A Surprising Correlation Between Covid Spread and Governmental Control

[XLFD]

Combining federalism and the scientific method creates a surprising result.  When the Donald Trump administration decided to allow each state to effectively enact their own policies to best combat the spread of the novel coronavirus (aka Covid-19), they effectively created 50 different test subjects and exploited the federalism (division of power between federal and state governments) that America is known for. 

From the input received from each of these states, scientists can analyze and compare the data in order to revise and devise hypotheses that can best combat a virus that supposedly acts in mysterious ways when compared to historical epidemics, enigmas which have led to some very restrictive controls enforced by state and local governments.

When one looks at the current New York Times Covid heat map and data table, one finds that there are seven states that have a Covid-19 case rate of 20 or more per 100,000 people, Michigan continues to top that in a big way at a rate of 33 per 100K (see above). 

Wallethub has been comparing all 50 states (and Washington DC) using 13 weighted metrics to figure out which are the most, and least, strict in their Covid-19 policies.  They then rank them 1 to 51 from least strict (Iowa) with few policies, to strictest (Vermont) who have the most controlling policies.  When we stack these states ranked by strictness in the same order as the leader states with Covid-19 cases being spread we notice something:

Except for West Virginia, all of the states are among the 40% of states that are most restrictive in their governmental controls over people lives during this phase of the pandemic.  Every single one of these states were ranked 26 or worse back in the prior month, the average strictness rank is 37 (when a random sampling should converge to 26).  It appears the more strict one state is, the better likelihood they are part of these super-spreading states.

It makes a compelling case for a hypothesis that :  "Having more and stricter government controls helps spread the coronavirus."

Let's look at a converse hypothesis.  When we look at the seven states that have 7 or less cases per 100K, the lowest Covid-19 spread, we see these states represented:

Now let's look at what Wallethub's ranking system shows for these states:

Five of these states are among the least restrictive half of states (in both March and April), with an average strictness ranking of 22 (when 26 is expected of a random sampling, recall the high-spread states average 37).  The 'laxness' score of these seven states is 66 (ten points above the median), while the average laxness score of the seven high-spread states is 14 points below the median.  

The converse hypothesis, that relaxed government controls slow the spread of Covid-19, appears to have some validity, and further qualifies the other hypothesis:

"Having more and stricter government controls helps spread the coronavirus."

[Willy]

If the virus acts in mysterious ways it's only because so many Government agencies have exploited it in order to hold on to power. The virus acts the way they want it to and they manipulate the data to show that. Just like all of these stupid commercials blaming Covid for all the problems when the problems have been inflicted by the Government entities. Only a mathematician can make sense of the deluge of data collected. My problem is with the data itself. How reliable is it? A State that wants to clamp down on it's citizens will have data that reflects a high sense of alarm in order to seek control over it's subjects. While states who do not exhibit Chicken Little syndrome take a more rational approach and most likely will have a more accurate measurement of the statistics and information. I like how you can make sense of all these numbers and information, X.

[XLFD]

Very good points, Wiily, and may I add that the coronavirus will remain mysterious well into the future because it continues to adapt and mutate with the evolving political needs of the left.  

This post has been out for a weekend day without real argument against it here or on our Facebook contact, The Ludington Pitchfork.  It almost seems 100 days into the Biden Administration, those espousing the mythos of Covid-19 feel like they can just ignore the obvious problems many have with shutdowns, vaccinations, vax-passports, masks, etc. because their odd concepts have a certain orthodoxy in their Faucian beliefs.  

I expected somebody to claim that restrictive behavior is enacted by states to curb spread when it is large and laxness when the spread is small-- thus you have a natural correlation between them.  The fallacy with that otherwise reasonable argument is that the data I have chosen covers three different months, where we can have the statistics for strictness in early March and April, and the Covid heat (outbreaks) in early May.  This is not one snapshot, we have three snapshots, so for example:

Michigan had strict rules (ranking 31) in March but had been in the process of relaxing some rules, by April they ranked #39 in strictness indicating they either made stronger rules or other states reduced their strictness, or both.  Despite those strict rules, one month later in early May, they easily lead the nation in Covid spread, having a rate nearly seven times the rate of California, who are even stricter, and Oklahoma who have little restrictions in comparison. 

Having strict rules for two months does not suggest that Michigan cured its ills by keeping things strict, and that seems to be the rule rather than the exception because each of the other high-spread states have had two months prior of very strict rules leading up to their current high numbers in spread.  This shows a trend but is definitely not absolute, as California and Hawaii are strict and have their spread under control currently.  Hawaii's could be explained away by its isolated nature, where they can screen those arriving by boat and plane, California is a bit harder to explain.