COVID surges, Republicans, and Democrats
November 5, 2020 7:26 PM Subscribe
This mesmerizing time-lapse graph by Dan Goodspeed shows COVID cases since June by state partisanship. The AP reports that counties with worst virus surges overwhelmingly voted Trump.
AP article by Carla K. Johnson, Hanna Fingerhut, and Pia Deshpande.
AP article by Carla K. Johnson, Hanna Fingerhut, and Pia Deshpande.
Correlation, causation yadda yadda.
More likely rural vs urban is the predictor of both, but that's just a hot take.
posted by simra at 7:48 PM on November 5, 2020
More likely rural vs urban is the predictor of both, but that's just a hot take.
posted by simra at 7:48 PM on November 5, 2020
North and South Dakota don't have major urban populations...
posted by Windopaene at 8:11 PM on November 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Windopaene at 8:11 PM on November 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
North and South Dakota don't have major urban populations...
That we know of. Has anyone been there recently? They've been really quiet and have six electoral votes.
posted by geoff. at 8:16 PM on November 5, 2020 [13 favorites]
That we know of. Has anyone been there recently? They've been really quiet and have six electoral votes.
posted by geoff. at 8:16 PM on November 5, 2020 [13 favorites]
The AP article is so stupid I can't even write about it coherently. Let me just say that if you're frustrated by the electoral college, your blood should boil with this sentence:
An Associated Press analysis reveals that in 376 counties with the highest number of new cases per capita, the overwhelming majority — 93% of those counties — went for Trump, a rate above other less severely hit areas.
Which weights - for example within the 376 high per-capita case counties - Greeley Co, KS, with 22 new Covid cases in the past two weeks amongst it's 1,296 population exactly the same as Milwaukee, WI with almost 10K new cases and almost a million people.
posted by Superilla at 8:30 PM on November 5, 2020 [10 favorites]
An Associated Press analysis reveals that in 376 counties with the highest number of new cases per capita, the overwhelming majority — 93% of those counties — went for Trump, a rate above other less severely hit areas.
Which weights - for example within the 376 high per-capita case counties - Greeley Co, KS, with 22 new Covid cases in the past two weeks amongst it's 1,296 population exactly the same as Milwaukee, WI with almost 10K new cases and almost a million people.
posted by Superilla at 8:30 PM on November 5, 2020 [10 favorites]
This feels like a story that desperately wants to be read in a partisan lens, blaming red communities for voting for their own destruction. It’s a vexing trope - if the election had happened earlier in the year, we’d be talking about all of the places with high rates of COVID voting blue. The story of COVID is not that people suffering it are voting to hurt themselves - it’s that in this highly charged atmosphere the pandemic hasn’t flipped that many votes.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:58 PM on November 5, 2020 [24 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 8:58 PM on November 5, 2020 [24 favorites]
I'm really not a fan of this. Back in the spring conservatives made the same arguments that "blue state governors" and "liberals" messed up because the mid-atlantic 1-95 corridor was most affected. It was a dumb argument then, and I'm not a fan of the reverse. Since June the places that had steep rises in COVID cases tended to be areas that had yet to see a massive wave. From what I can tell that pattern still holds. It just took longer for the pandemic to take off in less densely populated areas because density appears to be related to spreadability (deliberately writing in the vernacular and avoiding epidemiological terms). That doesn't mean local policies like masking or social distancing don't affect the number of cases, but it does appear that at least part of the pattern is simply natural spread through the US population. It's pretty intuitive, really. The biggest outlier to that pattern is probably the west coast states, where stringent social distancing measures probably held down cases there and prevented a steep peak, but it still should be noted that adherence t social distancing mandates may vary by locality. I think it helps that Cali, Oregon, and Washington appear to have caught their outbreaks earlier than the section of the Northeast corridor from North Jersey to Boston, which is one of the worst affected areas in the world if you go by deaths per capita.
posted by eagles123 at 9:14 PM on November 5, 2020 [17 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 9:14 PM on November 5, 2020 [17 favorites]
This feels like a story that desperately wants to be read in a partisan lens, blaming red communities for voting for their own destruction.
Massachusetts resident reporting. When the pandemic hit us, we went into a full honest-to-goodness lockdown. Dr. Fauci's alleged "flip flop" on face masks was not an issue for us because in the early phase of the pandemic the walls of homes were our masks. Non-essential businesses were closed. Construction work around the state halted so that the n95 face masks could be collected from work sites and given to medical workers instead. We scoured our homes in search of those things and handed them in. Makerspaces used 3d printers to prepare respirators fitted with vacuum cleaner bag patches in case the n95s ran out.
In March and April we were the commies we've long been alleged to be.
Now, the Dakotas have a Covid rate that is 4 times worse than Massachusetts at the peak of this. Their death rate is climbing to match ours even though it's months later and hospitals are much better at keeping Covid patients alive.
So I'm just going to say the quiet part out loud. Yes. They voted for their destruction. They voted for a set of values and norms that is unsuitable for something like a pandemic with asymptomnatic spreading events and a high death toll. Elections have consequences.
posted by ocschwar at 9:49 PM on November 5, 2020 [57 favorites]
Massachusetts resident reporting. When the pandemic hit us, we went into a full honest-to-goodness lockdown. Dr. Fauci's alleged "flip flop" on face masks was not an issue for us because in the early phase of the pandemic the walls of homes were our masks. Non-essential businesses were closed. Construction work around the state halted so that the n95 face masks could be collected from work sites and given to medical workers instead. We scoured our homes in search of those things and handed them in. Makerspaces used 3d printers to prepare respirators fitted with vacuum cleaner bag patches in case the n95s ran out.
In March and April we were the commies we've long been alleged to be.
Now, the Dakotas have a Covid rate that is 4 times worse than Massachusetts at the peak of this. Their death rate is climbing to match ours even though it's months later and hospitals are much better at keeping Covid patients alive.
So I'm just going to say the quiet part out loud. Yes. They voted for their destruction. They voted for a set of values and norms that is unsuitable for something like a pandemic with asymptomnatic spreading events and a high death toll. Elections have consequences.
posted by ocschwar at 9:49 PM on November 5, 2020 [57 favorites]
Back in the spring conservatives made the same arguments that "blue state governors" and "liberals" messed up because the mid-atlantic 1-95 corridor was most affected. It was a dumb argument then, and I'm not a fan of the reverse.
I disagree. I am a fan of the reverse, because, with only a few notable exceptions (like DeWine in Ohio), these actual "red state governors" actively denied, slow-rolled, and resisted implementing restrictions to staunch the flow of COVID in their state.
The early "blue state governors" and "liberals" arguably should have done more, but they didn't deny the threat, and were, for the most part, caught wrong-footed. The red state governors, on the other hand, saw it coming -- for MONTHS -- and kept their states open, and denied the danger and straight up facilitated the spread of the pandemic.
posted by tclark at 9:50 PM on November 5, 2020 [50 favorites]
I disagree. I am a fan of the reverse, because, with only a few notable exceptions (like DeWine in Ohio), these actual "red state governors" actively denied, slow-rolled, and resisted implementing restrictions to staunch the flow of COVID in their state.
The early "blue state governors" and "liberals" arguably should have done more, but they didn't deny the threat, and were, for the most part, caught wrong-footed. The red state governors, on the other hand, saw it coming -- for MONTHS -- and kept their states open, and denied the danger and straight up facilitated the spread of the pandemic.
posted by tclark at 9:50 PM on November 5, 2020 [50 favorites]
So I’m just going to say the quiet part out loud. Yes. They voted for their destruction.
I have heard this exact same thing said during every election in my life in this country: the red state voters / the poor voters / the white working class voters have voted against their own interest and brought this destruction on themselves. It’s always this narrative, and when I think of COVID being bent to a particular political interpretation, that’s exactly what I mean: we are looking at COVID as being something special here, but it’s the same dang thing as every other political event. Red states are hitting themselves in the face. It’s not that COVID isn’t disproportionately hitting red states now - it’s that it follows a partisan pattern. Again, if we had voted in the summer, the story would be “Blue states are voting against the government because COVID hit them.” The Fox news brain poisoning and ideological positioning has been long since baked into the pie, and it is that ideology that is causing the bad response to COVID. So - yes, I agree that in some macro sense red states are supporting policies that are killing them, but no, COVID has little to do with that response.
To consider how reality is more complicated, remember that statistically COVID has hit POC much harder than white folks. (One in every 1,000 black people in the US has died of COVID.) I don’t know the cross-tabs here, but I would suspect that the voters who are dying of COVID in red states are also disproportionately POC, and so likely are themselves disproportionately blue voters.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:19 PM on November 5, 2020 [26 favorites]
I have heard this exact same thing said during every election in my life in this country: the red state voters / the poor voters / the white working class voters have voted against their own interest and brought this destruction on themselves. It’s always this narrative, and when I think of COVID being bent to a particular political interpretation, that’s exactly what I mean: we are looking at COVID as being something special here, but it’s the same dang thing as every other political event. Red states are hitting themselves in the face. It’s not that COVID isn’t disproportionately hitting red states now - it’s that it follows a partisan pattern. Again, if we had voted in the summer, the story would be “Blue states are voting against the government because COVID hit them.” The Fox news brain poisoning and ideological positioning has been long since baked into the pie, and it is that ideology that is causing the bad response to COVID. So - yes, I agree that in some macro sense red states are supporting policies that are killing them, but no, COVID has little to do with that response.
To consider how reality is more complicated, remember that statistically COVID has hit POC much harder than white folks. (One in every 1,000 black people in the US has died of COVID.) I don’t know the cross-tabs here, but I would suspect that the voters who are dying of COVID in red states are also disproportionately POC, and so likely are themselves disproportionately blue voters.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:19 PM on November 5, 2020 [26 favorites]
I prefer: Trump’s campaign made stops nationwide. Coronavirus cases surged in his wake in at least five places (USA Today, Oct. 22). Or: A study conducted by four Stanford University economic researchers determined that 18 Trump campaign rallies, the bulk of which took place over the past summer, “ultimately resulted in more than 30,000 incremental confirmed cases of COVID-19” and “likely led to more than 700 deaths" - The president is most likely a superspreader, Vox, Oct. 31. That study: The Effects of Large Group Meetings on the Spread of COVID-19: The Case of Trump Rallies.
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:48 PM on November 5, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:48 PM on November 5, 2020 [8 favorites]
I disagree. I am a fan of the reverse, because, with only a few notable exceptions (like DeWine in Ohio), these actual "red state governors" actively denied, slow-rolled, and resisted implementing restrictions to staunch the flow of COVID in their state.
The early "blue state governors" and "liberals" arguably should have done more, but they didn't deny the threat, and were, for the most part, caught wrong-footed. The red state governors, on the other hand, saw it coming -- for MONTHS -- and kept their states open, and denied the danger and straight up facilitated the spread of the pandemic.
Undoubtedly the negligent actions of may "red state" political leaders contributed the size of the peaks in their polities. That being said, social distancing merely slows the spread of COVID and reduces the size of the peaks, it doesn't prevent spread completely. Europe, for example, is seeing a large spike in cases that is necessitating renewed lockdowns in many countries. Red state political leaders should be taking similar actions, and their failures will undoubtedly result in additional death. That blood will be and is on their hands.
Nevertheless, there are properties of this pandemic that are beyond politics, and the pattern of spread, if not the amount of cases, is one of them. That is indisputable. I would encourage reading of this twitter thread from Yougang Gu, who created one of the best performing models over the summer.
Thread Link
Since then we've seen more evidence of the pattern that spread tends to be quickest in areas that were least affected in earlier surges. Again, this is not to let irresponsible red state politicians off the hook, but merely to acknowledge the pattern that cases are generally spreading from the coasts in particular and urban areas more generally to rural areas in the US.
Last, I would also remind that not everyone living in a rural area is an irresponsible MAGA maniac raging against masks and liberals. Many innocent people will suffer as under-resourced rural hospitals are overrun through no fault of their own. For example, "blue" counties and cities in west Texas are currently seeing a surge after they were comparatively spared during the summer peak in that state.
posted by eagles123 at 11:01 PM on November 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
The early "blue state governors" and "liberals" arguably should have done more, but they didn't deny the threat, and were, for the most part, caught wrong-footed. The red state governors, on the other hand, saw it coming -- for MONTHS -- and kept their states open, and denied the danger and straight up facilitated the spread of the pandemic.
Undoubtedly the negligent actions of may "red state" political leaders contributed the size of the peaks in their polities. That being said, social distancing merely slows the spread of COVID and reduces the size of the peaks, it doesn't prevent spread completely. Europe, for example, is seeing a large spike in cases that is necessitating renewed lockdowns in many countries. Red state political leaders should be taking similar actions, and their failures will undoubtedly result in additional death. That blood will be and is on their hands.
Nevertheless, there are properties of this pandemic that are beyond politics, and the pattern of spread, if not the amount of cases, is one of them. That is indisputable. I would encourage reading of this twitter thread from Yougang Gu, who created one of the best performing models over the summer.
Thread Link
Since then we've seen more evidence of the pattern that spread tends to be quickest in areas that were least affected in earlier surges. Again, this is not to let irresponsible red state politicians off the hook, but merely to acknowledge the pattern that cases are generally spreading from the coasts in particular and urban areas more generally to rural areas in the US.
Last, I would also remind that not everyone living in a rural area is an irresponsible MAGA maniac raging against masks and liberals. Many innocent people will suffer as under-resourced rural hospitals are overrun through no fault of their own. For example, "blue" counties and cities in west Texas are currently seeing a surge after they were comparatively spared during the summer peak in that state.
posted by eagles123 at 11:01 PM on November 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
So is this all meatpacking states? Or is the post-August acceleration linked to "I went to Sturgis" t-shirts?
posted by scruss at 12:29 AM on November 6, 2020
posted by scruss at 12:29 AM on November 6, 2020
Can we fucking not with acting like no marginalized people live anywhere in the Midwest or South?
posted by augustimagination at 2:13 AM on November 6, 2020 [19 favorites]
posted by augustimagination at 2:13 AM on November 6, 2020 [19 favorites]
Yesterday's COVID Tracking summary shows the current situation and trends quite clearly. Per capita cases are not only the highest in the midwest they have ever been, they are higher in some states than any state has ever been. Hospitalizations nationally are rising and could reach new peaks in a week or two. I am hopeful that deaths per capita will remain lower than the first wave because of how much has been learned in treatment methods since then, but if the cases continue to rise as they have been in the last month, god help us.
posted by gwint at 3:53 AM on November 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by gwint at 3:53 AM on November 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
Can we fucking not with acting like no marginalized people live anywhere in the Midwest or South?
Marginalized people like the meatpackers in Wisconsin? The ones whose safety was dismissed by none other than the Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court because they weren't "regular folks"? Yes. They live there. It won't stop me from condemning voters in that region for voting for this shit.
posted by ocschwar at 4:31 AM on November 6, 2020 [17 favorites]
Marginalized people like the meatpackers in Wisconsin? The ones whose safety was dismissed by none other than the Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court because they weren't "regular folks"? Yes. They live there. It won't stop me from condemning voters in that region for voting for this shit.
posted by ocschwar at 4:31 AM on November 6, 2020 [17 favorites]
It seems worth noting at this point that Trump's base is mainly not marginalized and that caring not at all for your less-well-off next-door neighbours' welfare, especially if they have the wrong kind of skin, is entirely consistent with Republican values.
posted by flabdablet at 4:49 AM on November 6, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 4:49 AM on November 6, 2020 [7 favorites]
If you've been following Sarah Taber on Twitter (and if you haven't, you should be!) she's had a lot of great threads lately on how rural areas have been engineered to be ultra-conservative.
The biggest outbreak in Iowa currently is at Anamosa State Penitentiary in Jones County, IA. 450 new cases IN A WEEK. Prisons are great at bringing money and political power to conservative rural areas. Prisoners, coincidentally, don't get to vote.
The huge covid outbreaks in rural Iowa all through the summer? Meatpacking plants. Who works at meatpacking plants? Lots of undocumented immigrants and refugees. (There are a couple of midwestern towns that have been hotspots for cases of covid-19 among Asians - all towns with meatpacking plants that employ a lot of refugees from Burma/Myanmar or other places in SE Asia.) They don't get to vote.
The people who own meatpacking plants are very well served by having a very cruel immigration system that nonetheless doesn't crack down completely on undocumented workers - they get to have workers with almost no labor rights, workers who can be grievously underpaid relative to the danger of the work they're doing, and who can't go to any government agency if their labor rights are violated because they don't want to get deported.
The reason middle-to-upper-class white rural people are often not worried about covid even when infection rates in their counties are very high is that they understand that there's not much social contact between rich people and poor people where they live. In New York just about everybody takes the same subways.
Yes, there are superspreader events at weddings, or giant motorcycle rallies; there's enough social contact across classes that it's not only the poor and disenfranchised who are suffering. There are public schools, residential care facilities. But for the most part, the Republicans who think "it can't happen to me" or "it's overblown by the media" can think so because it's not happening to them, and the people who are suffering are the people who don't matter in their eyes.
posted by Jeanne at 5:14 AM on November 6, 2020 [22 favorites]
The biggest outbreak in Iowa currently is at Anamosa State Penitentiary in Jones County, IA. 450 new cases IN A WEEK. Prisons are great at bringing money and political power to conservative rural areas. Prisoners, coincidentally, don't get to vote.
The huge covid outbreaks in rural Iowa all through the summer? Meatpacking plants. Who works at meatpacking plants? Lots of undocumented immigrants and refugees. (There are a couple of midwestern towns that have been hotspots for cases of covid-19 among Asians - all towns with meatpacking plants that employ a lot of refugees from Burma/Myanmar or other places in SE Asia.) They don't get to vote.
The people who own meatpacking plants are very well served by having a very cruel immigration system that nonetheless doesn't crack down completely on undocumented workers - they get to have workers with almost no labor rights, workers who can be grievously underpaid relative to the danger of the work they're doing, and who can't go to any government agency if their labor rights are violated because they don't want to get deported.
The reason middle-to-upper-class white rural people are often not worried about covid even when infection rates in their counties are very high is that they understand that there's not much social contact between rich people and poor people where they live. In New York just about everybody takes the same subways.
Yes, there are superspreader events at weddings, or giant motorcycle rallies; there's enough social contact across classes that it's not only the poor and disenfranchised who are suffering. There are public schools, residential care facilities. But for the most part, the Republicans who think "it can't happen to me" or "it's overblown by the media" can think so because it's not happening to them, and the people who are suffering are the people who don't matter in their eyes.
posted by Jeanne at 5:14 AM on November 6, 2020 [22 favorites]
density appears to be related to spreadability
Density has been conclusively shown not to be related to spread by several analyses. The reason a lot of dense places got hit first is because they were places of high mobility with international airports or domestic hubs. The low density rural parts of America could have been protected from this with even just moderate low level effort. Their own chosen federal leadership opted not only not to do that but to encourage them to do the opposite of what would have protected them. That graphic of the virus eventually roosting in Trump counties is a clear message of failure with a huge lead time of warning-by-example that most blue counties did not ever get (at least domestically).
posted by srboisvert at 5:36 AM on November 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
Density has been conclusively shown not to be related to spread by several analyses. The reason a lot of dense places got hit first is because they were places of high mobility with international airports or domestic hubs. The low density rural parts of America could have been protected from this with even just moderate low level effort. Their own chosen federal leadership opted not only not to do that but to encourage them to do the opposite of what would have protected them. That graphic of the virus eventually roosting in Trump counties is a clear message of failure with a huge lead time of warning-by-example that most blue counties did not ever get (at least domestically).
posted by srboisvert at 5:36 AM on November 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
Density has been conclusively shown not to be related to spread by several analyses. The reason a lot of dense places got hit first is because they were places of high mobility with international airports or domestic hubs. The low density rural parts of America could have been protected from this with even just moderate low level effort. Their own chosen federal leadership opted not only not to do that but to encourage them to do the opposite of what would have protected them. That graphic of the virus eventually roosting in Trump counties is a clear message of failure with a huge lead time of warning-by-example that most blue counties did not ever get (at least domestically).
I was using colloquial terms. More precisely, the virus spread faster in metropolitan areas
with a higher number of counties tightly linked together through economic, social, and commuting relationships are the most vulnerable to the pandemic outbreaks.
Study link
That describes the 1-95 corridor in the northeast and mid-atlantic perfectly. I certainly agree with the sentiment that we shouldn't use the prospect of a pandemic to stop advocating for high density transit oriented urban development.
I also agree that politicians and leadership in rural areas by and large certainly could be doing more to mitigate spread. That being said, the only countries that seem to have succeeded in completely controlling the pandemic to any significant degree are South Korea, China, Japan, Taiwan, Australia and New Zealand. Without a mass testing scheme that to date doesn't seem to exist in most places in the Western World, its doubtful the US could have completely halted the pandemic within its borders.
This is a neat visualization that tracks per capita cases over time. You can watch the pandemic start in the northeast, creep southward, then spread north and west through the great plains and rocky mountain states. Unfortunately it seems cases are beginning to increase again in the Northeast with the onset of cold and flu season, but case counts are still highest per capita elsewhere.
Visualization
posted by eagles123 at 6:50 AM on November 6, 2020
I was using colloquial terms. More precisely, the virus spread faster in metropolitan areas
with a higher number of counties tightly linked together through economic, social, and commuting relationships are the most vulnerable to the pandemic outbreaks.
Study link
That describes the 1-95 corridor in the northeast and mid-atlantic perfectly. I certainly agree with the sentiment that we shouldn't use the prospect of a pandemic to stop advocating for high density transit oriented urban development.
I also agree that politicians and leadership in rural areas by and large certainly could be doing more to mitigate spread. That being said, the only countries that seem to have succeeded in completely controlling the pandemic to any significant degree are South Korea, China, Japan, Taiwan, Australia and New Zealand. Without a mass testing scheme that to date doesn't seem to exist in most places in the Western World, its doubtful the US could have completely halted the pandemic within its borders.
This is a neat visualization that tracks per capita cases over time. You can watch the pandemic start in the northeast, creep southward, then spread north and west through the great plains and rocky mountain states. Unfortunately it seems cases are beginning to increase again in the Northeast with the onset of cold and flu season, but case counts are still highest per capita elsewhere.
Visualization
posted by eagles123 at 6:50 AM on November 6, 2020
Coming soon to a theatre near you. The zombie-porn mashup "Infect Me Harder, Donny"
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:53 AM on November 6, 2020
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:53 AM on November 6, 2020
I've said multiple things about Covid spread that are based on facts that are true for a long time, then became very wrong very quickly.
That's what exponential growth does. If the number of cases can double in seven days, how safe should you feel about an infection rate that's a quarter of that neighboring Trump-voting state?
posted by mark k at 7:24 AM on November 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
That's what exponential growth does. If the number of cases can double in seven days, how safe should you feel about an infection rate that's a quarter of that neighboring Trump-voting state?
posted by mark k at 7:24 AM on November 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
The governor of Iowa[1] said yesterday that although new cases and hospitalizations are setting new record highs almost daily and 115 in 100,000 Iowans got positive covid tests recorded just yesterday (138 in 100,000 so far today; the actual numbers of new cases are 3618 yesterday and 4351 today) and we're sixth in the nation in per-capita new cases,[2]
• she's not going to add a mask order to the state (Iowa has long been one of very few states without a statewide mask order; for a while Reynolds was actively trying to prevent individual counties or cities from imposing their own mask ordinances as well, though she seems to have stopped doing that now),
• she's not going to limit gathering sizes (currently no limit),
• she's not going to limit capacity in bars or restaurants (currently no limit),
• she's not going to end in-person classes for schools, etc.[3]
What Governor Reynolds is willing to do is start up a new advertising campaign, which would run ads in newspapers and on the radio encouraging people to wear masks, get flu shots, social distance, stay home when ill, and "carefully consider" whether family gatherings are a good idea during the holidays. These are, of course, all things that she has supposedly been doing all along, save for the holiday-gathering part. (I have not yet encountered an ad from the state about any of these things, but then, I don't read a newspaper or listen to the radio.)
When asked how the ad campaign will change the behavior of Iowans, Reynolds said that Iowans are tired of the pandemic and want their lives to go back to normal, which is, like, the opposite of an answer to that question.
Reynolds also said that "government solutions alone can't stop this virus," which I guess is why she's not going to try any.[4]
And then
The argument that Iowa's experiencing a big outbreak now because we didn't have one earlier doesn't work either: we were near the top of the list for most of June, and have been in or very close to the top 10 states (per-capita) since late August (even reaching #1 for a bit in late August and early September).[5] Iowa's never been doing well compared to other states; that's never been a reason to do anything about it.[6] The people don't want anything done about it. If they didn't like it, they would have voted for someone else.
There was even a New York Times article to that effect,[7] crediting the narrowing Iowa polls to our governor's lack of action on covid and people wanting to express displeasure with her by voting against her party. And then Iowa went for Trump/Ernst anyway, and flipped at least one House seat to the Republicans, and expanded the Republican majority in the Iowa House. It's not because Iowans didn't know Republicans were going to do nothing about covid, it's cause they think doing nothing is fine.[8]
-
[1] (or, as I am coming to think of it, Southeast Dakota)
[2] (higher than NY in April/May; higher than FL / AZ / LA in July)
[3] Schools are not allowed to decide on their own to have online-only classes; they must petition the Iowa Department of Education and the Iowa Department of Public Health to request it. Both must approve. Officially, it cannot be approved unless at least 10% of students are absent for covid-related reasons and the positive-test rate is at least 15%, three times higher than the WHO recommends. When approved, it's only approved for two weeks at a time.
[4] (Government solutions are much, much better at stopping abortions, apparently.)
[5] (Ref.; scroll down to "New Confirmed COVID-19 Cases per Day by US States/Territories, normalized by population" and highlight Iowa)
[6] Technically not 100% true: the governor did close bars in six (of 99) counties for like 15 seconds in September, and we had a brief shutdown in the spring when everybody else was doing that too.
[7] (I don't feel like looking for it now but if you want I'll try)
[8] (Plus racism.)
posted by Spathe Cadet at 7:24 AM on November 6, 2020 [4 favorites]
• she's not going to add a mask order to the state (Iowa has long been one of very few states without a statewide mask order; for a while Reynolds was actively trying to prevent individual counties or cities from imposing their own mask ordinances as well, though she seems to have stopped doing that now),
• she's not going to limit gathering sizes (currently no limit),
• she's not going to limit capacity in bars or restaurants (currently no limit),
• she's not going to end in-person classes for schools, etc.[3]
What Governor Reynolds is willing to do is start up a new advertising campaign, which would run ads in newspapers and on the radio encouraging people to wear masks, get flu shots, social distance, stay home when ill, and "carefully consider" whether family gatherings are a good idea during the holidays. These are, of course, all things that she has supposedly been doing all along, save for the holiday-gathering part. (I have not yet encountered an ad from the state about any of these things, but then, I don't read a newspaper or listen to the radio.)
When asked how the ad campaign will change the behavior of Iowans, Reynolds said that Iowans are tired of the pandemic and want their lives to go back to normal, which is, like, the opposite of an answer to that question.
Reynolds also said that "government solutions alone can't stop this virus," which I guess is why she's not going to try any.[4]
And then
Reynolds also told reporters that the election in Iowa, in which Republicans were largely victorious up and down the ballot, "validated the direction of our state," including the state's pandemic response.I feel like this is sufficient evidence that red communities in Iowa, at least, are in fact voting for their own destruction. That's how the Republican leadership in the state seems to understand it, anyway.
"I think the election reflects that Iowans somewhat agree with how we have handled not only COVID-19 but conservative, fiscally responsible decisions we have made," Reynolds said.
The argument that Iowa's experiencing a big outbreak now because we didn't have one earlier doesn't work either: we were near the top of the list for most of June, and have been in or very close to the top 10 states (per-capita) since late August (even reaching #1 for a bit in late August and early September).[5] Iowa's never been doing well compared to other states; that's never been a reason to do anything about it.[6] The people don't want anything done about it. If they didn't like it, they would have voted for someone else.
There was even a New York Times article to that effect,[7] crediting the narrowing Iowa polls to our governor's lack of action on covid and people wanting to express displeasure with her by voting against her party. And then Iowa went for Trump/Ernst anyway, and flipped at least one House seat to the Republicans, and expanded the Republican majority in the Iowa House. It's not because Iowans didn't know Republicans were going to do nothing about covid, it's cause they think doing nothing is fine.[8]
-
[1] (or, as I am coming to think of it, Southeast Dakota)
[2] (higher than NY in April/May; higher than FL / AZ / LA in July)
[3] Schools are not allowed to decide on their own to have online-only classes; they must petition the Iowa Department of Education and the Iowa Department of Public Health to request it. Both must approve. Officially, it cannot be approved unless at least 10% of students are absent for covid-related reasons and the positive-test rate is at least 15%, three times higher than the WHO recommends. When approved, it's only approved for two weeks at a time.
[4] (Government solutions are much, much better at stopping abortions, apparently.)
[5] (Ref.; scroll down to "New Confirmed COVID-19 Cases per Day by US States/Territories, normalized by population" and highlight Iowa)
[6] Technically not 100% true: the governor did close bars in six (of 99) counties for like 15 seconds in September, and we had a brief shutdown in the spring when everybody else was doing that too.
[7] (I don't feel like looking for it now but if you want I'll try)
[8] (Plus racism.)
posted by Spathe Cadet at 7:24 AM on November 6, 2020 [4 favorites]
Correction: it's now 4455 new cases, or 141 new cases per 100,000 in a single day.
The Times article is here (from archive.org).
posted by Spathe Cadet at 7:30 AM on November 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
The Times article is here (from archive.org).
posted by Spathe Cadet at 7:30 AM on November 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
Spathe Cadet, I've heard those radio ads but mostly what I got from them was "You may not need to get tested even if you have symptoms." (With a subtext of: "Don't get tested, we don't have the capacity to test everybody who wants to get tested.")
Iowa's testing has been a disaster, which is why we've got a test positivity rate of roughly 50% right now. There are only 6 TestIowa sites in the whole state - the nearest is an hour from me - and while you can also get tested at your doctor, I don't imagine that's an easy option for people who don't have a doctor, or don't have health insurance.
posted by Jeanne at 7:39 AM on November 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
Iowa's testing has been a disaster, which is why we've got a test positivity rate of roughly 50% right now. There are only 6 TestIowa sites in the whole state - the nearest is an hour from me - and while you can also get tested at your doctor, I don't imagine that's an easy option for people who don't have a doctor, or don't have health insurance.
posted by Jeanne at 7:39 AM on November 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
I apologize - I should have framed this better.
My personal reaction to these two items - especially Dan Goodspeed's time-lapse chart - is that elections matter, policies matter, and leaders matter.
It is, I think, non-controversial that masks help slow the spread of the virus, and that some regions have embraced and enforced wearing masks, while others have resisted it. There have even been places where local authorities have mandated masks, only to be overridden at the state level. To a large degree, elected Democrats have been bigger promoters of wearing masks, while many elected Republicans have denigrated masks and obstructed efforts to get everyone to wear them.
The most striking examples to me are the Dakotas, which have some of the lowest population density in the country, and yet currently have staggeringly high cases per million.
When I think of all these places, I am especially mindful of all the people who did not vote for the person currently in charge. Kristi Noem, the current governor of South Dakota, who has publicly doubted the effectiveness of masks, was elected with just 51% of the vote. Nearly half of South Dakotans did not vote for her, and yet they are all at incredibly high risk due to her policies and her choices as a leader.
As for the people who did vote for her: I don't see it as them voting for their own destruction; I see it as people voting for - whatever: gun rights, anti-abortion policies, oil jobs - and getting death and destruction, for themselves and their Democratic-voting neighbors, as part of the package.
What I meant to say, and what I believe the chart in particular shows, is:
Elections matter.
posted by kristi at 7:39 AM on November 6, 2020
My personal reaction to these two items - especially Dan Goodspeed's time-lapse chart - is that elections matter, policies matter, and leaders matter.
It is, I think, non-controversial that masks help slow the spread of the virus, and that some regions have embraced and enforced wearing masks, while others have resisted it. There have even been places where local authorities have mandated masks, only to be overridden at the state level. To a large degree, elected Democrats have been bigger promoters of wearing masks, while many elected Republicans have denigrated masks and obstructed efforts to get everyone to wear them.
The most striking examples to me are the Dakotas, which have some of the lowest population density in the country, and yet currently have staggeringly high cases per million.
When I think of all these places, I am especially mindful of all the people who did not vote for the person currently in charge. Kristi Noem, the current governor of South Dakota, who has publicly doubted the effectiveness of masks, was elected with just 51% of the vote. Nearly half of South Dakotans did not vote for her, and yet they are all at incredibly high risk due to her policies and her choices as a leader.
As for the people who did vote for her: I don't see it as them voting for their own destruction; I see it as people voting for - whatever: gun rights, anti-abortion policies, oil jobs - and getting death and destruction, for themselves and their Democratic-voting neighbors, as part of the package.
What I meant to say, and what I believe the chart in particular shows, is:
Elections matter.
posted by kristi at 7:39 AM on November 6, 2020
I know that North Dakota, at least, has really terrible hospitals (healthcare workers with other options don't want to live in North Dakota) and people often live hours from them so that could be a factor.
posted by Brain Sturgeon at 8:16 AM on November 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Brain Sturgeon at 8:16 AM on November 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
My sister-in-law is a traveling nurse and she left South Dakota because she said the hospitals were so bad and profoundly racist against their indigenous populations. She's a conservative who I believe voted for Trump in 2016 but couldn't take the difference in standards of care being applied.
Yes. They live there. It won't stop me from condemning voters in that region for voting for this shit.
This really makes me uncomfortable because here in Arizona, we have had terrible numbers and a second surge, and a lot of that is down to our governor, who has his nose up Trump's ass. But the governor was elected by the Phoenix metro area, yet the Navajo Nation is one of the places hardest hit in the state. The Navajo Nation did not vote for Trump, and there's no way they could ever have the votes beat what Phoenix wants in this state. So they are rural, poor, indigenous, and have had terrible decisions made for them by the whites in Phoenix, most of whom probably moved there in the past 20 years.
posted by See you tomorrow, saguaro at 8:28 AM on November 6, 2020 [8 favorites]
Yes. They live there. It won't stop me from condemning voters in that region for voting for this shit.
This really makes me uncomfortable because here in Arizona, we have had terrible numbers and a second surge, and a lot of that is down to our governor, who has his nose up Trump's ass. But the governor was elected by the Phoenix metro area, yet the Navajo Nation is one of the places hardest hit in the state. The Navajo Nation did not vote for Trump, and there's no way they could ever have the votes beat what Phoenix wants in this state. So they are rural, poor, indigenous, and have had terrible decisions made for them by the whites in Phoenix, most of whom probably moved there in the past 20 years.
posted by See you tomorrow, saguaro at 8:28 AM on November 6, 2020 [8 favorites]
Four days ago: Gollwitzer, A., Martel, C., Brady, W.J. et al. Partisan differences in physical distancing are linked to health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat Hum Behav 4, 1186–1197 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-00977-7
posted by 3.2.3 at 8:31 AM on November 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by 3.2.3 at 8:31 AM on November 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
So what I'm trying to say is that "lol you voted for this" is not terribly nuanced or helpful, when minority groups are paying the price in each of those states.
posted by See you tomorrow, saguaro at 8:32 AM on November 6, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by See you tomorrow, saguaro at 8:32 AM on November 6, 2020 [8 favorites]
For real. The meanness in from Mefites, the links just show that governors that ignore the science of the pandemic hurt their constituents. That doesn't mean one should gloat about any person's situation, no matter who they voted for.
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:34 AM on November 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:34 AM on November 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
“Elections have consequences for thee, but not for me”
posted by Going To Maine at 8:36 AM on November 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Going To Maine at 8:36 AM on November 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
See you tomorrow, saguaro / tiny frying pan / Going to Maine:
If that was directed at me, I'm not gloating so much as rage-weeping.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 8:42 AM on November 6, 2020
If that was directed at me, I'm not gloating so much as rage-weeping.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 8:42 AM on November 6, 2020
No. Mostly ocschwar.
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:57 AM on November 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:57 AM on November 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
It’s just… elections have lots of consequences, and those consequences are not necessarily evenly distributed.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:17 AM on November 6, 2020
posted by Going To Maine at 9:17 AM on November 6, 2020
(Sung to the tune of David Bowie and NIN's I'm Afraid Of Americans:) “COVID's a Republican”
posted by acb at 9:35 AM on November 6, 2020
posted by acb at 9:35 AM on November 6, 2020
No. Mostly ocschwar.
Not gloating either. Just enraged. And yes, I am enraged at how the red states are first inflicting Covid on the Others in their midst before inflicting it on "regular folks."
posted by ocschwar at 10:53 AM on November 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
Not gloating either. Just enraged. And yes, I am enraged at how the red states are first inflicting Covid on the Others in their midst before inflicting it on "regular folks."
posted by ocschwar at 10:53 AM on November 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
Honest-to-god death cult
posted by gottabefunky at 11:29 AM on November 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by gottabefunky at 11:29 AM on November 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
There is a lot of concern here about the Ecological Fallacy, when inferences about individuals are deduced from inferences about the group to which they belong, as well as a whole host of other confirmation biases and fallacies. But causal inference gives us a guide for how to test the link: temporality, for example (however doesn't apply here). The fact we can meet many of these criterion, including actually pointing to a mechanism, namely that political orientation/ideology does make you far more likely to flout all the things we actually think (and know) prevent a respiratory global pandemic, can allow us to make a pretty strong causal argument.
Sure, people from both tribes get become infected, on accident. Sure, not everyone of the red tribe believes in flouting those practices or gets sick. Sure not everyone who does flout them gets sick immediately. We are talking a global pandemic here that doesn't all happen at once: these things are going to be messy. And I distance myself far from any normative or etiological speculations that anyone deserves it or the inevitability of their beliefs in causing this (truthfully, I have no idea if tables-flipped the blue tribe wouldn't have had the same problem, but its really beyond what should be discussed because the goal isn't to assign blame but to fix the problem). But it seems a bit silly to dismiss the evidence at this point as a snapshot in time, cherry picking, correlation not causation, etc.
Whatever the reason, being a member of the red-tribe is a risk factor for disease outcome. We should work to remedy that.
Thanks 3.2.3, missed that paper.
posted by rubatan at 12:14 PM on November 6, 2020
Sure, people from both tribes get become infected, on accident. Sure, not everyone of the red tribe believes in flouting those practices or gets sick. Sure not everyone who does flout them gets sick immediately. We are talking a global pandemic here that doesn't all happen at once: these things are going to be messy. And I distance myself far from any normative or etiological speculations that anyone deserves it or the inevitability of their beliefs in causing this (truthfully, I have no idea if tables-flipped the blue tribe wouldn't have had the same problem, but its really beyond what should be discussed because the goal isn't to assign blame but to fix the problem). But it seems a bit silly to dismiss the evidence at this point as a snapshot in time, cherry picking, correlation not causation, etc.
Whatever the reason, being a member of the red-tribe is a risk factor for disease outcome. We should work to remedy that.
Thanks 3.2.3, missed that paper.
posted by rubatan at 12:14 PM on November 6, 2020
A related map: Purple States of America, 2020
posted by Going To Maine at 1:51 PM on November 6, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 1:51 PM on November 6, 2020 [3 favorites]
Related: an op ed from Renae Moch is the public-health director for the city of Bismarck and Burleigh County, N.D. : How North Dakota became a covid-19 nightmare (Washington Post via MSN)
Residents initially followed mitigation measures, but as businesses reopened and life returned to normal, adherence relaxed — and resentment surged. The cut-out hearts in windows and the “we’re all in this together” mentality gave way to social media posts, email messages and phone calls where I was accused of being a tyrant, a socialist, a Nazi — of lying about covid-19’s dangers to instill fear and of taking away people’s personal freedom.posted by kristi at 3:03 PM on November 6, 2020 [7 favorites]
With this attitude, it’s not surprising that the Bismarck City Commission’s attempts to implement a mask mandate in September failed. Instead, they decided to “wait and see” and follow the state’s “guidelines and recommendations” focusing on “personal responsibility.”
The problem, of course, is that personal responsibility isn’t working.
As in so many things, the problem is that the concept of personal responsibility is simply inapplicable to the analysis of the actual problem. The way to deal with an epidemic necessarily involves taking collective responsibility for it, a concept that fits much less comfortably into a right-wing worldview.
The freedoms that right-wingers generally think of as Freedom are all freedoms to. Freedom to move, freedom to associate, freedom to speak and so forth.
Completely missing from this conception of Freedom are freedoms from: freedom from hunger, freedom from disease, freedom from violence, freedom from oppression, freedom from homelessness. The Right analysis of all of the latter, to the extent that they're considered at all, involves bundling them up in Personal Responsibility and sweeping them under the carpet of an illusory Just World - if you don't have these freedoms, that's taken to be evidence that you've done something to bring bad things on yourself. This move is essential to maintaining the belief in the inevitability and correctness of a stratified social hierarchy that's fundamental to a conservative political worldview.
So it should be no surprise at all to find that places where the Right is politically dominant are places where none of the freedoms from are policy priorities, and that goes double if any such freedom - such as freedom from disease - ever needs to be balanced against a freedom to go where the hell I want and meet who the hell I choose and wear what the hell I want because goddammit this is America.
posted by flabdablet at 8:22 PM on November 6, 2020 [8 favorites]
The freedoms that right-wingers generally think of as Freedom are all freedoms to. Freedom to move, freedom to associate, freedom to speak and so forth.
Completely missing from this conception of Freedom are freedoms from: freedom from hunger, freedom from disease, freedom from violence, freedom from oppression, freedom from homelessness. The Right analysis of all of the latter, to the extent that they're considered at all, involves bundling them up in Personal Responsibility and sweeping them under the carpet of an illusory Just World - if you don't have these freedoms, that's taken to be evidence that you've done something to bring bad things on yourself. This move is essential to maintaining the belief in the inevitability and correctness of a stratified social hierarchy that's fundamental to a conservative political worldview.
So it should be no surprise at all to find that places where the Right is politically dominant are places where none of the freedoms from are policy priorities, and that goes double if any such freedom - such as freedom from disease - ever needs to be balanced against a freedom to go where the hell I want and meet who the hell I choose and wear what the hell I want because goddammit this is America.
posted by flabdablet at 8:22 PM on November 6, 2020 [8 favorites]
So at the intersection of President Trump's reelection campaign and COVID-19 fatalities, is this now-dated, incredibly pointed, back-of-the-envelope math:
Via Reddit (inc links to sources for numbers)
posted by fragmede at 3:31 AM on November 7, 2020 [1 favorite]
A few hours ago, an update of Georgia's 2020 Presidential election results was released. It showed Joe Biden winning Georgia by only 1,579 votes. I wondered if Donald Trump would be in the lead if he had a stronger response to the COVID-19 pandemic, so I did the rough math complete with sources.It would have been incredibly ironic if this tally would have remained and Trump lost Georgia because of his weak response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
8,359 Deaths[1] x 151% Excess Deaths[2] x 96% Survival[3] = 12,117 Lives Saved
12,117 Saved x 77% Participation[4] x 95.4% Eligible[5] = 8,901 Voters
8,901 Voters x 60% Republicans[6] = 5,341 Votes for Trump
8,901 Voters x 40% Democrats[6] = 3,560 Votes for Biden
5,341 Trump - 3,560 Biden = 1,781 Trump Net Gain
1,781 Trump Net Gain - 1,579 Biden Lead[7] = Trump wins GA by 202 Votes
Via Reddit (inc links to sources for numbers)
posted by fragmede at 3:31 AM on November 7, 2020 [1 favorite]
Are you suggesting that superspreading a potentially fatal disease amongst your own supporters for months and months and months before an election might be a dubious campaign strategy?
Who'd have thought.
posted by flabdablet at 10:20 AM on November 7, 2020 [4 favorites]
Who'd have thought.
posted by flabdablet at 10:20 AM on November 7, 2020 [4 favorites]
I meant marginalized people like *me*, a lesbian, my partners (who are both trans women), yes, the meatpacking workers, and wide swaths of non-white people. You can say "the people who voted for Trump" and mean *them* instead of using stereotypes that lump the rest of us in as ignorant hicks.
posted by augustimagination at 3:15 PM on November 7, 2020
posted by augustimagination at 3:15 PM on November 7, 2020
In the next couple of days, two states will pass the one million cases mark: California and Texas. As of the end of Wednesday, November 11, California had reported 984,682 total cases with 7424 new cases on Wednesday, while Texas had 985,380 cases with 10,865 new cases. (Note: different sources provide different numbers. These come from the state's websites which are used for The COVID-Tracking Project.)
Texas has about two-thirds the population of California.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 11:03 AM on November 12, 2020 [1 favorite]
Texas has about two-thirds the population of California.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 11:03 AM on November 12, 2020 [1 favorite]
« Older US Election 2020 : Part 3 | The Forgotten History of Home Video Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:44 PM on November 5, 2020 [7 favorites]