Thanks. Yes, it is nice to see you and some other people from pxleyes here! No, it's not Canada (but close). I live in rural upstate New York. We get about 4 meters of snow per year.
I agree that we are not speaking of mutually exclusive positions, but the important phrase above is "for the authors of this study." Epidemiologists are fairly uniform in their conclusions, with congestion and mask wearing etc. being primary factors. These authors are not looking at medical factors. They are looking at economic factors. Even they admit in their limitations that there are probably other variables, and yeah, there are some BIG ones that they ignore because it's not within the parameters of their study. I'm a little surprised that this was in a peer-reviewed journal considering there are some obvious validity issues. But if you limit it to the very narrow parameters they set for themselves I guess it's ok. One of the things they say is that non-whites are more susceptible because they are in lower paid, higher contact (congestion variable) jobs. But comparing NY to Utah in that respect may also be problematic as, for example, Salt Lake City is about 80% White while NYC is only 45% white. NYC has twice as many minorities and 13x the congestion, which is why congestion is a confounding variable. That's not to say their findings don't make sense. The point is that their conclusion appears to be too simplistic, whereas access to good health care, congestion, age, income, and a variety of other things would come into play. But yeah, having good health care is important. That's not earth-shattering.
You just said that the Covid cases "happened where density of the population is the highest." Yes, I agree with you. That's what I've been saying. The higher the density the more the virus spreads. The more the virus spreads, the higher the fatality rate. It's a pretty straightforward calculus. There are probably many "causes of death," but congestion is probably the main one. So why the difference between Utah and New York death rates? Keep in mind that the term "congested" does not mean the same thing in both states. "Congested" Salt Lake City has 1,900 people per square mile while "congested" New York City has 27,000 people per square mile. The state of Utah has 33 people per square mile while the state of New York has 421 people per square mile.
So you need a certificate to show you're immune from a hoax?
I think you may be misunderstanding "per capita." If anything, that stat lends credence to the position that density enhances spread. If population A and population B were equal, we would expect the death rate to be the same if all other variables were equal. But when population A is significantly higher (or lower) than population B, the per capita rate tries to even the playing field (statistically). Since there is such disparity between the two populations, the per capita rate points to an external variable as being the cause (the death rates are not equal). So, a study would try to isolate the dependent variables and test which one(s) were the cause of the disparity. We're talking about a contagious, virulent virus. If we controlled for variables except income inequality, would the virus death rate slow significantly? The virus doesn't know or care how much money you have, or if you have insurance or not etc. It just comes across an environment that is susceptible (your body). If we control for variables except for density, the virus has a harder time spreading in populations that are lower and more dispersed compared to high populations in congested areas (the nature of contagion). Does it help survival rates to have good insurance etc? Almost certainly. But, the original statement is problematic in that sense as well. It says Utah has low income inequality, it does NOT say that everyone in Utah has high incomes with great insurance. If everyone in Utah was at the poverty level with no insurance, they would still have very low income inequality. I am not trying to say that income inequality isn't a huge and negative issue. I'm just saying that the original post was alluding to correlation and not causation.
What's going on in the original statement is that the virus is incapable of caring how much money anyone has. The important variable for the spread of the virus is population density. The city of New York alone has almost three times the population of the entire state of Utah. The state of New York has over six times the population of Utah. Utah's population is spread over vast empty areas while New York's is primarily congested (although there are a lot of rural areas in New York, too). So while the original statement on income equality may be true, it is correlative and not causal. We could also say that Utah has more cattle than New York so cattle must suppress the virus.
Correlation does not equal causation
I guess a title could be "Ice Dragon." I use a Pentax K-3 for my photography. Thanks.
I didn't see where to do this when I uploaded it, but I guess a Title could be Dandelion at Sunset," and I use a Pentax K-3 camera for all my shots. Thanks.
Hi. Thanks for commenting. There's minimal PP, but nothing unusual (levels, contrast etc.)
