More on stay at home orders...

The Criticism of Those States Who Issued No (or “Late”) Stay-at-Home Orders Doesn’t Really Hold Water

All of which is to say: There doesn’t really appear to be much correlation between the implementation of a statewide stay-at-home order and infection or death numbers or rates. Rather, the clearer correlation appears to exist between population density and infection/death numbers and rates — among the states and within each state. (So…wait…you mean this virus is no respecter of state boundaries or laws, but rather, hops from person-to-person more easily in more densely populated areas? Knock me over with a feather!)

So if you read the article, the analysis is basically taking a bunch of Midwestern states that all border one another, comparing the Governors responses and the actual numbers associated with the Covid-19 virus. Based on the numbers,  it would appear that statistically the THEORY that early closure was the key to mitigating the the outbreak may actually be little more than a theory.

This relates back to the argument being made that the difference between the success California and Washington has had versus the problem that New York, New Jersey and Michigan have had....  was that West Coast states were getting ahead of the curve of the virus by shutting down earlier. But in fact, both California and certainly Washington had the virus in their states earlier than most everyone else and technically waited much longer to shut down (in comparison to when other states saw their first cases).

The difference in real time shut down was less than a week between Washington (the first), California (a few days later) New York (almost immediately after California). There is little statistical reason to believe that a matter of a few days would have made the difference between a few hundred deaths and several thousand, especially considering that the virus had been present in Washington and California longer than it had been in any of those other states. Statistically how long a state waited wouldn't be just a flat date, but rather how long they waited from the first reported case, first hospitalization, first death.

By those accounts, New York, New Jersey, Michigan (who saw their first cases in March) all shut down much "earlier" than California or Washington (who saw their first cases in January). To put it bluntly, it took the West Coast States over two months from their first cases to shut down.

• Washington waited nearly two months from their first known case, and then shut down at 904 confirmed cases and 48 confirmed deaths. (10,500 500 today)
• California waited nearly two months from their first known case, and then shut down at 971 confirmed cases and 19 confirmed deaths. (23,000 681 today)
• New York waited 22 days from their first known case, and then shut down at 15,000 confirmed cases and 56 confirmed deaths (189,500 9385 today)
• Michigan waited 7 days from their first known case, and then shut down at 54 confirmed cases and 0 deaths (24,600 1487 today)
• New Jersey shut down in waves, with the final closure approximately 20 days from their first known case. They shut down at 2800 and 27 deaths (62000 2350 today).

Based on these objective numbers, Michigan was the most proactive, closing their state one week after their first confirmed case and before they had a single death. Yet, they have more deaths than Washington and California put together, who waited two months from their first cases to close down.

New York has the worst outbreak, but it's hard to argue that waiting just over three weeks from their first known case can be attacked as non-responsive. Not when Washington and California waited two months. 

The truth is that there is no empirical evidence that closing an area earlier has slowed the pace of the virus in comparison to states that waited longer (or in some cases have still not closed down). There is, however, a lot of empirical evidence (and it really should be common sense) that the spread of this virus is happening in areas where the preexisting conditions of the area puts them at risk. The high density populations of New York, New Jersey and cities like Detroit and Chicago put them at a bigger risk than places low population areas like Wyoming, Montana, and the Dakotas. The way these large states and cities have been managed and governed is what made them more susceptible to this sort of virus spread. 

At the end of the day, the difference of  the severity of these outbreaks probably has nothing to do with what different areas of the country "did" but rather what they "are". 
I know this isn't what liberals (and those who believe that we are in control of mother nature) want to hear. But it's likely going to test out to be the factual reality when all is said and done.