Experts attribute California’s relatively low coronavirus numbers to the state taking some of the nation’s earliest and most aggressive social-distancing measures and its cities having less dense populations than New York’s.
I call this @balajis-effect: "The most resilient metro region in California may be the San Francisco Bay Area, where six counties issued the nation’s first stay-at-home orders to a large population on March 16 " https://t.co/Jcvnmk7jaz via @WSJ
RT @antoniogm: 'The most resilient metro region in California may be the San Francisco Bay Area, where six counties issued the nation’s first stay-at-home orders to a large population on March 16.'
As with most things, why we didn't have a huge outbreak here is multi-faceted. The spread appears to be weather related, with it flourishing in 40 - 50 degree temperatures. The reality is we actually probably did have an outbreak, but it happened in our cool months of December and January when we all had that "weird virus" that wasn't the flu.
This video is long, but it is so worth your time. It discusses so many facets of the disease, including the latest conclusions from epidemiologists on how it is spread and likelihood of reinfection, how it was handled and should be handled going forward, and the overall economic situation. It's not a fear mongering narrative; she takes facts and breaks down the implications of the facts. I highly recommend watching it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=emb_rel_pause&v=VtDlpHSoZto&app=desktop
Eva Kassens-Noor, a professor of urban planning at Michigan State University, has studied the 1918 influenza pandemic to better understand the role that population density and other geographic variables play in pandemics.
“Rural populations have less means to contract it [coronavirus], but rural populations have less means to treat it,” Kassens-Noor says.
When it comes to other, more familiar infectious diseases, cities benefit from higher vaccination rates and the accompanying phenomenon known as “herd immunity.”
If a large enough percentage of a population has received vaccination to an infectious disease, the community can effectively stop its transmission to vulnerable people or those who didn’t get the shot.
Smaller cities can also suffer more acutely from infectious disease than big ones, at least when it comes to the flu. A 2018 paper published in Science, co-authored by Dalziel and Viboud, found that mid-sized metropolitan areas such as Nashville tend to experience shorter and more intense outbreaks of influenza relative to big cities such as New York or Miami. Larger urban populations, the researchers found, provide a greater degree of herd immunity, slowing the spread of the disease through the community and counteracting the role that humidity plays in the spread of flu. Larger urban hospitals also tend to be more capable of handling an influx of sick people.
I didn't read the article, but from the excerpt, it seems the contents are misleading. You don't need a vaccine for herd immunity. You can also get herd immunity by exposing the young, healthy people to it and letting them get sick. Once more than 60% of the population has already had it = herd immunity to protect that those that are more vulnerable: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7Mvu2JNR2M&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7Mvu2JNR2M&feature=youtu.be)
This situation feels to me like we are being deliberately stopped from developing natural herd immunity so that Big Pharma can sell us vaccines. Bill Gates basically admitted that was the case in an interview he did: https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/04/did-bill-gates-just-reveal-the-reason-behind-the-lock-downs/
So, naturally that quote set off my "Big Pharma Propagandist Shill" radar.
I have been concerned about Big Pharma's strong-hold over America for years. But deliberately imprisoning us in our own homes and destroying the entire world economy all in the name of selling vaccines has gone too far.
It's probably both, but San Francisco is only slightly less dense than Queens.
I think the big difference here was that most of the population was already self-SIPing as early as the week of March 1. Lasy official day of school was the 14th, but the district had basically told everyone that there would be no issue keeping your kid home as of the 9th.
Lots of shows were cancelled on the 6th and 7th, office workers were already being told to work from home.
The last time I was on bart was on March 11, and it was completely empty mid-day.
SF basically started shutting itself down the first week of march, and was functionally shut down as of the 10th. There were people out at bars on the 13th, and people were PISSED OFF and let everyone know it.
This may have something to do with a good chunk of people who live here having bio-related degrees, working for biotech companies, and not believing a fucking word out of Trump's mouth.
Case counts aren't necessarily an indication of where the outbreak is the worst because we know our testing isn't catching everyone. Rich people in Brentwood have better access to doctors, and access to doctors who are willing to bend the rules for the sake of their rich clients.
This lady makes a strong argument that CA already had a huge outbreak of COVID-19 in CA in December and January, and I agree with her. Everyone I know got sick with a "weird virus." We had thousands of people that were arriving from China every day between when the outbreak started there in October and being flagged as a problem in February. The spread appears to be weather related, flourishing in 40 - 50 degree temps, and that was when our weather was in the correct window. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=emb\_rel\_pause&v=VtDlpHSoZto&app=desktop](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=emb_rel_pause&v=VtDlpHSoZto&app=desktop)
This is impossible to know or to differentiate between that and this years flu. I had multiple members of my family and friends get sick during that time. They did not experience the respiratory issues that are attached to COVID. Also, if you look at the curve since we started tracking it and CA did the stay at home orders, you will see that it is working.
They do test anyone who is suspected of having the flu, so we have reasonably accurate numbers for the flu. Here are San Diego's numbers: [https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/hhsa/programs/phs/documents/InfluenzaWatch.pdf](https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/hhsa/programs/phs/documents/InfluenzaWatch.pdf)
As you can see, San Diego is having a worse than normal flu season. But as I mentioned in my reply to u/ScannerBrightly above, this has been a bad sickness year in San Diego in general. At my son's school, they said the last time they had so many sick days was 10 years ago. The flu went around his school, so did strep, and so did another weird virus that kept kids home for more than a week with a high fever and dry cough.
I’m good with the back and forth. I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue. My original statement was that since CA started their stay at home orders, the curve of new cases is actually flattening. I’m all good with the information I’m reading without needing Kim Iverson as a reference point.
While I don't disagree that staying home has helped lessen the spread of the coronavirus, I think that it is likely CA already had an outbreak in December and January, so the extreme lock-down tactics the government has imposed on us were too much too late, so to speak. At the time people in CA were getting sick, it was just written off as a "weird virus."
But let's assume that the virus hadn't already gone around. The government should have full on quarantined at risk people and let the low risk people live our lives normally. Instead, we have at risk people wandering the grocery stores while low risk people are being fined $1,000 for fishing all by themselves in the bay. I know that a small percentage of young, healthy people do need hospital care, but the % is actually much lower than the flu. If they let young, healthy people keep going on with normal life, we would have developed herd immunity and eventually, the at risk people could come back out. All they've done by keeping herd immunity from happening is set us up for the same nightmare next fall when virus season returns.
San Diego also had a very bad flu season this year. At my son's school, they said the last time they had so many sick days was 10 years ago. The flu went around his school, so did strep, and so did another weird virus that kept kids home for more than a week with a high fever and dry cough. By early February, the school was continually sending emails asking parents to check for fevers every morning and to not send kids if they displayed any signs of illness (no appetite, lethargic). But I think most families are dual working families and only keep their kids home if they are very obviously sick because it means mom or dad can't go to work that day, either.
Every place the coronavirus has been allowed to spread uncontrolled, there have been significant impacts to the hospital system. We did not see anything during that time period. There is overwhelming evidence against your conspiracy theory.
That isn't true. Sweden and Japan had always taken a "herd immunity" stance and haven't been inundated with cases. There are 9 states in the US that also didn't do a lock down, and none of them are over-run with cases.
Also, FYI, the CDC is encouraging hospitals to list anyone who dies with suspected coronavirus as dying of coronavirus, which are not the same thing -- and no test required to put COVID-19 on the death cert. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/coronavirus/Alert-2-New-ICD-code-introduced-for-COVID-19-deaths.pdf
Likewise, the Federal government has guaranteed they will cover medical costs of uninsured patients who die of COVID-19, again no test required. This incentivizes hospitals to lie about cause of death in order to guarantee payment for services rendered. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.axios.com/government-uninsured-coronavirus-treatment-4bb08407-0ccd-4815-b3ab-bb9ad826b7e3.html.
Edit; Added Japan and fixed typos
Enough with that conspiracy nonsense.
Look at Italy. Look at Spain. Look at New York. Look at Wuhan.
Magically we had some disease going around here that somehow managed to get us to herd immunity without causing more than a minor blip on the radar while everywhere else has been murdered by it? Oh and Wuhan, where we know this disease started, somehow didn't develop herd immunity and it blew up there, while somehow we managed to develop herd immunity due to an invisible outbreak?
[I also would not consider Sweden to be doing well.](https://covid19.healthdata.org/sweden) [Their curve sees no sign of flattening yet and over 8.6% of their reported cases have died.](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/) Despite having a population smaller than California, they have many more recorded deaths, and it appears to only be getting worse for them. And you can't point to other states not implementing social distancing measures and claim they prove that the herd immunity approach works because we are still in the middle of this wave. When and how bad the coronavirus will hit your community depends on a lot of measures, but letting everyone get it never seems to work. Once the number of cases blows up this gets reversed.
Making the claim that somehow we managed to obtain herd immunity without knowing it is wild speculation, irresponsible, and bad science. Nobody has demonstrated that herd immunity could be achieved without causing any sort of disruption, and until someone comes up with a plausible mechanism, this theory should be ignored.
"Enough with that conspiracy nonsense"
Here is a great quote from Caitlin Johnstone: "What I do know is that enormous changes are happening, and that powerful people are definitely conspiring to advance their own interests as this unfolds. There are many theories about who specifically is conspiring with whom and the specific manner in which they are doing so, and they’re being dismissed by establishment loyalists as “conspiracy theories” as though that in and of itself constitutes some sort of argument. That conspiracies are happening is actually just a fact that is obvious to any adult with a mature understanding of the world, and it can be useful to come up with theories about how that might be occurring; **calling theories about conspiracies the thing that they are in a disparaging tone does not actually invalidate them."**
As I have already mentioned, the spread of the virus is weather related. The time in which the outbreaks have occurred in various cities correspond to the weather in those cities at the time of the outbreak: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtV3krGIuJk&t=4s
Plenty of epidemiologists disagree with your viewpoint on not letting the virus spread to create herd immunity. Here is an article: https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Coronavirus-lockdown-Life-saving-or-lunacy-623937
I'm not just saying your ideas are bullshit, I'm backing up all my positions with evidence. You're making wild speculation without any evidence supporting your claims, and therefore [Hitchen's Razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor) applies.
Everyone knows that restrictions won't lead to immunity, and that we lost our chance at containment. The restrictions aren't in place to keep people from getting the virus however; they're in place to keep the entire population from getting it all at once, which would overwhelm the healthcare system. There is zero evidence suggesting that letting the coronavirus take its course naturally will not cause disruptions to the healthcare system.
Science doesn't care about who screams the loudest; it cares about evidence. Saying that the reason the outbreak in California isn't so bad is because we have herd immunity is bullshit. We were tracking quite nicely on an exponential model right up until the point where the stay at home order was expected to have impact. Italy too saw the same thing, same with Spain.
Once again, if you don't have a plausible mechanism for how we could have achieved herd immunity without ever noticing it, you don't have a valid theory. And why would we have noticed it? Well the population of the state is around 40 million, which means that 32-36 million people in the state need to catch it to get herd immunity. If we take the lower bound of 32 million, and use the lower bound death rate for the coronavirus of 0.5%, that would be 160k deaths. Simple math tells us that we did not magically all get the coronavirus, and to continue pushing this claim would be dangerously irresponsible.
I have supplied multiple articles and videos from reputable sources to support my arguments. The fact that you pretended as if I hadn't indicates to me that you are probably paid to "control the narrative." Since you are unable to argue the validity of the articles that I have provided, you have instead switched gears to another narrative control tactic: to try to smear the arguer by saying their claims are somehow invalid or non-existent. As this crises continues to unfold, the shill tactics are becoming more obvious and desperate. You've already lost control of the narrative. If I were in your shoes, I'd be giving some serious thought about whether or not continuing to obfuscate facts so that the billionaire oligarchs like Big Pharma can retain control over us peons is really how I want to live my life.
The only reputable sources you have provided do not support your point.
I would consider these to be reliable, however they do not support your assertion that the government is artificially inflating numbers.
The youtube channel you've linked to twice is garbage - any youtube channel that unironically uses the term "facist left" should be ignored.
And your article that quotes an expert is also heavily biased. Here's some select quotes:
- "“Lockdown is lunacy,” Prof. Yoram Lass, a member of the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, told The Jerusalem Post. “It's impossible to stop a virus by government decree.”"
- "While the government has espoused hysteria over the last six weeks"
- "In Israel, he said, this hysteria is compounded by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who he said is locking everyone else up so he can be free. "
The article tries to drive home the opinion that the lockdown is just a crazy power grab, and it uses weasel words like "lunacy" and "hysteria" to paint anyone pushing for restrictions as being unreasonable. It also mispaints the purpose of restricting access - instead of being for flattening the curve so the health system can bear the load, it falsely claims it's to stop the virus. This article is so heavily tainted by political bias that it too should be discarded.
And contrary to what you claim, I have not insulted you nor have I moved the goalposts. You asserted that the reason for the lower number of cases is immunity from a previous wave; I have been completely consistent in saying that there is zero evidence for such a claim. In fact, I've gone a step further - I've disproven your theory with simple math.
Of course, you've done exactly what I should have expected from someone who espouses fringe theories - you've accused me of being a shill. You're welcome to believe that if it helps you sleep at night, but when everyone disagrees with what you say, it's not them; it's you. There was a quote that I wish I had saved, but to paraphrase it, an effective quarantine will seem completely useless.
And now for the sake of consistency, you still have provided no evidence of a wave of coronavirus infections prior to the current one.
I think another aspect of this came earlier on that we got lucky with: because its closer, New York gets more travel from and to Europe, which was hit hard and had a high infection rate; California gets more travel from and to Asia, which went on lockdown early. I think that's a geographic component that helped slow the infection rate for the West Coast.