Coronavirus in Massachusetts (Springfield, Brockton, Plymouth: gardens, journalist, home)

[AtkinsonDan]

Originally Posted by id77

Rural is low density and high volume of undeveloped land. Check. Limited services. Check.

I think the hangup here is proximity. People love to lump in towns beyond 128 (and sometimes even 495) as part of the metro, and a few go so far as to include parts of NH. Gets a little ridiculous. I used to myself when I lived way out in Boxboro. Then I realized that I was wrong.

There’s suburbs beyond 128, but they also have suburban density and services. Weymouth? Suburb. Burlington? Suburb. Peabody? Suburb. Places like Sudbury and Dover? Not suburb.

As much as some love to think their curated ‘woodsy’ town means it’s an exclusive suburb of Boston, it still fits the definition of rural. Unless you need your BMW serviced, there’s not a lot of services within Sudbury. Heck, even searching for Sudbury on Google Maps yields a ton of pastoral photographs.

I would accept exurban as a name, as you suggest.

Rural implies the presence of either agricultural or natural resource industries or an extreme lack of density, such as towns with less than 500 residents. Most of Massachusetts is urban, suburban or exurban. In my opinion there are no rural places in eastern mass.

[wolfgang239]

Originally Posted by id77

Heck, even searching for Sudbury on Google Maps yields a ton of pastoral photographs.

Great idea, let's take a drive!

Strip mall

Strip mall

Strip mall

A dozen or so restaurants, 3 grocery stores, plenty of businesses etc. No check. They've just zoned it in one area.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by Bridge781

Right. So maybe the people having parties right now are the same ones who drive drunk.

Sort of. With the caveat that some of the things people call "drunk driving" aren't low risk, just like some of the things people get upset about seem to be low risk, as well.

For example, driving after one drink isn't as safe as never, ever drinking, but it's safe enough to be legal. We don't know the COVID equivalent party. A small gathering, outdoors and socially-distanced with everyone wearing masks? A small outdoor gathering without masks? A large outdoor gathering with masks? A large outdoor gathering without masks? A small indoor gathering?

Originally Posted by id77

Rural is low density and high volume of undeveloped land. Check. Limited services. Check.

I think the hangup here is proximity. People love to lump in towns beyond 128 (and sometimes even 495) as part of the metro, and a few go so far as to include parts of NH. Gets a little ridiculous. I used to myself when I lived way out in Boxboro. Then I realized that I was wrong.

There’s suburbs beyond 128, but they also have suburban density and services. Weymouth? Suburb. Burlington? Suburb. Peabody? Suburb. Places like Sudbury and Dover? Not suburb.

As much as some love to think their curated ‘woodsy’ town means it’s an exclusive suburb of Boston, it still fits the definition of rural. Unless you need your BMW serviced, there’s not a lot of services within Sudbury. Heck, even searching for Sudbury on Google Maps yields a ton of pastoral photographs.

I would accept exurban as a name, as you suggest.

Massachusetts actually lists what it considers "rural communities": https://www.mass.gov/service-details...ral-definition. It is a much looser definition than the census, meaning Massachusetts considers towns rural that the US Government doesn't. Sudbury doesn't even meet that much looser definition of rural.

So Massachusetts doesn't think of Sudbury as rural, the US Government doesn't think of Sudbury as rural, so you shouldn't find it odd that most of us don't think it's rural, either. It has a population density of 700/sq. mile. If you look at the census definition, it's clear that proximity is an important factor, too. Places like Dover with a low enough density to count as rural by the looser MA definition are still urban by the census definition, in part because they are contained within a larger urban area.

I wouldn't even call Sudbury exurban. An exurb is one the fringe of the urban development. Sudbury is not on the fringe. It has a low density, but it is not low density by being just out of reach of the urban area, it is low density by regulation (i.e. 1 acre zoning).

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by id77

Rural is low density and high volume of undeveloped land. Check. Limited services. Check.

I think the hangup here is proximity. People love to lump in towns beyond 128 (and sometimes even 495) as part of the metro, and a few go so far as to include parts of NH. Gets a little ridiculous. I used to myself when I lived way out in Boxboro. Then I realized that I was wrong.

There’s suburbs beyond 128, but they also have suburban density and services. Weymouth? Suburb. Burlington? Suburb. Peabody? Suburb. Places like Sudbury and Dover? Not suburb.

As much as some love to think their curated ‘woodsy’ town means it’s an exclusive suburb of Boston, it still fits the definition of rural. Unless you need your BMW serviced, there’s not a lot of services within Sudbury. Heck, even searching for Sudbury on Google Maps yields a ton of pastoral photographs.

I would accept exurban as a name, as you suggest.

You must actually prescribe to the belief that Boston is the center of the universe.

The problem with your definition is that it ignores the density of eastern MA and the semi-urban areas west of Boston. Many towns west of 495 have heavy zoning regulations and conservation efforts which maintain the facade of a rural existence, but despite this they maintain relatively robust population and function as a suburb or exurb to nearby urban or semi-urban areas (e.g., Worcester, Leominster/Fitchburg, Framingham, Marlborough/Hudson, etc.). Boston proximity is, to a degree, irrelevant to the definition of whether metrowest towns are or aren't 'rural'.

My own town, Sterling, is classified as a 'level I' rural community per the state of MA; however, it is functionally a suburb of Leominster/Fitchburg and exurb of Worcester (Holden and West Boylston being the suburb between). It also maintains a number of employers either within or in neighboring communities. The population satisfies the federal definition of 'rural' only because of 2 acre min zoning and extensive land claims by town trusts and DCR controlled Wachusett watershed.

My town may feel rural, but it shares very little commonality with truly rural areas like non-coastal ME, upstate NY, northern NH, or super low density areas of western U.S. Nearly all of MA is effectively an exurb, save for eastern Franklin/north western Worcester counties and southern Berkshire county ... all of which are well outside the Boston/95/495 orbit.

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

Sort of. With the caveat that some of the things people call "drunk driving" aren't low risk, just like some of the things people get upset about seem to be low risk, as well.

For example, driving after one drink isn't as safe as never, ever drinking, but it's safe enough to be legal. We don't know the COVID equivalent party. A small gathering, outdoors and socially-distanced with everyone wearing masks? A small outdoor gathering without masks? A large outdoor gathering with masks? A large outdoor gathering without masks? A small indoor gathering?

COVID isn't just about deaths. Approximately 75% of COVID survivors are dealing with health issues months afterwards. The health issues may be permanent.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by redplum33

COVID isn't just about deaths. Approximately 75% of COVID survivors are dealing with health issues months afterwards. The health issues may be permanent.

Drunk driving isn't just about deaths either. Nothing is just about deaths. It's very frustrating that the debate seems to be framed between people who believe there is no risk and people who believe there is no acceptable risk.

There are acceptable risks, even acceptable risks associated with COVID-19. I'm all for for being cautious, but I'm disappointed that the "trust the science" crowd argues with data when it's convenient and anecdotes when it's not convenient. I'm not even strongly arguing against any specific restriction, just the general knee-jerk reaction many have to the very idea of acceptable risk. I would claim that the risk of walking outside >10m from the nearest person outside my family without a mask is a very low risk activity. I have, however, been called out on this forum for doing just that.

[Matt32]

Originally Posted by redplum33

COVID isn't just about deaths. Approximately 75% of COVID survivors are dealing with health issues months afterwards. The health issues may be permanent.

That would mean something like 25 to 50 million people in the U.S. alone. Gonna need to see a pretty impressive source for this one.

(Estimated total infections citation = Youyang Gu's model which puts the U.S. range at 37 to 68 million. Total infections exceed detected positives by anywhere from 6x to 24x per CDC.)

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by redplum33

COVID isn't just about deaths. Approximately 75% of COVID survivors are dealing with health issues months afterwards. The health issues may be permanent.

Originally Posted by Matt32

That would mean something like 25 to 50 million people in the U.S. alone. Gonna need to see a pretty impressive source for this one.

(Estimated total infections citation = Youyang Gu's model which puts the U.S. range at 37 to 68 million. Total infections exceed detected positives by anywhere from 6x to 24x per CDC.)

No, it wouldn't mean that. There are approximately 6 million cases in the US and approximately 200k deaths. That puts survivors at about 5.8 million. Approximately 75% of those survivors are experiencing COVID-related health problems according to a report on the NBC Nightly News.

Any estimate above the ~6 million confirmed cases is speculation, and that's why there is such a huge range (6X to 24X).

And, to be clear, I'm not suggesting in any way that there aren't plenty of unconfirmed/unknown cases. But you simply can't include them in this type of study.

[Bridge781]

I keep hearing people say things like, many people who’ve had Covid are still not doing well even though they’ve recovered. That is certainly bothersome but what good does it do to drive this point home ? Anyone who says this is clearly insinuating that we should continue life as we are now with many things closed and not happening. Vaccines and treatments would be nice but when will those be available? I don’t believe that a vaccine will be available in November.

Also on another note it seems like private schools are open and completely in person. How do people feel about this? I know a lot of people who pulled their kids out of public and put them in private for this reason. Doesn’t it kind of defeat the purpose of what public schools and many other places are trying to accomplish by closing? Stop/slow the spread?

[Matt32]

Originally Posted by redplum33

No, it wouldn't mean that. There are approximately 6 million cases in the US and approximately 200k deaths. That puts survivors at about 5.8 million. Approximately 75% of those survivors are experiencing COVID-related health problems according to a report on the NBC Nightly News.

Any estimate above the ~6 million confirmed cases is speculation, and that's why there is such a huge range (6X to 24X).

And, to be clear, I'm not suggesting in any way that there aren't plenty of unconfirmed/unknown cases. But you simply can't include them in this type of study.

Right, when you don't know the exact multiplier, you use a range. That's the proper thing to do. We know that there are many more infections than the 6 million detected via PCR+. No room for ambiguity.

It's ironic that you're dismissing the (absolutely vital) contextualization of a multiplier as "speculative" when your own post claims that it's not "detected cases" but "COVID survivors" for whom the 75% applies. Think about the message that sends.

I tried googling NBC + keywords indicative of what you're claiming and couldn't find anything. If you have one, a link would be handy. The devil is almost always in the details of this headline - dig deeper and you'll find that the denominator is actually total hospitalizations / severe cases (a much smaller basis than total infections) or the paper it was based off was still a pre-print and it got retracted or revised, or has way too small of a sample size to be useful.