General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Is our fight against Corona Virus worse than the disease itself [View all]pat_k
(9,313 posts)Clearly seen with a look at the numbers per capita within NYC vs. outside NYC.
It seems to me that logic would dictate that this would hold for other metro areas with high density. With lack of testing in CA, we can only assume that incidence per capita in the Los Angeles and San Francisco metro areas will be akin to NYC (i.e. more difficult to contain) than in lower density areas.
Perhaps it's too draconian, but limiting travel to/from metropolitan areas could be a way to accomplish one type of "hotspot" isolation and containment -- even in absence of testing data as evidence of increased incidence. If I were "in charge" I would advocate starting with boundaries defined by the Metropolitan Statistical Areas defined by the OMB. There are 392 of them.
Perhaps that is not the way to go, but if we really want to contain as far as possible, at some point, I think we will need to limit travel within the US in some way.
All that said, to the original post: Katz seems to have some notion that the most vulnerable can somehow be protected while the "low risk" go about their business. I can't see how that would be possible. (See post 54)