NYC's Numbers

Will We Go Where They Are?

I've been keeping an eye on New York City, partly because I'm from there and have family living there, and partly because I think its experience can provide a rough crosscheck for our government's predictions about the course of the pandemic.

New York City has about 3% of the U.S. population. (8.5 million in 2020 for New York City, 328.2 million in 2019 for the U.S. Actually 2.59%.) The government has projected between 100,000 and 240,000 deaths nationally. Let's look at the lower figure. If we have 100,000 deaths for 100% of the population, then arithmetic suggests that NYC, with 3% of the population, should have 3,000 deaths.

(On April 9, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, endorsed a new projection of 60,000 deaths from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. The IHME forecasts 60,364 deaths by June 1, with a range of 31,220 to 126,543.)

Sadly, the 3,000 number for New York City has been passed, and is rapidly receding in the rearview mirror. The good news is that the death rate in NYC may have plateaued. But there's clearly a long way to go.

A simple projection like this assumes that the impact of the coronavirus will be uniform across the country. This is highly unlikely. Some communities will be hit less, and others more, than the average.

There are those who will say that NYC is atypical and that you can't project the city's experience on the nation. Governor Cuomo has even suggested that NYC's numbers are high because of population density. (He really means crowding. Density is the number of people in an apartment building. Crowding is the number of people in a room.)

I actually think that New York City's experience will be lower than many other places in the country. Why? Several reasons.

First, the state government is actually interested in governing, and even seems to be pretty good at it. On the other hand, several states have been distinctly laggard in issuing stay-at-home orders.

Second, the medical system in NYC is very good - much better than it is in many other parts of the country.

Third, the food distribution system appears to be holding up. This seems to be true across the nation. Spot shortages have been reported -  either out of stock (empty shelves) or rationing (only two per customer, that sort of thing). And certainly there are shortages on non-food items such as cleaning supplies,  However, basic supply seems to be there for food. Paying for it, of course, is another thing, and a lot of people are having trouble with that; but crowded food banks are not an indication of an overall supply problem. Instead they are a symptom of people not having money.

Fourth, the people in New York City seem by and large to be making a good-faith effort to comply with the new restrictions on their movement. Meanwhile, in other places, people are still going to church and the beach.

I should mention that all of New York City is currently under great stress, and breakdowns in any area are likely to cause breakdowns in other areas. Still, we have apparently not yet had any of the catastrophic breakdowns that can occur in a situation like this.

So I'm inclined to look at NYC's number as a lower bound, and I will be watching it, not just because I'm fond of  the city, but also because I believe it can help the rest of us understand where we're headed.