a reply to: daskakik
2007 may have been bad but it wasn't a disaster of great depression proportions.
Maybe not for you; for me, 2007 was very much like the Great Depression, based on those in my family who lived through that.
That's what I was trying to point out... any economic downturn will affect some people much more than others. I'm sure the Rockefellers enjoyed the
According to the graphs I posted in the last page comparing May to September cases are higher, hospitalization are the same and deaths are half
what they were in May. Then you have that dip in the middle when the lockdowns happened in many places.
The graphs you posted have no baseline. This one does:
This is a graph I made based on state data form the CDC as of a couple weeks ago. States are arranged in ascending order based on population density
(2019 estimated from the US Department of Commerce). I have long said the severity would be a function of population density, and this seems to bear
me out as the graph increases with increasing population density. However, all states did not lock down equally. North Dakota had a lockdown; South
Dakota did not. Both have similar population densities, and both are adjacent to each other, but South Dakota had no lockdown whatsoever. North Dakota
did. If the lockdown in North Dakota was effective, we would expect to see a substantial decrease in the number of hospitalizations. We do not see
Michigan had a severe lockdown; Walmarts in the area were actually partially locked down; seeds and gardening equipment for instance were prohibited
to be sold. People were banned from all unnecessary travel, even to go to a vacation home they owned. Here in Alabama, where we actually have a
similar population density, the lockdowns were much less severe and for the most part unenforced... but we had similar numbers for hospitalization
These results appear to indicate the lockdowns were completely ineffective at reducing the medical load... which was their stated purpose.
Incidentally, some states are still locked down... one cannot state that the decline you mention coincided with the lockdowns unless one focuses on
specific states. Perhaps the bulk of the lockdowns could be said to have occurred in that time frame, but that is oversimplification. Also, case
numbers are a completely unreliable metric since testing has varied in both number and accuracy during the last 8 months. There may be issues with
hospitalizations and deaths as well, but I would consider them much more accurate than case numbers.
All I can say is that that was the idea of the lockdowns. Instead of those things happening in June and July they are happening later. Mileage
may vary from state to state and that is why each state did their own thing.
Agreed, the idea that they were needed to prevent the medical system overload (which never materialized even in New York) was the selling point.
However, we now have the benefit of hindsight. The lockdowns were an exercise in futility. The ironic thing is that, had we used a national lockdown
instead of state-specific lockdowns, we would not be able to say how effective they were(n't). We would have no such comparison data as we do now.
Of course, my point wasn't about "draconian" measures or whether they were needed or not. All I said was that "they destroyed the economy"
might be an exaggeration.
And again, what may appear to be total devastation for one might be a mere inconvenience for another. The economy is vast. The elephant is not long
and slim like a snake... you're just feeling its tail.