[BostonCard]

There are no easy answers to any of this.  I just don’t think it’s as black and white as some say. 
 Part of me wonders if another potential strategy is to heavily focus resources into those areas that are the hotspots. And correct me if I’m wrong on this – but most of those hotspots are in densely populated areas with populations that are economically disadvantaged.  But you can’t devise a strategy that imposes special shelter in place orders on specific areas within densely populated areas where the pandemic hits the hardest.  There are simply too many social factors that go into that that make it impossible. 

And if you question what I’m saying take a look at the Eastbay. Compare the 880 corridor to the 680 corridor in terms of the Covid impact on those areas. For those of that are not local, the 680 Corridor is the higher income bracket. They have not been hit anywhere near as badly as those that live in the 880  Corridor. Then check number to look at those towns in the 24 area – Orinda Lafayette Moraga etc. and compare  to those towns around Highway four - Pittsburgh Antioch San Pablo.   Same difference economically. Same difference relating to Covid.

Please do not misconstrue what I’m saying. I’m not positing “blame” on those people who live in poor economic areas. Far from it.   But it is logical quite frankly that the outbreaks would be heavier there. Population density is higher and I suspect there are a whole lot more people that have to leave their houses to work so they can make enough to put food on their table.  It’s much easier to shelter in place if you have the economic wherewithal to do so. And then there is the Health differences - and the difference in health care access. 

I admit I may be wrong on this and am misconstruing data that is not indicative of the spread of the disease across the country. But if we are truly to look at all aspects of this, I would think this would be important to look at.

This article came to a similar conclusion: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fu...dium=email

We identified 434 New York City residents who were tested for SARS-CoV-2. Of the 396 patients (91%) linked to buildings and neighborhoods in the city, 71 (17.9%) were infected with SARS-CoV-2. Cohort characteristics are tabulated in the Table. The likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 varied substantially across measures of built environment and neighborhood socioeconomic status (Figure). The lowest probability of infection was estimated for women living in buildings with very high assessed values (8.2% [95% CI, 1.2%-15.2%]) and the highest was for those residing in neighborhoods with high household membership (23.9% [95% CI, 18.4%-29.4%]). Odds of infection were lower among women living in buildings with more residential units (interdecile OR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.16-0.72]) and higher assessed values (interdecile OR, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.10-0.89]) and in neighborhoods with higher median incomes (interdecile OR, 0.32 [95% CI, 0.12-0.83]). Odds of infection were higher among women residing in neighborhoods with high unemployment rates (interdecile OR, 2.13 [95 CI, 1.18-3.83]), large household membership (interdecile OR, 3.16 [95% CI, 1.58-6.37]), and greater household crowding (interdecile OR, 2.27 [95% CI, 1.12-4.61]). There was no statistically significant association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and population density (interdecile OR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.32-1.51]) or poverty rate (interdecile OR, 2.03 [95% CI, 0.97-4.25]). Neighborhood-level variables were moderately to highly correlated (|r|, 0.66-0.83).

In this study, SARS-CoV-2 transmission among pregnant women in New York City was associated with neighborhood- and building-level markers of large household membership, household crowding, and low socioeconomic status.

And I am not misconstruing your point, which is that poverty and a lot of the factors that go along with it, is a risk factor for getting COVID-19.  I know you aren't blaming people for being poor.

BC

[BostonCard]

There are no easy answers to any of this.  I just don’t think it’s as black and white as some say. 
 Part of me wonders if another potential strategy is to heavily focus resources into those areas that are the hotspots. And correct me if I’m wrong on this – but most of those hotspots are in densely populated areas with populations that are economically disadvantaged.  But you can’t devise a strategy that imposes special shelter in place orders on specific areas within densely populated areas where the pandemic hits the hardest.  There are simply too many social factors that go into that that make it impossible. 

And if you question what I’m saying take a look at the Eastbay. Compare the 880 corridor to the 680 corridor in terms of the Covid impact on those areas. For those of that are not local, the 680 Corridor is the higher income bracket. They have not been hit anywhere near as badly as those that live in the 880  Corridor. Then check number to look at those towns in the 24 area – Orinda Lafayette Moraga etc. and compare  to those towns around Highway four - Pittsburgh Antioch San Pablo.   Same difference economically. Same difference relating to Covid.

Please do not misconstrue what I’m saying. I’m not positing “blame” on those people who live in poor economic areas. Far from it.   But it is logical quite frankly that the outbreaks would be heavier there. Population density is higher and I suspect there are a whole lot more people that have to leave their houses to work so they can make enough to put food on their table.  It’s much easier to shelter in place if you have the economic wherewithal to do so. And then there is the Health differences - and the difference in health care access. 

I admit I may be wrong on this and am misconstruing data that is not indicative of the spread of the disease across the country. But if we are truly to look at all aspects of this, I would think this would be important to look at.

This article came to a similar conclusion: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fu...dium=email

We identified 434 New York City residents who were tested for SARS-CoV-2. Of the 396 patients (91%) linked to buildings and neighborhoods in the city, 71 (17.9%) were infected with SARS-CoV-2. Cohort characteristics are tabulated in the Table. The likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 varied substantially across measures of built environment and neighborhood socioeconomic status (Figure). The lowest probability of infection was estimated for women living in buildings with very high assessed values (8.2% [95% CI, 1.2%-15.2%]) and the highest was for those residing in neighborhoods with high household membership (23.9% [95% CI, 18.4%-29.4%]). Odds of infection were lower among women living in buildings with more residential units (interdecile OR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.16-0.72]) and higher assessed values (interdecile OR, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.10-0.89]) and in neighborhoods with higher median incomes (interdecile OR, 0.32 [95% CI, 0.12-0.83]). Odds of infection were higher among women residing in neighborhoods with high unemployment rates (interdecile OR, 2.13 [95 CI, 1.18-3.83]), large household membership (interdecile OR, 3.16 [95% CI, 1.58-6.37]), and greater household crowding (interdecile OR, 2.27 [95% CI, 1.12-4.61]). There was no statistically significant association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and population density (interdecile OR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.32-1.51]) or poverty rate (interdecile OR, 2.03 [95% CI, 0.97-4.25]). Neighborhood-level variables were moderately to highly correlated (|r|, 0.66-0.83).

In this study, SARS-CoV-2 transmission among pregnant women in New York City was associated with neighborhood- and building-level markers of large household membership, household crowding, and low socioeconomic status.

And I am not misconstruing your point, which is that poverty and a lot of the factors that go along with it, is a risk factor for getting COVID-19.  I know you aren't blaming people for being poor.

BC