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

According to a newly-released study by Johns-Hopkins University (in South Carolina),

Starting last Summer,
STATES with REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS had HIGHER COVID CASE RATES, and DEATH RATES,
than those with Democratic Governors, whose rates were higher in the first months of the pandemic, when cases were largely concentrated on the East & West Coasts.

https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-rel...tion-and-covid-19-case-and-death-numbers.html

From the link-attached article:

The per-capita rates of new COVID-19 cases and COVID-19 deaths were higher in states with Democrat governors in the first months of the pandemic last year, but became much higher in states with Republican governors by mid-summer and through 2020, possibly reflecting COVID-19 POLICY differences between GOP- and DEMOCRAT-LED states, according to a study led by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Medical University of South Carolina.
<END SNIP>

I would've hoped a thread like this, by now, would no longer be necessary but, I've seen, many are still unconvinced of the value of the Covid-mitigation techniques that have been used over the past year. PF is still full of those arguing that states with fewer restrictions have fared as well, or better, than those with more restrictions. This analysis, done by the highly-esteemed, Southern, Medical School of Johns-Hopkins, blows those arguments to smithereens.


Just to add another dimension to, one more, your state is crazier than my state, thread, I wish to incorporate this idea:
there are some countries which BEAT COVID, BEFORE Vaccines were available. The caveat, however, is that these were places in the Far East, where they do not place such a high premium on individual Freedoms, as we do in the U.S., and so find it much easier to follow protocols designed to benefit the overall SOCIETY, on which the people seem to put a greater importance, priority, focus, or whatever term one can accept without it, too much, chafing against one's individual pride in America's status.

The places, to which I'm referring, are Singapore,Taiwan, & Viet Nam.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/C...an-Vietnam-and-Singapore-keep-COVID-near-zero

 

New Zealand and Australia have also done far better than most with a combination of strict lockdowns and a proper closing of borders with tight quarantines rather than just lip service like Trump's border closes.

 

Really?-- I wonder why that story hasn't gotten as much play, or if I simply missed it. Even the story about the Asian nations isn't big news, though I had long heard that South Korea (which isn't in the article I linked) had dealt with the pandemic much more effectively than most nations. I will have to look into your lead. At this point, I would speculate that it might be a difference in the degree of their success.

The article mentions that Taiwan recently had its first transmission of the disease in eight months; understandably, when stepping outside your hotel room will get you a $3,500 (U.S.) fine. These type of restrictions would never be tolerable in the West, nor do I think anyone could make the case that they were warranted, here. Maybe it is, besides a cultural difference, a function of the overcrowded, densely-packed populations of these areas (especially if you're on an island, with nowhere to run).

The Aussies & Kiwis, while on islands, have lots of leg room, I understand. How about over there, in the U.K.? Why are you not overcrowded as hell, by now-- even with slowed birth rates? Emigration?

 

Well, if deaths per million of population is anything to go by they are right up there with the best.
Aus 35 and NZ only 5.

 

I meant, of course, other than the Brits who'd emigrated to what became the U.S. (& Canada), and New Zealand, and who were sent to Australia.

 

I don't know what the population distribution is like in NZ but Aus although very big has most of it's population in just a few cities.

We are overcrowded as hell in the UK. Along with the slow reaction and some poor decisions early on I think it's one of the reasons we've been hit so hard. We are also an international travel hub and didn't impose strict quarantines until very recently.

 

@Montegriffo
If you're into the numbers, here's a wikipedia article that has an interesting table of death rates, if you scroll down a little bit.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_death_rates_by_country

The chart's columns give you:
Confirmed Cases
Deaths
Case Fatality Rate
Deaths per 100k population

They are arranged by this final category, deaths per 100k, in descending order. The U.K.is the fifth worst, on the very comprehensive list, w/ 189 deaths per 100k, and a death rate of 2.9%. Italy is 8th, w/ 169.6 deaths per 100k, & a death rate of 3.2%. For Americans who want to feel good about our effort, you should stop after the ten-spot, which belongs to the U.S., with (only) 163.7 deaths per 100k, & a respectably-low death rate of 1.8%.

Though the info from most 1st World countries, I would take to be pretty accurate, I would be suspect of some of the other, reported data. For example, about midway down, I noticed Norway's enviable, per capita death rate at 12.04 (w/ a 0.8% mortality rate). But that is the same per capita as the Philippines, which is just higher than India, Egypt, Nepal, & Zimbabwe. Though, I guess that could merely be due to larger populations, in those countries.

Nevertheless, my belief, all along, that Russia's numbers were artificially-low, were confirmed by a footnote, "Russia's death rate is now far higher than first thought, after a recent update, it is now over 186,000 (total deaths)"-- it had initially been put on the chart as about half that (91k), which had landed its per capita rate just above Canada's (60.7), at 62.96. So that update would put it over 125 per 100k, and I bet, in truth, it is as high or probably even higher than the U.S.'s. Russia's mortality rate of 2.1 %, according to the footnote, would now be, officially, more like 4.25%

By comparing a country's Per capita death & Mortality rates, one can see a country's stronger & weaker points, in their response. Canada, with only 22,484 deaths, has a vastly lower per capita rate than the U.S., but their mortality rate, of those who do get the virus, is a bit higher, at 2.4%-- so they have obviously been a lot better about restraining transmission; though the relatively sparse population over so much of their country must certainly play a role.

Am I losing your interest, or should I give some of the best results, to finish off? Australia's is good, but not among the best: 909 deaths, 3.1% mortality, & per capita 3.64 (/100k). They are currently edged out by Cuba, with double the total # of cases, but only 373 deaths (0.6% mortality)= 3.29 per capita. Then comes South Korea, at 3.25 per capita (and a mortality rate almost identical to the U.S., at 1.7%).

New Zealand is a good bit better: 2400 cases, 26 deaths, 1.1% mortality, 0.53 per capita. For reference, this lands it at the same per capita as Singapore (from my linked article) and slightly higher than China (0.35)

I guess this shows that these type of articles are not comprehensive-- with their choices made, amongst those of comparable merit, on a somewhat arbitrary basis. Though Taiwan, and Viet Nam are, indeed listed amongst the very best (both with per capitas of 0.04), and I can understand the idea of grouping Far East Asian countries together, Thailand's per capita number, 0.13, is markedly better than Singapore's. (Maybe they thought it would be too hard for we Americans to distinguish between two Asian countries, both beginning with T- sounds?)
Both, though, are still impressive: Thailand sustaining just 87 deaths out of 27k infections (0.3% mortality), and Singapore certifying more than double the infections, 60k, but suffering just 30 deaths (which wiki lists as 0.0% mortality).

 

In those first months, weren't Democrat States in extreme lockdown?

 

UNBELIEVABLE! At least I now know your remarks come from mere ignorance, & are not the contrary, fact-evading, specious arguments that I'd always thought they were, until I recently discovered that you don't live here. WHERE HAVE YOU SPENT THE PANDEMIC! That's another, kind of, must-have answer, at this point.

In answer to your question above, during those early months: 1) it was predominantly only Blue States where the virus even WAS, as far as we knew, so OF COURSE, there are going to be higher rates of infection and deaths; and 2) what made it so much WORSE for the early centers for the virus-- NEW YORK, + surrounding area, and CALIFORNIA, + other West Coast states-- was that the virus had arrived, since international flights tend not to land in Dubuque, Iowa, but rather, New York City or Los Angeles, without anyone knowing it, and had weeks to spread, in secret.

So, when those states first realized that Covid was there, or even in the country, they already had rampant spread of the virus. They got no warning or chance to prepare-- as nearly all Red States DID get.

 

Can't it be fairly judged on the basis of the number of cases per million?

 

No! No one knew anything about the virus when it first hit those states on the coast that have a huge number of international travelers so obviously they would be hit hard before any control measures would have an effect. I can't believe this needs even explaining

 

What's the cut off point before all states are treated equal?

 

I would suggest the second wave in the state would be the time to start looking at cases and deaths per million and how long the first wave lasted

 

No date?

 

You can't use a date as the virus spreads from its epicenter which takes time which is why the land locked states had a pre-warning of what is just around the corner if they ignore what is happening to the coastal states. The land-locked states also had the advantage of being able to use the best treatment discovered by the coastal states

 

No surprise there. If NY city hadn't been hit that hard early on, when there were no tests, this correlation would be even more clear for everyone to see.

Now, the damning thing is that the midwest states, like SD, had ample warning from what happened in NY city. What did they do? Nothing.

 

What SHOULD they have done?

 

And this explains why New York is 30th in cases per million, but 2nd in deaths per million?

 

South Korea did a far better job than we did. The main reason is that most of the things Trump started to do in late March they were doing in late Jan.

 

Yeah, I go to Worldometers every now and again to check the numbers.
As with most things different countries have different methods and abilities in compiling the numbers.
The UK figures are pretty shocking, I put a lot of this down to our densely populated areas and our position as an international travel hub along with poor political management and problems with adherence to covid restrictions from some sections of society.
The government coming up with a scheme called ''eat out to help out'' where they subsidised restaurant meals certainly didn't help out nor did Boris's desire to save Christmas by slackening restrictions in the build up to the festive season.
Fortunately I live in one of the more sparsely populated areas of the country with cases per 100k of around 65.
I have a friend who works in the local supermarket and so far they have not had a single case of covid amongst the staff.
Friends living in the cities have not been so lucky and I know of several who are suffering the effects of long covid but so far none of my friends has died.

 

For someone who's debating style consists almost entirely of asking questions Chris's inability to take on information is surprising. Possibly because the intent seems to be to achieve some great gotcha moment rather than to actually learn anything.

 

Yes, that's a function of overwhelming healthcare services with an initial huge wave of infections and an example of why ''flattening the curve'' was so important.

 

Yes, and after the curve was flattened, the lockdowns continued.

 

That's how you keep it flat.

 

So then lockdown forever?