Here's more information.
By March 24 the large urban areas--most of the state's population--had stay-at-home orders. Schools had been closed. Very similar to places like NY--except that by the time of their lockdown they'd had hundreds of deaths. Texas, bigger population, had a handful.
We haven't had the massive outbreak some had said was about to strike. We were to be another NY by the end of March. 50 dead in one day by the end of April is perhaps just a bit shy of NY's record--but, I have to admit, it's nip and tuck there, so close.
The areas with the greatest death toll are precisely the areas first locked down. And by the time the governor issued a lock down, it was sort of a big national thing--because it seemed like we weren't locked down at all (unless you were paying attention)--but it affected a small portion of people. And those it affected it barely affected.
50% more population, 20% of the deaths yesterday.
You want to make it about who's in charge and it becomes a very uncomfortable discussion. Those who say how great Newsom did and Cuomo did just as well have a shortfall of facts they can compare. Even California, at 25% more people than TX but still with 2 1/2 the number of dead makes for a problem--if it's all about who's governor. It's one reason we get these predictions and apparent gloating--yes, NY got it good and hard, but just you wait, NY isn't exceptional in a bad way and it'll be seen that we're better than you. Shit happens.
"But Texas has to be covering up all the deaths." Yes, millions of people can die and Texans are too stupid to notice the corpses cluttering the parks and freeways--the level of brain activity is no less than usual, I guess. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm is weird, because the numbers are counter expectations. You look at NY, NJ, MA, MI, even MD--fairly blue states--and they're the ones with deaths of all causes being above average, sometimes exceeding the COVID deaths. TX is at 93% of the expected deaths.
I'd say it's not about who's governor, not mostly. Economics, interconnectedness, lifestyle and cultural choices or conditions all make a difference. It's also not over until it's over--CA and Japan were great examples, but then something happened somewhere. Things change. Want final figures, be patient--we'll get there when things are final. But many people have one lens they must view everything through, now. When your only lens is a monocle for nearsightedness, every eye problem is myopia. Far sightedness, astigmatism, diplopia, keratoconus, retinitis, cloudy cornea ... it's gotta all just be nearsightedness.
= new reply since forum marked as read