You realize that NJ/NY would both have death rates in the middle of the pack if we hadn't been the first ones hit and so hard don't you? As per numerous previous posts of mine, the deaths per hospitalization in the spring wave were double what was seen during the summer and since then, because there were no efficaceous treatments and the medical procedures used by summer were not really well developed until the spring wave was largely over.
So if one halves the deaths for the spring wave, then NJ/NY both drop to about 1700-1800 deaths/1MM, which would put both behind at least a dozen states. NJ/NY had 50-60% of their deaths in the spring, while the vast majority of states had less than 5% of their deaths in the spring (including Texas).
In addition, being hit first, we had almost no interventions in place when the virus was silently multiplying exponentially in the densest population areas in the country (with very high commuting densities) - if we had had any testing in place we could have put interventions like distancing/masking in place well before mid/late March, when testing started getting going, and likely avoided a large chunk of those spring deaths on top of halving the death rates as discussed above. We also would've likely started the stay-at-home orders 1-2 weeks earlier, which several studies have said would've saved 50-80% of the lives lost in wave 1 (covered this back in the spring also). Both states would have lower death rates per capita than Texas if we had not been hit first and so hard.
Summary: Wanted to elaborate on the post above, by comparing death rates per capita in New Jersey/New York vs. other states, showing how we would've had far lower rates if we weren't hit so early and so hard. This is because I see so many people who say that NJ/NY (and other NE US states like MA/RI/CT) have "done horribly" during the pandemic because our deaths, per capita, are the 1st and 2nd highest in the US (at around 2400-2600 deaths/1MM). NJ/NY would both have death rates ranging from near the middle of the pack in the US to well below the middle of the pack for death rates per capita in the US, depending on which of 2 scenarios played out with regard to being the first ones hit and hit so hard and having such high, exponential death rates early on (twice what was seen in later waves), which is easy to see when comparing against a more "typical" state, like Texas or Florida or California, which were barely hit in the spring, but hit hard in the summer and harder in the winter. NY/NJ had 50-60% of our deaths in the spring, while most states typically had only ~10% of their deaths in the spring.
Details: As per numerous previous posts of mine, the deaths per hospitalization in the spring wave in NJ/NY were double what was seen during the summer in the 2nd wave all over the US and in the winter wave all over the US, including NJ/NY. This halving of death rates, post-spring was largely due to having more efficaceous treatments and having significantly improved medical procedures (especially on dealing with anoxic/ventilated patients), which were developed by the end of the spring wave (we were the guinea pigs). All of the deaths/death rate/population data, below are from Worldometers:
https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...es-interventions-and-more.198855/post-4685139
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us
And keep in mind that we're comparing crappy to really crappy performance in the US relative to a host of East Asian and African countries that have per capita death rates that are 1/20th to 1/100th of the US's (and most of Europe/South America too), mostly due to far better testing-tracing-isolating, augmented by better masking/distancing. I just wanted to show that NJ and NY are nowhere near the crappiest if one takes into account how early and hard we were hit (including the much higher deaths/hosp we absorbed in the spring).
𝗦𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼 𝟭: 𝗛𝗮𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗗𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘀/𝗛𝗼𝘀𝗽 𝗶𝗻 𝗦𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝗡𝗝/𝗡𝗬:
If one halves the deaths/hosp for the spring wave, then NJ/NY both drop to about 1640-1780 deaths/1MM, which would put both states in the 15-25th range in the US, given that both NJ/NY had 50-60% of their deaths in the spring, when death rates per hospitalization were much greater, while the vast majority of states had ~10% (or less) of their deaths in the spring. Specifically, NJ had about 15,040 deaths in the spring and 8310 since spring, so that would've been about 15,830 (15,040/2 + 8310) deaths/8.88MM or 1780 deaths/1MM, while NY had about 32,000 deaths in the spring and 16,000 since the spring, so that would've been about 32,000 deaths (32K/2 + 16K)/19.45MM or 1645 deaths/1MM.
𝗦𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼 𝟮: 𝗛𝗮𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘀/𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗽 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗦𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝗡𝗝/𝗡𝗬
In addition to being hit first, we had almost no interventions in place when the virus was silently multiplying exponentially in the densest population areas in the country (with very high commuting densities). Again, as I posted many times back in the spring, if we had had any testing in place we could have put interventions like distancing/masking in place well before mid/late March, when testing started getting going, and likely avoided a large chunk of those spring cases/deaths on top of halving the death rates as discussed above. We also would've likely started the stay-at-home orders 1-2 weeks earlier, which several studies have said would've saved 50-80% of the lives lost in wave 1. Even if it was just a 50% reduction in cases/deaths, that added on top of halving the deaths per hospitalization in the spring, would've dropped NJ/NY even further down in death rates, overall.
If we had had 50% less cases/deaths in the spring due to better testing and earlier interventions and had the lower death rates in the spring that other states have seen since summer (meaning roughly 1/4 the deaths we had in the spring), NJ would have had 12,070 total deaths (3760 in spring vs. 15,040 actually in the spring, plus 8310 since spring), which translates to about half of the current 23.2K NJ deaths, which would bring the per capita death rate down from 2640 to 1360/1MM, which would place NJ at about 30th in the US. And NY would have had 24,000 total deaths (8000 in spring vs. 32,000 actually in the spring, plus 16,000 since spring), which translates to about half of the current 48K NY deaths, which would bring the per capita death rate down from 2480 to 1240/1MM, which would place NY at 34th in the US. Both states would have lower death rates per capita than Texas (1540/1MM) and Florida (1470 deaths/1MM), if we had not been hit first and so hard.
𝗗𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘀/𝟭𝗠𝗠 𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗠𝗮𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝗦𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀
And if we wanted to see how states have done since the first wave, which nobody was really prepared for, but which NJ/NY were hit far harder in, as detailed above, things really get interesting. Just looking at deaths per 1MM people in selected states (mostly the ones I've discussed before, as per the post linked above), since the end of May, it shows that NJ/NY have better records than most other states (would be in the 35-40th range out of 50 states). People in this area have responded pretty well and only had one significant peak since spring, which was half the peak (in hospitalizations) vs. the spring and had about 1/4 the death rate vs. spring, due to the improved treatments/procedures as discussed previously. I'm only showing the graphs (from the link below) for NJ/NY/FL/TX, just to show the shapes of the trajectories of cases/hosp/deaths.
https://covidtracking.com/data
Arizona: 15,183 deaths/7.28MM = 2085 deaths/1MM
South Dakota: 1832 deaths/0.88MM = 2081 deaths/1MM
Texas: 42,561 deaths/28.99MM = 1468 deaths/1MM
Florida: 28,826 deaths/21.48MM = 1340 deaths/1MM
Calilfornia: 48,801 deaths/39.51MM = 1235 deaths/1MM
New Jersey: 10,049 deaths/8.88MM = 1131 deaths/1MM
New York: 17.675 deaths/19.45MM = 908 deaths/1MM
