualised basis.)

Lest we forget, Berto also professes deaths aren’t higher than usual, ignore the freezer lorries parked outside hospitals, the problem is with paperwork. Wait, now it’s vitamins too! (It must’ve been a tongue in cheek comment.)

Dismissing normalised metrics is like saying I lap under 1:20. Where, what vehicle, race or track day, what? Nah, just under 1:20. See, I’m fast.

Berto doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Full stop. That kind of message shouldn’t be given a platform to perpetuate alternate facts. Not when the underlying matter is thousands of lives.

As for other points raised here, I’m in agreement. Newsom and Breed outings were colossal errors in judgement. So was the brutal original shutdown. So was the reopening. So was indoor dining. And return to offices for non-key personnel. The toothpaste won’t go back in the tube. We’re going to have to ride this one out thru next summer if not next autumn. Hopefully with fewer unscientific comments.
 
Lest we forget, Berto also professes deaths aren’t higher than usual

But deaths are higher, much higher

That blip in the left middle-ish is the worst flu season we've had in like 10 years...
attachment.php


EDIT: Also, it's worth noting that the CDC death counts lag by 6-8 weeks before they really settle down, so don't believe the drop in the number of deaths you see in the last two weeks in the graphic - those are incomplete. A month from now the most recent numbers in this visualization will have risen substantially.
 

Attachments

  • Capture.jpg
    Capture.jpg
    31.3 KB · Views: 103
Last edited:

Marcoose

50-50
But deaths are higher, much higher

No need to conceive me. By March/April, when we’ll marking the anniversary of the beginning of deaths at scale, Covid will be neck and neck with cancer, perhaps even heart disease. But you know, it’s the paperwork that’ll make it look so high. :rolleyes
 

mlm

Contrarian
I like your post Brett, but see that you're as much taking educated guesses at reasons for the increases in CA as in ND. As you've pointed out; these two states couldn't be further apart in makeup and landscape.

CA has had a mask mandate and the strictest policies in the county. As CA sees 340 deaths (along with Ny,Fl, TX, NJ being high), the focus is on ND, SD, IA, NB due to pushing the metric of "deaths/ 100K".

A normalization takes the heat off of the larger states.

Edit: I wonder if Vitamin D levels is a contributing factor in some of the deaths in certain areas. Everyone should have their levels checked, IMO.
I agree you can’t directly compare rates between SD and CA, but not for the reasons you state. Mask use, precautions, and attitudes differ by region, as do risk factors like age, obesity, population density, and climate. Also agree the Vitamin D link is interesting.
 
Oh for certain. There are many reasons and behaviors that affect outcomes.

Demographics being the easy ones to rank and track. Behaviors is a whole ‘nother beast.
 
Top