There are people who do exactly that kind of analysis. They've consistently told us what works: vaccines, masks, distance, and being outside.Like dad4 said, 16 out of twenty were non-mandate/mask optional.
it was also mentioned that the areas above are in the higher BMI tiers… Well, 16 out of twenty of them.
If there are ‘age-adjusted’ numbers (still interested in that definition), shouldn’t we also be able to derive BMI adjusted numbers.
Since we already know age and BMI are the greatest risk factors for hospitalizations and deaths, Why can’t we back both of those population driven factors out and finally see something about policy impacts? Assuming that hospitalizations and deaths are the bar… not zero sniffles.
I know some will argue about seasonality of the sample window, regional variants, vaccination rates, population density, etc…Kinda like we argue about ECNL club rankings mid season due to strength of schedule in other threads…but at the end of the day, don’t we really want to know what works so we can actually do a cost/benefit analysis?
(We don’t yet fully know the costs, nor can we measure the benefits)
Is it their fault if some people here would rather repost Twitter memes than listen to someone who actually knows something?