COVID Success Stories by State: More Fun in Reading Graphs

This is the last (for now) of my posts about COVID and reading data/graphs. I'm returning to books.

The first post was about possible optimism in the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S.

The second about the political nature of our response.

Here are two graphs of the COVID spread, comparing two states. Clearly, New York has had a way better response than Wisconsin. Right?

Is there anything wrong with this comparison? If so, what?

I am using the same criteria as I had in the earlier post about possible optimism in the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S.

There are no numbers. So we don't know what's being compared. If anyone hides numbers and properly labeled axes, don't trust them. It looks like Wisconsin could still be climbing while New York is improving. That may be the case. However, take a look at the properly labeled graphs below:

Wisconsin seems to be wavering between fifty to sixty cases per million per day. Meanwhile, New York may be descending toward one hundred cases per million per day. So is Wisconsin doing better than New York?

For about twenty days, Wisconsin was hovering at twenty-five cases per million per day. Should that be its normal? Something else? Some states are hovering between ten to thirty, though: West Virginia at ten, Washington state at thirty.  What should it be?

Here are some states or territories that are whooping all the others' butts:



(Apologies for making the graphs small, but here I'm just looking at trends, not numbers. Feel free to make your own graphs to check.)

These guys are at or near zero. Why are they so much better? You'll probably guess as soon as I list them. Respectively, they are Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Montana, Northern Mariana Islands, Vermont, and Virgin Islands.

A lot of them are islands (with ocean barriers), and/or have mountain/snow barriers, and/or have low population density. In fact, when numbers plateau, that may be that state's or territory's best rate, under the circumstances. Population density may explain the different-sized plateaus we're seeing (for instance, the difference between Wisconsin and New York). Still, can these be improved?

Puerto Rico, an island, throws a monkey wrench in this discussion. Perhaps they are less prepared to accommodate to this virus than other islands. There are mainland states who still have climbing rates as well, so they need to investigate ways to work on this, brainstorm with allies.

The graph for Northern Mariana Islands is interesting in that the case load hovered at or near zero for ten days, then popped back up. This could mean that we will not eradicate this virus. At least it needs to be for longer than ten days. How much longer? And what does that mean for us?

We can try two things: One, open up the country, business as usual but with masks, etc. (except working with masks is problematic, especially work that requires exertion, and brains need oxygen. Will there be later class-action lawsuits against businesses with strict mask policies? But do we care about the health of such people's brains? They're just low-wage workers, right?) Perhaps we need better masks or a switch to face shields, as silly as they might look. We will probably wear the masks until a vaccine is developed.

Two, we can try a near-complete shut-down of the country, save a bare-bones medical workers and bare-bones crew of those running power and a bare-bones police force. As you can see from the aforementioned post about the political nature to our response to COVID, most people are willing to wait until June, so we can try four more weeks of shut down. People would have one day to gather food for a two-week hibernation. If you had any symptoms after two weeks, you have to stay in hibernation. There would follow the final two weeks of partial lockdown. Then open the country up. Period. No masks unless you or your business wants to, except when an outbreak occurs within a company. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. We live with the consequences.

Of course, people would complain about either action, and maybe there are other avenues to explore.

This last bit is just some ideas that occurred to me to curb economic repercussions. They have nothing to do with graphs.

To limit business failures, if I were President, I'd make it illegal to collect rent [UPDATE: I'd use a carrot-and-stick approach--either collect rent and face full taxes without deductions (this includes all members of a board. These taxes would be distributed among those who lost their businesses) or allow the rent-free period and receive generous tax breaks]. All electrical power is charged at cost. Anyone who has already paid rent, can get refunds or future credits, depending on the business owner's needs in order to reopen. Those who own buildings or land that's being rented can deduct this off their taxes. Those who had a lot of perishable waste can deduct that as well. That's as close to a reset, that I can think of.

I'd probably do the same for low-income people who lost jobs and defaulted on rent or house payments. Middle-class can put off payments (interest free) if necessary (i.e. unemployed).

Other ideas to mitigate income loss for people and businesses?