I find this interesting. At Trump's presser yesterday (April 14, Rose Garden), the very last question was about whether Trump was worried that reopening would lead to a spike in infections and deaths. Trump responded that "some states are doing very well" to which the reporter interjected (imagine snottiest voice possible) "that's because they're following social distancing." To which Trump responded that social distancing may play a role, but so might population density.
Does it? I've always thought that population density might be as important, or even more important, than government stay-at-home mandates.
So
these guys in Minnesota have been watching how the IMHE has changed its modeling of projected death tolls, sometimes daily, in five upper midwest states: SD, ND, IA, MN, and WI. The first three have not imposed state-wide restrictions (and ooh boy have they been roasted for it, these evil Pub govs), whereas MN and WI have.
But the interesting thing is that between April 11 and April 13, the IMHE (which many govs are relying upon) adjusted its projected death totals up for MN and WI, and down for the Dakotas and Iowa, despite no changes in government mandates. The best that I'm aware, the IMHE does not publicly disclose its modeling assumptions, but does this indicate that the IMHE is now placing greater emphasis on population density, and less emphasis on government mandates?
