Reported tests, cases, and deaths relative to population in NY, WA, CA

[pat_k]

I wanted to get a better handle on reported tests, cases, and deaths relative to population in the "big three."

In case anyone is interested, the numbers are summarized below.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Reported tests (except CA -- can't find), cases, and deaths relative to 2018 population.

NY as of latest found (3/21 news -- there are somewhat inconsistent reports, but best estimates)

NY state tested 45,437 people (1 in every 430 people)
Positive approx. 10,360
Positive rate 23%
Deaths 56 (1 per 350,000)

Overall positive 10,360 (1 in every 1,890)

NYC positive approx. 7,500 (1 in every 1,150)
Outside NYC positive approx. 2,860 (1 in every 3,820)

NY Total Population 19.54 million
NYC Population 8.62 million
Outside NYC Population 10.92 million

WA as of Seattle Times update March 20 4pm

WA state tested 22,860 (1 in every 330)
WA positive 1,525 (1 in every 4,940)
Positive rate 6.7%
Deaths 83 (1 in 91,000)

Deaths with 29 at the Life Care Center removed (perhaps a better gouge of "general" spread)
54 (1 in 139,600)

WA population 7.536 million

CA as of LA Times update March 21, 2:30 pm

CA tested unknown
CA positive 1,315 (1 in every 30,080)
Deaths 24 (1 in every 1,648,333)

CA Population 39.56 million

Notable:

Louisiana pop 4.66 million - deaths 16 (1 in every 290,000*)
*A higher rate than NY

Perhaps Mardi Gras has something to do with this?

================================
Widespread reporting that NY is ahead on testing isn't quite accurate. They are of course ahead on overall numbers tested, but WA has tested more people relative to pop (WA 1 in every 330 vs. NY 1 in every 430).

It's difficult to know what to make of the enormous differences in positive rates in NY and WA (NY's positive rate about 3.5 times WA's). Perhaps NY has had to limit testing to more serious cases which would be expected to higher rate of positives. If so, the WA numbers might better reflect what's happening "on the ground" in WA (at least among people with some level of symptoms) and NY could be in much worse shape in terms of number of cases.

Not sure what to make of the difference in deaths relative to population between NY and WA. Once again, might be there were earlier COVID deaths in NY that went undetected. The enormous difference between NY/WA and CA might be down to far more COVID-10 deaths going unidentified in CA.

The population density in NYC makes an enormous difference: NYC (1 reported positive in every 1,150) vs. outside NYC (1 reported positive per 3,820). Not sure if stricter social distancing can do much about that because most in the city are apartment dwellers that can't help but share stairways, halls, etc.

But for DT's denial and "slow start" we would have FAR better data and predictive models by now.

For example, we would have -- or be a lot closer to having -- more liberal and consistent testing criteria across public health jurisdictions. Without that, the data is a mess of incomparable numbers. We MUST do better if we ever want to get an actual handle on things. For example, being able to better predict spread by population density by looking at the number cases within each metropolitan statistical area (MSA), analyzing by MSA density, and comparing to spread outside metro areas. (To mention just one thing that comes to mind.)

Sure, we can continue to prepare for the absolute worse case scenarios everywhere, but meaningful data and accurate prediction would make an enormous difference predicting actual needs.

[frazzled]

1. New York City is extremely dense in population and space

And many people take public transportation. It is also entertainment capital of the country (if not the world), with many people crowded into theaters, halls, museums.

That may explain the higher rate of positives, in part. There is simply more contact than in less dense areas.

[pat_k]

2. Yes. Manhattan is about 67,000 people per sq mi.

Tragically, I think we will see a very rapid rise in other densely populated areas in NY, NJ, CA, MA...

Particularly those areas where the residents rely heavily on public transportation (as you point out -- e.g., Boston, Hoboken, Newark, DC... on and on). I think the number of undetected cases spread via public transit, dense living conditions, etc., before "lock downs" will be making themselves known. (Pre-lock-down infected infecting others who may just now be showing symptoms, who have infected others...)

I hope I am wrong.

If you're interested, here's a list of the most density populated areas in the various metropolitan statistical areas)

[grantcart]

3. LA is the one to watch

[pat_k]

4. Absolutely. And SF

For example of a few of the most densely populated areas:

Approx people per square mi:

LA metro area
Walnut Park 22,000
Lenox 21,000
East Compton 18,000
West Hollywood 18,000
Westmont, Florence-Graham, East LA 17,000
....

SF 17,000
East Palo Alto 12,000
....

And I fear the numbers will be higher in the areas that make heavy use of public transportation (generally in SF more than LA)

[grantcart]

5. No I meant Louisiana.

The brought foreign tourists together with a parade where revelers make a habit of hugging each other in drunken revelry in a population filled with Trump supporters in denial.

The numbers out of Louisiana have been exploding.

[pat_k]

6. Opps. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Of course.

They are currently highest per capita.

Just found their latest numbers here.

3300 tested, 763 cases, and 20 deaths. Up from the 16 deaths I saw earlier. (At least, unlike CA, they are reporting testing numbers from public health and private labs.)

It's interesting. Like NY, their positive rate is also 23%.

They also have a new private lab starting up in NE Louisiana that claims capacity to process 800 - 1200 samples per day.