As we seek to understand different outcomes in different regions or countries, the temptation will be to look for explanations in terms of government policies. But I wonder how much of the differences were caused by sociological variables.
One variable might be ghetto-ization of immigrants. Some European countries have acquired large Muslim populations that have not been assimilated into the native culture. France, Sweden, and the UK come to mind, but perhaps there are others. Here in the U.S., New York has ghettos of Hispanic immigrants, and they account for a significant portion of deaths, perhaps in part because they are likely to work in occupations that require them to leave their homes. At the other end of the spectrum, Japan is notorious for not having a large immigrant population.
Another variable might be herding of the elderly. In the United States, we herd many of the elderly into nursing homes, and at least 10 percent of the deaths in this country have occurred among residents of such facilities. Perhaps living arrangements in Northern Italy produced an elderly herding effect. Japan has a very elderly population, but perhaps they live in more isolated conditions.
Are these or other sociological variables helpful in explaining the severity in Spain? What about the relatively low death rates in California and Texas?
“What about the relatively low death rates in California and Texas?”
But, both California and my home state of Texas have extremely large populations of lower income (and hard working) Hispanics. Why the divergence from New York?
Why the divergence from New York?
Car culture vs. mass transit culture for starters.
+1
Note too that Spain is mass transit intensive with subways in most cities.
Sailer posted a chart showing % that take mass transit. NYC is a huge outlier compared to everywhere else, and everything west of the Mississippi is below average.
The Sailer picture
Sailer has been on a roll. In addition he has posted about the random testing results from Austria . For what it’s worth , Wikipedia says 53 percent of the Viennese use mass transit to get to work, yet very low percentage of population is infected. https://www.unz.com/isteve/a-view-from-vienna/
I suspect the typical mass transit commute is much shorter in Vienna than it is in New York.
New York City is 3 times larger than Vienna, and the metro area (which encompasses the reach of mass transit) is close to 20 times larger. Having ridden in both mass transit systems, I can tell you Vienna’s is much, much cleaner in all aspects- and you are right- you spend far less time in one in Vienna to get pretty much anywhere it can take you.
I’d also give the age structure of the populations a close look, as this virus is disproportionately fatal to the elderly.
It might be sociological but I would also be weary of the fundamental attribution error here. Perhaps it’s simply the number of initial infections that determines things.
Eg if an area has a single initial infection then after 10 doublings there will be 1000 infections. If instead an area gets 100 initial infections then after the same amount of time there will be 100,000 infections. And note that with the virus doubling every 3 days or so, the first area will add 3,000 infections over the subsequent week. The second area will add 300,000 new infections.
And if the hospitalization rate is say 5%, then the first area will have 50 additional patients, probably mostly indistinguishable from noise. The second area will have 5,000 hospitalizations which may begin to overwhelm the system. And then they will add 15,000 more over the following week.
Because of the FAE, we might tell ourselves stories about how the first area had certain features that the second area lacked that allowed for containment. In reality it was mostly luck (though NYC having more international travelers carrying the disease than Des Moines is of course not random).
+1
It’s as if the entire world entered the lockdown around the same time. So some did it two weeks to late (Italy) and some two weeks early, etc.
Somebody else, I forget who, makes the point that there is a culture of double standards in the USA. They contrast the press treatment of the off-label use of the malarial drugs with the 20-second hand washing recommendation which apparently lacks any published research to support it.
Australian Jo Nova suggests that similarly ventilators may be the wrong answer because the mechanics of the illness were not understood and that blood clotting is not being addressed: http://joannenova.com.au/2020/04/urgent-new-medical-theory-on-coronavirus-hold-the-ventilators-stop-blood-clots-instead/
Sociologically, there seems to be differences in medical provider populations as to critical thinking.
What about the relatively low death rates in California and Texas?
Lots of dumb luck in our states. One problem with the COVID-19 is this is one medical experiment the world ran 200 different experiments at time without control subject or even a decent null hypothesis. Right now it is opening newspaper on May 1 and stating we suddenly going to have a .400 hitter win the batting title. There are loads of variation and there is a lot of lack of defined Why?
Living in California in late January, wouldn’t you assume our state burn hotspots the quickest being we are the main port and airport for the Pacific Rim nations? Sure Washington and New York are not surprising early hotspots but odds are California spread would have hit us first. But it spread in Washington, New York and Mardi Gras and California was contained and NoCal authorities acted quickly.
I suspect that the reasons Texas and California are doing well overlap with the reasons that Australia is doing well:
“Australia is the Lucky Country, and doing the right thing
Why is the situation so good here:
1. A giant nuclear ball cleans streets every day with infra red heat and UV sterilization.
2. Indoor room temperature means viral survival time is lower, and thus less easily spread.
3. The population is at its healthiest — close to annual peak levels of Vitamin D levels.
4. We have a moat and borders have been shut.
5. Social isolation is working. It’s easier in 4 bed 2 bath homes with gardens and a low population density.
6. Deaths are lower because long distance travellers (the greatest source of infections) are a younger cohort — mainly 20 – 60 years old. Also possibly because there is less Vit D deficiency (see point 3). Though this will change with local spread and winter is coming.”
http://joannenova.com.au/2020/04/crushing-the-curve-in-australia-unknown-source-covid-cases-trending-down/
Before rushing to conclusions, consider the difference in death rates of Spain (350 per million) and Greece (9 per million), both mediterranean cultures, with similar “sociology” etc.
Only 10% of U.S. covid-19 deaths are in nursing homes? In Canada that proportion is almost 50%.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/08/canadian-nursing-home-reels-from-death-of-half-its-residents-bobcaygeon
Canadian elderly homes may have a problem but I guess a related question should be what is wrong with younger Americans such that they account for 90% of covid-19 deaths?
Not young people. Old people not in nursing homes