[romwell]

>While we're not hit as bad

We are not hit as bad because of the actions of the government who has issued the shelter-in-place before NY did, when we had 1/10th the rate of infection.

I don't agree with everything the government does, but let's give credit where credit is due. That we were not hit as bad is not coincidental.

That give, I'm perfectly willing to cut them some slack.

[nostromo]

> That we were not hit as bad is not coincidental

Well, you don't know that. There are states and countries that have not gone to "shelter-in-place" extremes and have been outperforming California.

New York is special in America. It's very dense, and every time you get on a subway train, which most of the city does every working day, you're sharing a cramped space with hundreds of random individuals. It's not hard to see why they've been hit harder than anywhere in the US.

To pretend the only possible difference is a binary distinction between lockdown or not is reductionist ad absurdum.

[numpad0]

One upside of living near Tokyo is that I can say “I’ve seen denser than that” in arbitrary contexts

[raz32dust]

Parent comment is nowhere claiming that it is the only reason. Given that there wasn't enough testing capacity, contact tracing capacity or hospital capacity, what would you have differently? And on what basis?

[chiefalchemist]

Not hit that bad by C19. But what about other unintended consequences?

For example, in NYC, domestic violence calls are down. The fear is, the abusee is too afraid to call. Suicides are up. Substance abuse is up. Those who are locked down are putting on weight and becoming unhealthy; C19 does better when paired with other conditions. The economic fallout hasn't hit yet. And so on.

I'm not taking sides (i.e., pro v anti lockdown). I am noting that C19 cases and fatalities coded as C19 are not the only KPIs. There's a bigger picture. We need to look at that bigger piture.