The Increase in Covid-19 Cases is Real: Hospitalization Has Gone Up in Trump States

Cases of Covid-19 infection are going up in the US.  Indeed, the daily number of new confirmed cases have been hitting record levels, with almost all of the recent increase recorded in states that Trump won in 2016.  But Trump has continued to insist the record highs are only because his administration has done such a great job in making tests finally available.  Health professionals who actually have expertise in such issues dispute this.  And many more people are seeking tests, even waiting in lines in their cars that are miles (and many hours) long.  You don’t do this if it does not look serious.

But while it is true that there would be fewer cases confirmed if we did not know about them due to fewer tests, one statistic this would not affect would be the number of those being sent to a hospital having contracted a severe case of the infection.  Numbers on those hospitalized due to the virus are available for most US states (with Florida an important exception – this will be discussed below).  One then gets the chart above when the hospitalization numbers for those states won by Trump in 2016 are compared to those won by Clinton (as a proxy for the more conservative, mostly Republican, states compared to the more liberal, mostly Democratic, ones).

The chart shows that there has been a marked increase in hospitalizations in the Trump states since about June 15.  Excluding Florida, hospitalizations in the Trump states have grown to almost 20,000 as of June 29 from only about 12,000 in early June, an increase of two-thirds.  In contrast, hospitalizations in the states won by Clinton rose fast early, but then fell.  Little was known early on about the virus and how fast it was spreading in the US, particularly in dense urban locations, in part because of the early blunders of the Trump administration that severely limited testing in February and into most of March.  But from a peak in hospitalizations in mid-April in the states won by Clinton, the numbers have come down steadily, although with some leveling off since mid-June.  They are now well below the number hospitalized in the Trump states.

The data comes from figures assembled by the CovidTracking project, a private initiative launched by The Atlantic Monthly.  The project has assembled, on a daily basis, figures officially reported by US states and territories on Covid-19 tests being conducted (and the positive or negative results), the number of deaths, the numbers hospitalized, those in an ICU and those on ventilators, and more.  The data available, and its quality, are only as good, however, as what the states and territories report.  While the figures on confirmed positive tests and on deaths appear to be of fairly good quality and completeness, what the states report on the other variables is uneven and often incomplete.  One then has to be careful in interpreting the numbers, as figures not reported by certain states (or on certain dates) are left blank and then treated as a zero when the national numbers are aggregated.  The figures on numbers in ICU beds or on ventilators are notably incomplete.  And one should be especially careful with the earlier numbers, as they are often quite partial.  The later numbers are more complete and generally more reliable.

The figures on those hospitalized due to Covid-19 are complete (as I write this) except for four states:  Kansas, Idaho, Hawaii, and notably Florida.  The number of cases in Kansas, Idaho, and especially Hawaii are all relatively small, in part as all three are relatively small states.  Based on a 7-day moving average to smooth out day to day fluctuations, the daily number of new confirmed cases in the three states totaled only 482 as of June 29 (with only 12 in the case of Hawaii, which has done a superb job of containing the virus that causes Covid-19).  In contrast, Florida alone averaged 6,589 cases daily in the 7-day period ending on June 29, or almost 14 times the other three states combined.  Florida matters – the other three states not so much.

But data reporting on the spread of Covid-19 by Florida has been especially poor, and politicized.  Rebekah Jones, the state employee who developed the Florida “dashboard” that presented the Covid-19 results by county was fired in May when she refused to manipulate the data in a way to make it appear that much of the state was meeting the criteria for reopening when in fact they were not.  She has since developed and made available over the internet a dashboard similar to the one she had developed for the State of Florida, but with data that has not been so manipulated.

The underlying problem was that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (a close ally of Trump) had been declaring victory over the virus that causes Covid-19 already in early May, as he proceeded to reopen the state early and aggressively.  He held news conferences, including at the White House, claiming he had succeeded where others had failed, and that Florida should serve as a model for the country.  Trump lavished praise on the governor, saying he was doing a “spectacular job”.

It is therefore more than a bit embarrassing for DeSantis that cases in Florida have been rising so fast since his May 1 reopening.  For the US as a whole, the average number of daily new cases for the 7-day period ending June 29 was 37% higher than what it was for the period ending on May 1.  But in Florida, the number of daily new cases for the 7-day period ending June 29 was 11.0 times higher than what it was for the 7-day period ending May 1.

With the high number of cases in Florida, it is worthwhile to try to estimate, even if only roughly, what the hospitalization figures would look like if Florida reported its results.  They do have such data – they have reported on the number of new hospitalizations each day.  But this is incompatible with what most other states report.  And knowing the number of those infected with the virus who are currently hospitalized is closely monitored everywhere as it is important to know how close one is to current hospital limits on the ability to handle more cases.  But Florida has not made these figures available.

One can, however, make a rough estimate of what the impact would be if figures for Florida were available.  Other states with a similarly sharp rise in new cases since mid-June include Texas, Arizona, and Georgia.  Hospitalization figures are available for each.  In those states, the ratio of the number currently hospitalized (where one should keep in mind that those hospitalized for Covid-19 are always there for at least several days, and sometimes several weeks), to the 7-day average daily number of new cases, averages across the three states and on two dates to 1.015 (with not much variation around this average).  Using that ratio, one can estimate what the hospitalization figures in Florida might be, given the number of new cases found in Florida.

The result is shown in the curve in orange in the chart above.  The number of patients hospitalized due to the coronavirus in the Trump states would, with this estimate for Florida, have risen to over 26,000 as of June 29.  This is a third higher than the 19,600 hospitalized in the Trump states as of that date excluding Florida.  Or in another comparison, the increase in hospitalizations in the Trump states between June 15 and June 29 was 51% excluding Florida.  But with these estimates for Florida included, the increase over that period was an even higher 78%.

Trump’s reaction to this sharp increase in cases, concentrated in states that supported him in 2016?  It appears that he simply does not know what to do.  So while it has become clear that the increase in cases is real, with the increase in hospitalizations now also confirming this, Trump appears to have retreated into a fantasy world where the virus that causes Covid-19 simply disappears.  In an interview on June 29 on the Trump-friendly Fox Business Network, Trump said:

“I think we’re going to be very good with the coronavirus. I think that at some point that’s going to sort of just disappear”

He then added, “I hope”.  During the worst health crisis the nation has been through since the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918/19, the US has a president who is lost, does not know what to do, and is reduced to hoping it will just go away.

The Spread of Covid-19: Trump States vs. Clinton States

It has been much noted in the news in recent days that confirmed cases of Covid-19 have been soaring in a number of states in the US, primarily in the south and southwest.  But it is of interest to examine how widespread this is, and how it correlates with the politics of the different states.  With the politicization by Trump of what should be a matter of public health, states (and their residents) are responding differently in their management of this public health crisis.

One way to look at this is to group the states according to who won there in 2016:  Trump or Clinton.  This divides the country roughly in half, between more liberal and more conservative areas.  The chart above shows what then results for daily new confirmed cases (on a 7-day moving average).

The division is stark.  The states won by Clinton (which included New York, New Jersey, the Northeast, Illinois, California, and Washington) were exposed early to Covid-19.  These states are generally more highly urbanized and there is more international travel by both residents and visitors.  This left them especially vulnerable as the virus that causes Covid-19 started to spread (first with little knowledge of how fast it was spreading, due to blunders in rolling out the necessary testing program in February and into much of March).  But after peaking in April, these states brought down the daily number of new cases by over 60%, although with a partial and still limited reversal in the past week.

The pattern in the Trump states is quite different.  Confirmed cases rose in the period leading up to April (in part as testing only became broadly available then), but then leveled off in these states through essentially all of April and May.  Furthermore, the numbers leveled off at roughly 10,000 cases a day, or less than half the 21,000 cases per day seen in the Clinton states at their peak.  The Trump states are often more rural, and there is less international travel (by both residents and visitors), so the lower numbers there were taken by some as indicating they were less vulnerable to this infectious disease.

But this then changed markedly at the end of May.  As the states that voted for Trump relaxed their lockdown and social distancing measures, often rapidly, the case numbers began to rise.  And over the last ten days they have accelerated markedly.  The number of confirmed new cases is now significantly higher in the Trump states than they ever were in the Clinton states.  And there is no sign yet of this leveling off.  Quite the contrary – it is accelerating rapidly.

The similar figure for the number of deaths per day from Covid-19:

The number of daily deaths (again using 7-day moving averages) peaked in the Clinton states in mid-April at about 1,670, and has since come down to about 300 (or by 82%).  In the Trump states the peak was only around 600, but it stayed there longer and then came down more slowly, to also around 300 now (so by half).

That the death rates have come down in each is encouraging, but it is still too early to know precisely why.  It may be a combination of factors, including that doctors and hospitals know better now how to treat the most severe cases (with some therapeutics, such as dexamethasone and remdesivir, showing promise, while the doctors also now know that the therapeutic promoted strongly by Trump, hydroxychloroquine, may in fact increase death rates – the FDA has warned against its use).  Also, hospitals have become less crowded at centers of the outbreak, at least until recently, which has allowed them to provide better care.  Finally (and I would guess likely the most important reason, although I have seen no data on this), lower death rates would result if the age distribution of those infected has shifted to those who are younger.  Death rates for the elderly are an order of magnitude higher than for the middle-aged (and two orders of magnitude higher than for the young), so even a relatively modest shift in the age distribution of those infected could lead to a marked change in mortality rates.

Finally, deaths from Covid-19 come only with an average lag that may be a month or more from the day of initial exposure (with this also differing by age).  The number of daily confirmed cases began to rise less than a month ago in the Trump states (around May 30), and more sharply about ten days ago.  We will see in the days and weeks ahead whether this will now lead to a rise in the death figures.  So far, it appears that the daily death numbers have leveled off (since June 17 in the Trump states, and June 21 in the Clinton states), while they had been declining before.

But the sharp increase in the number of new cases over the last month, in particular in the Trump states as social distancing measures were lifted, suggests a number of lessons.  One is that social distancing measures worked.  When they were in place they brought down the number of new cases and deaths from the disease, while lifting them (or increasingly, ignoring them even while formally still in place) has led to a sharp rebound in the number of cases.  Trump has now made this into a political issue, with his flagrant refusal to wear a mask or to keep a distance from others.  In other times this would be considered bizarre behavior in a public health crisis, but is seen here by his supporters as a signal of freedom and independence rather than as a behavior that will lead many of them, as well as others, to become sick (and some to die).

The problem starts at the top.  Rather than model responsible behavior, Trump has insisted he will never wear a mask in public – he believes it hurts his image.  Trump also orchestrated his daily press briefings on the crisis so that through most of March the other officials present were crowded around him, shoulder to shoulder, with no masks.  This only changed (and changed only partially) later.  And now Trump has restarted his political rallies in large indoor arenas, with people crowded tightly together but with few wearing masks, while loud cheering is strongly encouraged.

Most importantly, the Trump administration has failed to address the real and important challenges of this pandemic.  Rather, he has said recently (such as on an interview on June 17 on Fox News) that the coronavirus is “fading away, it’s going to fade away” even if no vaccine is ever developed.  Similarly, at a rally at a megachurch in Phoenix, Arizona, on June 23, to an estimated 3,000 (mostly young) cheering supporters (with few, if any, wearing protective masks), Trump asserted that “It’s going away” while claiming his administration had done a wonderful job.  And over the last week he has repeatedly said that he has asked for less testing to be done, since with less testing there will be fewer cases confirmed.  See, for example, this June 23 tweet, where he says “With smaller [sic] testing we would show fewer cases!”.  Certainly true, but why he would think this wise is worrisome.

Over 124,000 Americans are now dead from the virus (as of today).  This is well more than in any other country in the world (Brazil is second at 55,000).  The US has had 377 deaths per million of population.  In contrast, Japan has had 8 deaths per million, South Korea 6, Australia 4, New Zealand 4, Singapore 4, Hong Kong 0.9, and Taiwan 0.3.  As noted in an earlier post on this blog, the US could learn a lot by simply examining why those countries, all with far closer interactions with China through travel and trade than is the case for the US, have been able to contain the virus while the US has not.

While there are a number of elements to a successful program, one simple but key component is the wearing of masks.  This is common in East Asia, and no one there treats the wearing or not of a mask as a political statement (nor did anyone in the US, until this crisis).  It is simply something easy to do that will protect the health of you, the ones you love, and others.

Yet even now, a full half-year since the start of this crisis, it remains difficult to find in the US the N-95 masks that are the most protective against a viral infection.  Supplies are short, and the masks that are available are provided (as they should be under the circumstances) only to health professionals (although even here there are shortages).  The regular population cannot find such masks other than on a black market (with those available of uncertain pedigree and reliability).  Yet N-95 masks are not hard to make.  3M is the major manufacturer, it is based here in the US, and it would be straightforward to open up additional production lines.  Why hasn’t the Trump administration done something to ensure an adequate supply?

Consider, for example, what a more capable administration might have done.  After ensuring an adequate supply, a box of say a dozen masks per person could be mailed to every household in the US.  With 120 million households (an average of 2.6 people per household), and assuming a production and mailing cost of $20 per household, the total cost would be $2.4 billion.  This is less than one / one-thousandth of the $2.8 trillion that Congress has already approved to be spent to provide partial relief to the effects of the economic crisis brought on by the pandemic.  If everyone then wore such a mask every time they left their home, within a few weeks there would likely be a major knock-back of the infection chain to where focused efforts on the hotspots that might then still remain, or hotspots that later spring up, could be very effective.

This might well be unrealistic.  But even if feasible it would not go far in the current political environment.  Even if an adequate supply of such masks were made available, the politicization by Trump of this public health crisis means that many of his supporters would refuse to wear a mask.  They now see it as a statement of their political, and indeed cultural, beliefs to openly and flagrantly refuse.

As others have noted, it would be hard to find a time when the US was more poorly served by its president than now.

Covid-19: The US Lags Others in the Recovery Thus Far

In those countries where the spread of Covid-19 was not addressed early, all that policy-makers could then do to break its exponential growth was to lockdown the economy.  Schools were closed; non-essential businesses such as theaters, retail establishments, barbershops and hair salons, and similar were also all closed; workers were told to work from home whenever possible; and travel by other than private means was sharply curtailed.

This did succeed in reversing what had been an exponential rise in the spread of the disease, although at a tremendous cost to the economy.  While figures are not yet available on the extent of the downturn, it is clear that this will be the sharpest fall in the US economy since at least the Great Depression.  And the suddenness of the fall is unprecedented.

But as noted, the lockdowns did stabilize the number each day of new cases and of deaths, and started to bring those numbers down.  The disease was still spreading, but not at the pace of before.  There is now pressure from some quarters to lift or even fully end those lockdowns, and that process has indeed already started in much of the US as well as in other countries.  It is still too early, however, to say whether such easing will lead to a resurgence of the disease.  As was seen in January through March, several weeks will go by before one observes whether the number of daily cases will have been affected, and a further two or three weeks before one will see an impact on the daily number of deaths.

One can, however, at this point examine what the impact was of the lockdowns on the spread of the disease.  For the US, those lockdown measures were introduced starting in mid-March and lasted through end-April before they started to be partially lifted in certain jurisdictions.  And one can compare the US record to that of a number of Western European nations who also failed to stop the spread of the virus early, who then had to impose lockdown measures to break the exponential growth and start to bring it down.

The chart at the top of this post shows how the US record compares to that of a number of Western European countries in terms of the number of daily deaths from Covid-19.  It is not good.  The US is an outlier, with significantly less of a decline in the daily number of deaths than what all of these comparator countries have been able to achieve.

The chart tracks, by days from the peak day in the country, the daily deaths from the disease (using 7-day moving averages to even out the day to day fluctuations in the statistics), with the figures for each country indexed to 100 for the number of deaths on its peak day.  The data cover the period through May 17, and were calculated from the cross-country data assembled by Johns Hopkins.

Thus, for the US there were 29 days (as of May 17) since the peak day in the US of April 18, and by that point the number of daily deaths (using 7-day moving averages) was about 65% of what it was on the peak day.  In terms of absolute numbers, the US had 2,202 deaths (in terms of the 7-day average ending on that day) on April 18, and by May 17 (29 days later) the number of deaths had fallen to 1,434 (or 65% of 2,202).

European countries all did better.  By 29 days after their respective peaks, the number of deaths had fallen to 47% of what it had been in the UK, and to just 13% of what it had been in Austria (with Ireland tracking even lower, but only on its day 22).  The other European countries are all in between.  More could have been added.  I had originally included five other Western European countries in the chart, but it was then hopelessly cluttered.  So I removed those five as they were generally smaller countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, and Portugal), plus their curves all fell in between those of Ireland on the low side and the UK on the high side.

Would the record be different if one drew a similar chart for the number of confirmed cases rather than the number of deaths?  Not really:

Here the UK curve tracks more closely to the US curve until day 28 from the respective peaks, but then fell below.  While this is speculation, one wonders if those in the UK started to take the social distancing measures more seriously once their prime minister, Boris Johnson, ended up in the intensive care unit of a hospital due to the disease (where one should keep in mind that the number of cases will then be affected only several weeks later).

Sweden may also be of interest.  In contrast to other countries, Sweden never issued legally binding lockdown orders, but rather just guidelines.  The result, however, was that the number of cases has not come down much from its peak (see the chart).  While still early, the number of daily new cases is close to 90% of what it was at its peak.  This is similar to what it was for the US at the same point in terms of the number of days from the respective peaks.  The UK path was also broadly similar at that point.

There is a difference, however, in terms of how far deaths had come down (the chart at the top of this post).  The path for Sweden has been below that of the US and in the range of other European countries.  From these observations alone one cannot say why Sweden has seen a greater reduction in its daily number of deaths (relative to their respective peaks) despite a similar number of cases as the US (relative to their peaks).  It might be because Sweden enjoys a much better health care system than the US (despite the US spending 60% more than Sweden as a share of GDP).  The age composition of those coming down with the disease might also be a factor, if younger people are, on average, a higher share of those being infected in Sweden than in the US.

But overall, the key question is why has the US performed more poorly than all the others in bringing down the number of deaths?  There are a number of possible reasons, and these reasons are not mutually exclusive – they could all be contributory.  They include:

a)  There was no national lockdown order given, but rather different states issued their orders at different times, mostly between mid-March and the beginning of April.  Indeed, a few, generally less populous, states never even issued formal lockdown orders, but simply guidelines.  This would spread out the impact, leading to less of a fall in the number of deaths relative to the national peak for any given day.

b)  Those lockdown orders varied greatly in terms of their degree of strictness.  Some were strong, and some notably lax.  Furthermore, enforcement was typically lax.  The lockdown orders were usually more serious (and much more seriously enforced) in Europe (but with Sweden as an exception).

c)  Cultural factors undoubtedly also entered.  Some Americans took social distancing measures seriously – others did not.  Indeed, some have been especially loud and insistent on not obeying such orders, in a childish display of contrariness.  They assert they have a constitutional right to do as they please (even if this may infect others with a deadly disease).

But perhaps the most important reason for the poor record of the US has been the failure of responsible presidential leadership.  There has been no coherent, and scientifically informed, national policy.  Trump spent two months denying that the virus was a concern, and the US failed to take the critical early actions which could have stemmed the spread (as the developed countries of East Asia and the Pacific were all able to do, and successfully so).  Then, when he was finally forced to admit the obvious (spurred more by a crashing stock market than by the disease itself), he has only reluctantly backed the measures needed to address the crisis.  And he has personally not modeled the behavior that the federal government’s own guidelines call for:

a)  He refused, and continues to refuse, to wear a mask in public.

b)  He continued to shake hands with those close by (leading to awkward, and amusing, moments when the other party had begun some other action of greeting).

c)  Rather than follow the social distancing guidelines at his highly publicized daily press briefings, for several weeks he had for the cameras a large number of officials and assistants all standing shoulder to shoulder around him.

d)  Most recently, Trump confirmed that he has started to take the controversial drug hydroxychloroquine, despite FDA warnings that to do so was dangerous.  Indeed, a recent study found that a higher share of Covid-19 patients who took the drug ended up dying than did those not given the drug.  Along with some of his other suggestions (such as to examine ingesting bleach or some other disinfectant to kill the virus – which health officials hastened to tell everyone not to do as it could kill them), Trump has conveyed to the public a disrespect for science and instead to do what he believes “in his gut”.

Coupled with Trump’s twitter outbursts (including the early encouragement of small, but well-organized, groups of gun-brandishing demonstrators in several states calling for an immediate lifting of the lockdown measures), it should not be a surprise that the US has been a laggard compared to what other nations have been able to accomplish.

Politicizing this public health crisis, as Trump has, will now also make it more difficult to emerge from it.  Guidelines that had been prepared by the CDC on how to safely reopen the economy, and which would have been issued on May 1, were instead suppressed by the White House.  Trump instead announced (following intensive lobbying by affected industries), that he did not want cautions to continue, but rather that everything should be quickly reopened back to “where it was” three months ago.

With such political pressures superseding the recommendation of health professionals, many will approach any opening even more cautiously than they otherwise would have.  With uncertainty as to whether restaurants, say, were re-opened because it was truly safe or because of political pressures, many will hold off on patronizing them for an extended time.  I certainly will.

The Rapid Growth in Deaths from Covid-19: The Role of Politics

Deaths from Covid-19 have been growing at an extremely rapid rate.  The chart above shows what those rates have been in the month of March, averaged over seven day periods to smooth out day-to-day fluctuations.  The figures are for the daily rate of growth over the seven day period ending on the date indicated.  The curves start in the first period when there were at least 10 cases, which was on March 3 for the US as a whole.  Hence the first growth rate shown is for the one week period of March 3 to 10.  As I will discuss below, the chart has not only the growth rates for the US as a whole but also for the set of states that Trump won in 2016 and for the set that Clinton won.  They show an obvious pattern.

The data come from the set assembled by The New York Times, based on a compilation of state and local reports.  The Times updates these figures daily, and has made them available through the GitHub site.  And it provides a summary report on these figures, with a map, at least daily.

I emphasize that the figures are of daily growth rates, even though they are calculated over one week periods.  And they are huge.  For the US as a whole, that rate was just over 28% a day for the seven day period ending March 30.  It is difficult to get one’s head around such a rapid rate of growth, but a few figures can be illustrative.  In the New York Times database, 3,066 Americans had died of Covid-19 as of March 30.  If the 28% rate of growth were maintained, then the entire population of the US (330 million) would be dead by May 16.  For many reasons, that will not happen.  The entire population would have been infected well before (if there was nothing to limit the spread) and it is fatal for perhaps 1% of those infected.  And the 99% infected who do not die develop an immunity, where once they recover they cannot spread the virus to others.  For this reason as well, 100% of those not previously exposed will not catch the virus.  Rather, it will be some lower share, as the spread becomes less and less likely as an increasing share of the population develops an immunity.  This is also the reason why mass vaccination programs are effective in stopping the spread of a virus (including to those not able to receive a vaccination, such as very young children or those with compromised immune systems).

So that 28% daily rate of growth has to come down, preferably by policy rather than by running out of people to infect.  And there has been a small reduction in the last two days (the seven day periods ending March 29 and March 30), with the rate falling modestly to 28% from a 30% rate that had ruled since the seven day period ending March 22.  But it has much farther to go to get to zero.

The recent modest dip might be an initial sign that the social distancing measures that began to be put in place around parts of the nation by March 16 are having a positive effect (and where many individuals, including myself, started social distancing some time before).  It is believed that it takes about 4 to 7 days after being infected before one shows any symptoms, and then, in those cases where the symptoms are severe and require hospitalization (about 20% of the total), another several days to two weeks before it becomes critical for those where it will prove fatal.  Hence one might be starting to see the impacts of the policies about now.

But the social distancing measures implemented varied widely across the US.  They were strict and early in some locales, and advisory only and relatively late in other locales.  Sadly, Trump injected a political element into this.  Trump belittled the seriousness of Covid-19 until well into March, even calling Covid-19 a “hoax” conjured up by the Democrats while insisting the virus soon would go away.  And even since mid-March Trump has been inconsistent, saying on some days that it needs to be taken seriously and on others that it was not a big deal.  Fox News and radio hosts of the extreme right such as Rush Limbaugh also belittled the seriousness of the virus.

It is therefore understandable that Trump supporters and those who follow such outlets for what they consider the news, have not shown as much of a willingness to implement the social distancing measures that are at this point the only way to reduce the spread of the virus.  And it shows in the death figures.  The red curve in the chart at the top of this post shows the daily growth rates of fatalities from this virus in those states that voted for Trump in the 2016 election.  While the spread of the virus in these states, many of which are relatively rural, started later than in the states that voted for Clinton, their fatalities from the virus have since grown at a substantially faster pace.

The pace of growth in the states that voted for Clinton has also been heavily influenced by the rapid spread of the virus in New York.  As of March 30, more than half (57%) of the fatalities in the Clinton states was due to the fatalities in New York alone.  And New York is a special case.  With its dense population in New York City, where a high proportion use a crowded subway system or buses to commute to work, with the work then often in tall office buildings requiring long rides in what are often crowded elevators, it should not be surprising that a virus that goes person to person could spread rapidly.

Excluding New York, the rate of increase in the other states that voted for Clinton (the curve in green in the chart above) is more modest.  The rates are also then even more substantially lower than those in the Trump-voting states.

But any of these growth rates are still incredibly high, and must be brought down to zero quickly.  That will require clear, sustained, and scientifically sound policy, from the top.  But Trump has not been providing this.

The Democratic Primaries Thus Far: Bernie Sanders’ Vote Numbers

A.  Introduction

One of the main arguments Bernie Sanders has made for why he should be the nominee of the Democratic Party to run against Trump is that he would spur a much higher turnout, especially of young voters who would not otherwise go to the polls (with those young voters favoring him).  But this has not turned out to be the case in the Democratic primaries held thus far.  While turnout has gone up substantially, Sanders has not been receiving an exceptionally high share of that increased turnout.  And even Sanders has now acknowledged that a higher number of younger voters that he argued would go to the polls to vote for him have not materialized.

So what has been going on?  To summarize what will be discussed in more detail below, in the primaries held thus far the share of the votes going to Sanders has gone down compared to what he received in the same primary states in the 2016 elections.  But the share going to Sanders and Elizabeth Warren combined has been similar (indeed almost identical overall) to what Sanders received in 2016, when it was essentially only him running against Hillary Clinton.  Similarly, the share going to Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, and Michael Bloomberg has been similar to the share that had gone to Clinton.  This very much looks like a case of Democratic Party primary voters with a separation between those who hold the more extreme liberal views of Sanders and Warren, and those with the more moderate views of Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg (although it is not really correct to view them as moderates – the positions they hold are all well to the left of the positions that were held by Obama when he served as president).  Primary turnout has gone up, but with similar shares as before of voters in those two channels in that increased turnout.

Pundit commentary, at least until recently, has not focused on this.  Rather, in the Democratic primaries and caucuses held in February before South Carolina (i.e. following the contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, and especially Nevada), all attention was on Sanders winning the vote count (modestly in Iowa and New Hampshire, more significantly in Nevada).  It was not on what the outcomes might be telling us on the broader issue of who will, in the end, amass the delegates needed ultimately to win the Democratic nomination.  Sanders was deemed the “front-runner”.

And then all were surprised when the vote in the South Carolina primary appeared to be so different.  However, if a comparison had been made to the results of the 2016 primary in that state one would have seen important similarities.

This has now become more clear with the results from the Super Tuesday primaries.  Turnout (in all but one of the states) has gone up, and sometimes quite substantially.  The Democratic base is clearly energized.  But the higher turnout was not of voters disproportionately supporting Sanders.  Indeed, the share voting for Sanders has gone down compared to the share that voted for him in 2016.  Rather, across the states with primaries held thus far, the share going now to Sanders and Warren together is very close to what Sanders had received before, and the share going to Biden, et. al., was similarly close to what Clinton had received before.  Thus the higher turnout was composed of similar shares of voters in the two groups.

There were of course differences in several of the individual states.  For the analysis here I looked at the ten states who held primaries and not caucuses (vote counts in caucuses are different, with far lower participation), did so in both 2016 and 2020, and held their primaries in each of those years on Super Tuesday (March 1 in 2016, March 3 in 2020) or before.  Thus this excluded states like Colorado and Minnesota (which held caucuses in 2016), or had primaries (or caucuses) after Super Tuesday in 2016.  The most important, and largest, state thus excluded is California, which held its primary on June 7 in 2016.  I will discuss separately the special case of California.

The overall results for those ten states are summarized in the chart at the top of this post.  But rather than discuss that one first, it is perhaps better to examine the cases in a few of the states individually, before looking at the overall totals across the ten states.  The vote numbers are all as reported in the New York Times, at this post for 2016, or at this post for 2020.  The 2020 results are all as shown as of about 2:00 pm on Wednesday, March 4.  At that point, almost all were either complete (with 100% of precincts reporting) or close to it (with 99% or more in two cases, one at 97.0%, one at 93.8%, and one at 93.4%).  There will be some differences, but small, as they get to 100% of precincts reporting, and as mail-in ballots are fully counted (rules vary by state).  However, these will likely not affect the shares to any significant degree, which are the focus of the analysis here.  And while it will not change the shares, I did scale up to 100% the figures for the cases where fewer than 100% of the precincts had reported, in order to estimate what the total votes (and hence change in turnout) will be and to add up the figures consistently across the states.

B.  Individual States

The South Carolina primary, which was critical for Biden, shows well what the pattern has been.  The key results are summarized in this chart:

Sanders received only 26% of the vote in this primary in 2016, losing badly to Clinton who received 73% of the vote.  And that share of Sanders went down to 20% this year, even though there was a 46% increase in turnout.  But Sanders plus Warren together received 27% of the vote, almost the same as what Sanders received in 2016.  Despite an increase in turnout of close to half, the share going to the extreme liberal candidates remained about the same – not more, not less.

One saw the same in Virginia:

Here turnout rose by close to 70%.  And the Sanders share fell again, from 35% in 2016 to 23% in 2020.  But Sanders and Warren together received 34%, very close to what Sanders had received before.  Despite the far higher turnout, the shares were close to unchanged (taking Sanders and Warren together).

As noted above, there were a total of ten states where one could make such a comparison.  I won’t go through them all, and there were individual exceptions.  One noteworthy case was that of New Hampshire, the state with the first primary (Iowa is a caucus):

Bernie Sanders did exceptionally well in that primary in 2016, receiving 60% of the vote, against Hillary Clinton’s 38% (with other candidates receiving the rest).  Sanders won again in 2020, but this time with only 25.7% of the vote (with Pete Buttigieg in second place at 24.4%).  But while the pundits focused on Sanders winning that primary again, I did not see mentioned that despite an increase in turnout (of a not insignificant 18%), the absolute number of votes Sanders received fell in half (falling from 151,584 in 2016, to just 76,234 in 2020).  And even if one adds in the votes that Warren received, the total still came only to 103,711, with a share of 35%.

There were two other states where Sanders and Warren together did significantly worse than Sanders alone in 2020.  One was in Sanders’ home state of Vermont, where Sanders received 86% of the vote in 2016 while Sanders and Warren together received just 63% in 2020 (despite a 17% increase in turnout).  The other was Oklahoma, where Sanders received 52% of the vote in 2016 while Sanders and Warren together received just 39% in 2020 (and is the one state where turnout fell – by 7%).

These states were offset by Texas, where Sanders received 33% of the vote in 2016 (and 30% in 2020), but where Sanders and Warren together received 41% (with turnout rising 47%).  In the other states, the shares of Sanders in 2016 and Sanders plus Warren together in 2020 were pretty much the same.  Especially similar was the case of Massachusetts (the home state of Warren):  Sanders received 48.7% of the vote in 2016, while Sanders plus Warren received 48.3% in 2020.

California is also a special case, but an important one.  In 2016, the California primary was held on June 7, close to the end of the primary season.  Close to 5.1 million voted in the Democratic primary in that year, and Sanders won 45.7% of the vote.  As I write this (in the evening of Friday, March 6, and based on what is shown on the New York Times website), California has posted results for only 89% of the precincts.  Why this is less than 100% three days after the primary is not clear to me.  California also accepts mail-in ballots that were mailed on election day or before, and the state allows up to a month for these to come in.

But based on what has been reported as of now, Sanders plus Warren together received 45.9% of the votes, almost exactly the same as the 45.7% Sanders received in 2016.  But there was a big change in turnout, likely tied to the different election date.  While 5.1 million voted in 2016, the total votes recorded as of today is just 3.3 million.  While this will go up as all the mail-in ballots are counted (and as full reports are provided on all of the precincts), it will certainly not go up to anywhere close to the 5.1 million of 2016.

C.  The Ten States as a Whole

The chart at the top of this post reflects the figures added up across all of the ten states.  And one finds that as with most of the states (where the few exceptions basically offset each other), the share of the vote Sanders and Warren together received in 2020 (38%) was very close to what Sanders alone received in 2016 (39%).  The share of Sanders alone went down, with this offset almost exactly by the share Warren received.  And this was despite a substantial increase in turnout – of 34% across the ten states as a group.

In terms of what has been called the “more moderate” wing, the share across the ten states of those voting for Clinton in 2016 was 59%.  The share going to Biden plus Klobuchar plus Buttigieg plus Bloomberg in 2020 was 58%.  Again almost the same.

With turnout up by a third, the Democratic primary electorate appears to be energized.  There are real concerns about Trump, and what he has done to our country.  But the higher turnout is not because Sanders is pulling in a large number of new voters who will vote for him and him only.  Rather, the split in the new voters between those voting for Sanders or Warren on one side, or for Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, or Bloomberg on the other side, is very close to the split between Sanders and Clinton voters in 2016.

With the withdrawal in the past week of all of the major remaining candidates other than Sanders and Biden, we will now see whether this pattern continues.  It is now basically a two-person race, and the results should be clear to all.