05-27-2020, 02:54 PM
Warren Dew
Yes. If your 75% reduction was for your whole "hot zone", I'll trust you on that, though I think that's dominated by New York.
I think Illinois is different because cases are actually increasing there; Chicago might be on its way to becoming another New York, perhaps in slow motion.
I do think that R hovering so close to 1.0 in so many states seems strange. How can it be so easy to cut it down from, say, 2 or 3 to 0.9, but then so difficult to cut it from 0.9 to 0.5 or something?
Well of course it is dominated by New York. The whole country is dominated by New York, it has 29% of the total deaths nationwide. The question I was asking when I first put this sort of plot together a few weeks ago is what does the country look like if you take (then) top three out (NY, NJ and MI). And the answer is the trend was different. Since then, MA passed us by so it goes in and PA and IL are just under us, so I was up to 6, I had seen plots of similar analyses where to excluded NY, NJ, and CT, so I tossed in CT. The shape differences remain the same. The hot zone has a peak, because NY has one, but also because NJ, MA, MI and CT have them too, so its not just a NY artifact.
(05-26-2020, 04:32 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Are you talking about Massachusetts only?
Yes. If your 75% reduction was for your whole "hot zone", I'll trust you on that, though I think that's dominated by New York.
I think Illinois is different because cases are actually increasing there; Chicago might be on its way to becoming another New York, perhaps in slow motion.
I do think that R hovering so close to 1.0 in so many states seems strange. How can it be so easy to cut it down from, say, 2 or 3 to 0.9, but then so difficult to cut it from 0.9 to 0.5 or something?
Well of course it is dominated by New York. The whole country is dominated by New York, it has 29% of the total deaths nationwide. The question I was asking when I first put this sort of plot together a few weeks ago is what does the country look like if you take (then) top three out (NY, NJ and MI). And the answer is the trend was different. Since then, MA passed us by so it goes in and PA and IL are just under us, so I was up to 6, I had seen plots of similar analyses where to excluded NY, NJ, and CT, so I tossed in CT. The shape differences remain the same. The hot zone has a peak, because NY has one, but also because NJ, MA, MI and CT have them too, so its not just a NY artifact.