[ifinnegan]

All these states have very low numbers.

Not public health problem numbers.

It is New York and eastern seaboard that has vastly higher numbers.

[Paladin2]

A more interesting disparity is between Michigan and Minnesota.

Both have a major population center, large international airports, foreign polulations and are about the same physical size.

[Jim Noble]

Death rates are per 100 CASES, not per 100 population.

[Steve_Seattle]

"The other obvious fact about these numbers is that the death rates are astonishingly low. Our lives have been turned upside down by the Wuhan virus and governments’ reactions to it, and yet you need to go to the fourth or fifth decimal point to find fatalities."

And if you break down the death rates by age groups, you could probably another zero or two for the age groups under 60.

[mewzilla]

Wonder how this effects the Vitamin D hypothesis. None of those are what I’d call sunshine states.

[Steve Van Doorn]

said, "t there is no basis for concluding that the nature and extent of the shutdown orders in these states have had any (positive) impact on the states"

It clearly had no positive impact.

The CDC used to deal with a pandemic(which means in the wild or uncontained.)

They learned from the 1918 Spanish flu that those that where immunized in the earlier waves was lived in the next wave.
Note if you're in an apartment or condo you're breathing other peoples air. Rather then getting out in the sun with heat and vitamin D. The house arrest is counterproductive
1918 Influenza: the Mother of All Pandemics (2006 perspective by the CDC)
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/12/1/pdfs/05-0979.pdf

[seastay]

These numbers are so low, the expected statical variation may be larger than the conclusions that one state or other is better. But, the more important issue, even more astonishing than these low numbers, a definite conclusion be made right of the bat, is that is regions that required little lock-down or none do not see 30 times the death rate, and 30 times is big, we would see this by now , while crickets from the press ...

Just remember we were told 3 million would die in the USA alone in the first year. Now we are lucky to see just 1/30th of these deaths. Consider in addition, 80,000 today is way too high when reports now say only 3 to 25 percent ( we may never know) of these actually died only “from“ the virus alone and not “with” the virus and some other condition that would have killed them likely this year already such as nursing home people accounting for a majority of the 80,000 where an average stay in a nursing home before death is 5 months ... therefore , perhaps if the USA really has only 30,000 deaths or less, that's 100 times a factor or more of the 3 million we were told could die WITHOUT a lock-down..

Do we see more 100 times the deaths in places with no lock-downs.. no, even though a factor as large as 100 would be easily recognized with bad or little data !

[BarbM]

98% of deaths in MN happened in Nursing Homes, and the like.

People up here are suckers: they voted for Ilhan Omer.

The media has scared them to death. They enjoy the “feel good” parades and chalk on the side walk.

One day I didn’t wear a mask to the grocery store and I got nasty looks. The next time, I wore an N95 with MAGA written on it. People avoided looking at me. Pathetic.

[Wuli]

A little comparison I made. I changed population to population density.

Minnesota
Fatalities: 722
Population density: 70.5/sq mile
Death rate: 0.00013

Wisconsin
Fatalities: 453
Population density: 39.6/sq mile
Death rate: 0.00008

Iowa
Fatalities: 351
Population density: 54.5
Death rate: 0.00011

North Dakota
Fatalities: 43
Population density: 9.7/sq mile
Death rate: 0.00006

South Dakota
Fatalities: 44
Population density: 11.3/sq mile
Death rate: 0.00005

And I threw in Montana:
Fatalities: 19
Population density: 2.65/sq mile
Death rate: 0.000019

Here is that arrangement sorted by population density:
(sorted on death rate 1st and pop density 2nd)

State-———Pop Dens-—Deaths-—Death Rate
Minnesota-———70.5——722-——0.00013
Iowa——————54.5——351-——0.00011
Wisconsin-———39.6——453-——0.00008
North Dakota-——9.7-——43-——0.00006
South Dakota——11.3-——44-——0.00005
Montana—————2.65——19-——0.000019

1. Montana I know would like to crow that their early total shut down is/was the key, but the comparative data above suggests natural not man made reasons.

2. Given the closeness of population density and death rate of North and South Dakota their different policies do not explain their death rates. And it seems altogether that population density is the major factor between them all regardless of state policies.

Yes, viruses like flu and the Wuhan Virus have a natural course.

[tbw2]

Niel Ferguson actually has a HISTORY of sky high death estimates.

His projections led to millions of British livestock killed due to hoof and mouth disease projections. And it turned out inspectors were spreading it through unsterilized shoes.

He predicted up to fifty thousand dead from mad cow disease.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/jan/09/research.highereducation

He predicted up to 200 million dead from bird flu. Note that’s worse than the Wuhan virus and they still didn’t lock everything down.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/30/birdflu.jamessturcke