# South Dakota has 9 deaths with no lockdown.

South Dakota only shut down leisure activities and their public transportation system. They have 9 deaths without a business lockdown. That is about 1 out of every 100,000 people.

New York, on the other hand has 17,621 deaths because Cuomo ignored requests to shut down public transportation in the state In particular, New York city left its subways and taxis running and the virus spread like wildfire. This is not to mention the buses, trains, and airplanes.

3 Likes

Ya I don't know. I doubt that is the sole reason for the spread in NYC but probably contributes to it.

How many people are in South Dakota?

Jayn200 -

Ya I don't know. I doubt that is the sole reason for the spread in NYC but probably contributes to it.

How many people are in South Dakota?

Let muppet OP google it...

The state of New York has a population of 19,450,000 people.  With 17,621 deaths, if I did my math correctly (which is a coin toss) that would give NYS a death rate of 90 per 100,000 residents.  That is 90 times higher than South Dakota.

Fathead D -

The state of New York has a population of 19,450,000 people.  With 17,621 deaths, if I did my math correctly (which is a coin toss) that would give NYS a death rate of 90 per 100,000 residents.  That is 90 times higher than South Dakota.

To do the math correctly, you would have to know how many people in each state have the virus compared to how many have died.

Just knowing the population and death count means absolutely nothing. You can't even calculate how many people have come into contact with someone who has the virus.

New York has a higher count, as they should, because they have more heavily populated areas which means a single case can cause more people to be exposed.

Anyone who compares the risk level factors of an infected person in NYC to an infected person of small town anywhere is an idiot.

Jayn200 -

Ya I don't know. I doubt that is the sole reason for the spread in NYC but probably contributes to it.

How many people are in South Dakota?

Here are new terms for the liberal mind.  Data normalization & ratios.  His math is correct.

(I know STEM concepts are really hard on liberal minds)

1 Like

Lurker99 -
Fathead D -

The state of New York has a population of 19,450,000 people.  With 17,621 deaths, if I did my math correctly (which is a coin toss) that would give NYS a death rate of 90 per 100,000 residents.  That is 90 times higher than South Dakota.

To do the math correctly, you would have to know how many people in each state have the virus compared to how many have died.

Just knowing the population and death count means absolutely nothing. You can't even calculate how many people have come into contact with someone who has the virus.

New York has a higher count, as they should, because they have more heavily populated areas which means a single case can cause more people to be exposed.

Anyone who compares the risk level factors of an infected person in NYC to an infected person of small town anywhere is an idiot.

You're right.  Time to open up less densely populated states.

ConradB -
Jayn200 -

Ya I don't know. I doubt that is the sole reason for the spread in NYC but probably contributes to it.

How many people are in South Dakota?

Here are new terms for the liberal mind.  Data normalization & ratios.  His math is correct.

(I know STEM concepts are really hard on liberal minds)

I'm not sure if youre referring to me or the OP but I have a stem undergrad and 2 master's, 1 is in data science. Don't think you're educating me in anything.

1 Like

Bad Monkey -
Lurker99 -
Fathead D -

The state of New York has a population of 19,450,000 people.  With 17,621 deaths, if I did my math correctly (which is a coin toss) that would give NYS a death rate of 90 per 100,000 residents.  That is 90 times higher than South Dakota.

To do the math correctly, you would have to know how many people in each state have the virus compared to how many have died.

Just knowing the population and death count means absolutely nothing. You can't even calculate how many people have come into contact with someone who has the virus.

New York has a higher count, as they should, because they have more heavily populated areas which means a single case can cause more people to be exposed.

Anyone who compares the risk level factors of an infected person in NYC to an infected person of small town anywhere is an idiot.

You're right.  Time to open up less densely populated states.

I didn't say that, as I do not have enough accurate information to make any kind of educated guess on how high the risk level is anywhere. It's clear we do not have the slightest clue just how many people really have this, or how many people will have it before it's all said and done.

To assume I meant open up less populated states is silly. I never said that. I said comparing the risk level between the two is stupid. To assume I meant there is no risk at all is even more stupid.

My personal, uneducated guess, is that this will forever be a thing. There will always be someone, somewhere, carrying it without knowing and giving it to someone else.

My only hope is that some form of working vaccine gets made quickly.

Lurker99 -
Bad Monkey -
Lurker99 -
Fathead D -

The state of New York has a population of 19,450,000 people.  With 17,621 deaths, if I did my math correctly (which is a coin toss) that would give NYS a death rate of 90 per 100,000 residents.  That is 90 times higher than South Dakota.

To do the math correctly, you would have to know how many people in each state have the virus compared to how many have died.

Just knowing the population and death count means absolutely nothing. You can't even calculate how many people have come into contact with someone who has the virus.

New York has a higher count, as they should, because they have more heavily populated areas which means a single case can cause more people to be exposed.

Anyone who compares the risk level factors of an infected person in NYC to an infected person of small town anywhere is an idiot.

You're right.  Time to open up less densely populated states.

I didn't say that, as I do not have enough accurate information to make any kind of educated guess on how high the risk level is anywhere. It's clear we do not have the slightest clue just how many people really have this, or how many people will have it before it's all said and done.

To assume I meant open up less populated states is silly. I never said that. I said comparing the risk level between the two is stupid. To assume I meant there is no risk at all is even more stupid.

My personal, uneducated guess, is that this will forever be a thing. There will always be someone, somewhere, carrying it without knowing and giving it to someone else.

My only hope is that some form of working vaccine gets made quickly.

Maybe the tone of my post was misunderstood.  The last sentence of your post I agree with, and it cuts both ways. "Anyone who compares the risk level factors of an infected person in NYC to an infected person of small town anywhere is an idiot."  South Dakota doesn't need to be shut down because New York is in crisis.

I believe most of the country should be opened up.  There is no benefit to less densely populated areas with a managable amount of cases to be locked down.  It shouldn't even be on a state by state basis, more like county to county.

I agree that there will always be someone carrying it.  That's why it's time to open up everyplace that the healthcare system isn't being overloaded. We can't all crawl in a hole and wait to die.  Time to live your life.

Bad Monkey -
Lurker99 -
Bad Monkey -
Lurker99 -
Fathead D -

The state of New York has a population of 19,450,000 people.  With 17,621 deaths, if I did my math correctly (which is a coin toss) that would give NYS a death rate of 90 per 100,000 residents.  That is 90 times higher than South Dakota.

To do the math correctly, you would have to know how many people in each state have the virus compared to how many have died.

Just knowing the population and death count means absolutely nothing. You can't even calculate how many people have come into contact with someone who has the virus.

New York has a higher count, as they should, because they have more heavily populated areas which means a single case can cause more people to be exposed.

Anyone who compares the risk level factors of an infected person in NYC to an infected person of small town anywhere is an idiot.

You're right.  Time to open up less densely populated states.

I didn't say that, as I do not have enough accurate information to make any kind of educated guess on how high the risk level is anywhere. It's clear we do not have the slightest clue just how many people really have this, or how many people will have it before it's all said and done.

To assume I meant open up less populated states is silly. I never said that. I said comparing the risk level between the two is stupid. To assume I meant there is no risk at all is even more stupid.

My personal, uneducated guess, is that this will forever be a thing. There will always be someone, somewhere, carrying it without knowing and giving it to someone else.

My only hope is that some form of working vaccine gets made quickly.

Maybe the tone of my post was misunderstood.  The last sentence of your post I agree with, and it cuts both ways. "Anyone who compares the risk level factors of an infected person in NYC to an infected person of small town anywhere is an idiot."  South Dakota doesn't need to be shut down because New York is in crisis.

I believe most of the country should be opened up.  There is no benefit to less densely populated areas with a managable amount of cases to be locked down.  It shouldn't even be on a state by state basis, more like county to county.

I agree that there will always be someone carrying it.  That's why it's time to open up everyplace that the healthcare system isn't being overloaded. We can't all crawl in a hole and wait to die.  Time to live your life.

Fair enough.

I'm not sure I agree, as I don't really know.

Just to play Devil's advocate though...

Let's say they open up less populated counties back to normal... what keep's the potentially exposed in the neighboring county from just driving over to visit a restaurant or bar and potentially exposing them as well?

Not positioning, just asking your opinion on how that is handled?

Personally, my life hasn't changed much. I still shop when I need to and go to work everyday. I am super protective of my kids though and have not let them go hardly anywhere as my daughter has some health problems and would be at a much higher risk. I trust myself to be careful when out, but not her.

I don't know what the end game is here. At some point things need to get back on track, but until more information is out, I will be over protective of her (as well as my other two)

It's almost like different areas of the country are different.

South Dakota has a population of 587 people.

2 Likes

Stop posting good news!!!

Sky Daddy is punishing new york city because a ton of fannybandits and other heathens live there.

It's pretty much all Nitecrawler and Al Cappuccino's fault.

1 Like

ConradB -
Jayn200 -

Ya I don't know. I doubt that is the sole reason for the spread in NYC but probably contributes to it.

How many people are in South Dakota?

Here are new terms for the liberal mind.  Data normalization & ratios.  His math is correct.

(I know STEM concepts are really hard on liberal minds)

You mean conservative minds, they're not of the educated variety.

ReneH -
ConradB -
Jayn200 -

Ya I don't know. I doubt that is the sole reason for the spread in NYC but probably contributes to it.

How many people are in South Dakota?

Here are new terms for the liberal mind.  Data normalization & ratios.  His math is correct.

(I know STEM concepts are really hard on liberal minds)

You mean conservative minds, they're not of the educated variety.

Especially MAGAtards

they are typically illiterate

Oklahoma44 -
GuyOnInternet - South Dakota only shut down leisure activities and their public transportation system. They have 9 deaths without a business lockdown. That is about 1 out of every 100,000 people.

New York, on the other hand has 17,621 deaths because Cuomo ignored requests to shut down public transportation in the state In particular, New York city left its subways and taxis running and the virus spread like wildfire. This is not to mention the buses, trains, and airplanes.

New Yawk is a degenerate, leftist, worthless, cesspool.

Most of the OG libtards are either Kalifornicators, New Yawkers, or Canadians with their floppy heads with black beady eyes.

There is a distinct difference between people who love freedom, individual responsibility and want a limited government and the people who crowd together in an urban cesspool who believe that meat magically grows on a supermarket shelf and who worship statist government.

I think you'd be suprised how many NY'ers are conservative. Many financial people tend to be conservative.

GuyOnInternet - South Dakota only shut down leisure activities and their public transportation system. They have 9 deaths without a business lockdown. That is about 1 out of every 100,000 people.

New York, on the other hand has 17,621 deaths because Cuomo ignored requests to shut down public transportation in the state In particular, New York city left its subways and taxis running and the virus spread like wildfire. This is not to mention the buses, trains, and airplanes.

Isn't SD one of those states nobody uses?