Dakotas lead US in virus growth as both reject mask rules

[Casper]

I feel for ya, and I know we can only take this one day at a time. We had an outbreak from a wedding reception last month that caused 176 cases, but the thing is, we've got the numbers low enough to contact trace like gang busters and hopefully keep things contained. Our CDC Director explained that is the key, keeping the numbers low enough to follow up thoroughly. If the case load gets to a certain point, it is impossible to contain. We didn't get there. Yet, anyway. Stay safe.

Feel for us all. So long as we have people that cannot do the right thing we are going to have outbreaks. Is what it Is.

 

[MaryP]

Feel for us all. So long as we have people that cannot do the right thing we are going to have outbreaks. Is what it Is.

I do.

 

[avatar]

Not to be the bearer of bad news but we are no where near being out of this mess and with fall and winter coming along with the flue season things will probably get worse again. Until we get everyone do wear masks and SD we will never get this under control.

Sadly one only has to look as far as the opening colleges where immortal students believe masks just get in the way. It's unfortunate that a few students in many places are ruining it for all those who do it right.

 

[Casper]

Sadly one only has to look as far as the opening colleges where immortal students believe masks just get in the way. It's unfortunate that a few students in many places are ruining it for all those who do it right.

Just a few is all it takes and in some places it is way more than a few.

 

[RAMOSS]

Both Dakotas have minuscule counts. Their case fatality rates are one-third that of the country over all. They are 39th and 40th in total cases.

Yet, their infection rate for new cases is above 25 per 100K per day. That is a 'per capita' issue.


You don't need many cases when you don't have many people.

 

[Moderate Right]

Dakotas lead US in virus growth as both reject mask rules

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — Coronavirus infections in the Dakotas are growing faster than anywhere else in the nation, fueling impassioned debates over masks and personal freedom after months in which the two states avoided the worst of the pandemic.

The argument over masks raged this week in Brookings, South Dakota, as the city council considered requiring face coverings in businesses. The city was forced to move its meeting to a local arena to accommodate intense interest, with many citizens speaking against it, before the mask requirement ultimately passed.

Amid the brute force of the pandemic, health experts warn that the infections must be contained before care systems are overwhelmed. North Dakota and South Dakota lead the country in new cases per capita over the last two weeks, ranking first and second respectively, according to Johns Hopkins University researchers.
=================================================================
I always wondered about the people who live n the Dakotas.

I worked in an office with a very religious man who traveled often to the midwest selling agricultural products. I was surprised when he told me the most depressed he had ever been was when he stepped off an airliner in Fargo, ND.

Figures for Sept 16th:

California 3375 new cases, 106 deaths - has had mask mandate for 2 1/2 months

N Dakota 269 new cases, 5 deaths - no mask mandate

S Dakota 297 new cases, 8 deaths - no mask mandate

Now, who's doing better and who's doing worse?

 

[Luce]

Figures for Sept 16th:

California 3375 new cases, 106 deaths - has had mask mandate for 2 1/2 months

N Dakota 269 new cases, 5 deaths - no mask mandate

S Dakota 297 new cases, 8 deaths - no mask mandate

Now, who's doing better and who's doing worse?

Did you take a minute to look at the populations of those states?

 

[Bullseye]

Yet, their infection rate for new cases is above 25 per 100K per day. That is a 'per capita' issue.


You don't need many cases when you don't have many people.

And they're case fatality rate is one-third that of the country.

 

[MaryP]

And they're case fatality rate is one-third that of the country.

They invited in a quarter million bikers from all over the country, no precautions. You sure like ignoring that while you play with statistics. Of course they are experiencing outbreaks.

 

[RAMOSS]

And they're case fatality rate is one-third that of the country.

That is only because the rate of fataility has dropoped off due to the new theraputics, and you are including the early days when we didn't know how to treat the disease.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Figures for Sept 16th:

California 3375 new cases, 106 deaths - has had mask mandate for 2 1/2 months

N Dakota 269 new cases, 5 deaths - no mask mandate

S Dakota 297 new cases, 8 deaths - no mask mandate

Now, who's doing better and who's doing worse?

Using your figures for 16 SEP 20,

California - population 39,512,223 - 3375 new cases (85.42/Million), 106 deaths (2.68/Million) - has had mask mandate for 2 1/2 months

N Dakota - population 762,062 - 269 new cases (352.99/Million), 5 deaths (6.56/Million) - no mask mandate

S Dakota - population 884659 - 297 new cases (335.72/Million), 8 deaths (9.04/Million) - no mask mandate

"Who is doing better", sort of depends on whether or not you want to use a cherry picked data set that gives an advantage to states with smaller populations, or one that uses a "level playing field" comparison - doesn't it?

​

 

[Moderate Right]

Using your figures for 16 SEP 20,

California - population 39,512,223 - 3375 new cases (85.42/Million), 106 deaths (2.68/Million) - has had mask mandate for 2 1/2 months

N Dakota - population 762,062 - 269 new cases (352.99/Million), 5 deaths (6.56/Million) - no mask mandate

S Dakota - population 884659 - 297 new cases (335.72/Million), 8 deaths (9.04/Million) - no mask mandate

"Who is doing better", sort of depends on whether or not you want to use a cherry picked data set that gives an advantage to states with smaller populations, or one that uses a "level playing field" comparison - doesn't it?

View attachment 67295687

View attachment 67295688

View attachment 67295689

View attachment 67295690

View attachment 67295691​

Face the facts. You should be talking about California, not North and South Dakota.

 

[Bullseye]

That is only because the rate of fataility has dropoped off due to the new theraputics, and you are including the early days when we didn't know how to treat the disease.

Oh, and they're recovery rate is 83% as of an hour ago. I'm not sure what your point is. I'm including exactly the same time frame as every other state.

 

[Bullseye]

Using your figures for 16 SEP 20,

California - population 39,512,223 - 3375 new cases (85.42/Million), 106 deaths (2.68/Million) - has had mask mandate for 2 1/2 months

N Dakota - population 762,062 - 269 new cases (352.99/Million), 5 deaths (6.56/Million) - no mask mandate

S Dakota - population 884659 - 297 new cases (335.72/Million), 8 deaths (9.04/Million) - no mask mandate

"Who is doing better", sort of depends on whether or not you want to use a cherry picked data set that gives an advantage to states with smaller populations, or one that uses a "level playing field" comparison - doesn't it?

View attachment 67295687

View attachment 67295688

View attachment 67295689

View attachment 67295690

View attachment 67295691​

LOL, you do love your spreadsheets and are impressively skilled with them. However just posting them with out explanation of what we're supposed to observe or learn from them is nonsense.
s.
However, speaking as a Californian I can tell you that although, technically, we have a "mask mandate" it is poorly observed and enforced. In fact we were one of the first stated to openly rebel against masks. We've also gone through several phases of "opening/closing" and the associated restriction.

I'd have to say that attempt to force a "per capita" comparison between a huge state with wide diversity in landscape, urbanization, diversity, etc and and two states who's population is less that dozens of California urban areas - Fresno as 494,000 people for instance - may be pushing the envelope a bit. It may be approaching the maxim one of my math teachers use to say "just because you can perform a mathematical operation on two numbers doesn't mean you should, or, that the result will express anything meaningful".

 

[Binary_Digit]

Both Dakotas have minuscule counts.

Figures for Sept 16th:

California 3375 new cases, 106 deaths - has had mask mandate for 2 1/2 months

N Dakota 269 new cases, 5 deaths - no mask mandate

S Dakota 297 new cases, 8 deaths - no mask mandate

Now, who's doing better and who's doing worse?

Do neither of you really understand the difference between numbers vs rates? Good grief.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Face the facts. You should be talking about California, not North and South Dakota.

I see that you stopped reading before you reached the second line of my post.

 

[Luce]

I see that you stopped reading before you reached the second line of my post.

He was too busy giggling about forced sterilizations.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

LOL, you do love your spreadsheets and are impressively skilled with them. However just posting them with out explanation of what we're supposed to observe or learn from them is nonsense.

If you want someone to tell you what to think then you should become a member of "Claque Trump"

If (as an example) I post data that shows that "A" has a death rate of 10% and "B" has a death rate of 20%, if you need me to tell you that the death rate for "B" is higher than the death rate for "A" is, there really isn't much that I can do to help you out.

However, speaking as a Californian I can tell you that although, technically, we have a "mask mandate" it is poorly observed and enforced. In fact we were one of the first stated to openly rebel against masks. We've also gone through several phases of "opening/closing" and the associated restriction.

A good point, but one that is totally beyond the comprehension of those who don't want to know about it and think that having 1 death in a population of 10 means that that area is doing twice as well as an area with 2 deaths and a population of 100 (because "Hey, 2 is two times as big as 1 - isn't it?").

I'd have to say that attempt to force a "per capita" comparison between a huge state with wide diversity in landscape, urbanization, diversity, etc and and two states who's population is less that dozens of California urban areas - Fresno as 494,000 people for instance - may be pushing the envelope a bit. It may be approaching the maxim one of my math teachers use to say "just because you can perform a mathematical operation on two numbers doesn't mean you should, or, that the result will express anything meaningful".

If you introduce a plethora of independent calculations what you tend to end up with is a plethora of divergent results which don't allow any plans to be made.

 

[Bullseye]

Do neither of you really understand the difference between numbers vs rates? Good grief.

As I mentioned, SD and ND case fatality RATES are one third that of the entire country. Seems like that might be a significant RATE to look at. Oh, and California's mask "mandate" is a joke. We were one of the first to rebel against it with protest marches and general disobedience. This fall we're inundated with maskless, clueless, college students celebrating the new school year by partying and swapping bodily fluids at breakneck speed. I'd bet tomorrow night there will be more massless partiers in California than the entire populations of SD and ND.

 

[Bullseye]

If you want someone to tell you what to think then you should become a member of "Claque Trump"

Huh? WTF.

If (as an example) I post data that shows that "A" has a death rate of 10% and "B" has a death rate of 20%, if you need me to tell you that the death rate for "B" is higher than the death rate for "A" is, there really isn't much that I can do to help you out.

Ok, If I tell you the case fatality death rate for California is 1.9% while the dakotas is around 1.1% what conclusion would your draw? These numbers, rather than encompassing the entire populations focus on diagnosed cases. To me that's far more important and indicative.

A good point, but one that is totally beyond the comprehension of those who don't want to know about it and think that having 1 death in a population of 10 means that that area is doing twice as well as an area with 2 deaths and a population of 100 (because "Hey, 2 is two times as big as 1 - isn't it?").

My point is that broad computations mask or destroy the semantic of the situation. For instance trying to compare "Mask mandate" vs "no mask mandate" overlooks the huge violations of the mandate.

If you introduce a plethora of independent calculations what you tend to end up with is a plethora of divergent results which don't allow any plans to be made.

Agreed, which is why I find the "per million" calculation less than useful. If you look at an infection map of either Dakota it they show a fairly even distribution of cases whereas if you look at California there are broad ares that have should little infection and some HUGE hot spots. I would suggest they two scenarios require far different solutions.