"Florida is 13th by least age-adjusted deaths per population, with 37 states and the District of Colombia behind it.
South Dakota is worse off, at 43 out of 51, a smidgeon better off than neighboring North Dakota. (see chart at end of article)
How come?
Remember the projections by Imperial College and IHME projections at the start of it at all that promised drastically different outcomes with and without lockdowns.
Instead we have free South Dakota and Covidian North Dakota neck-a-neck and Florida better off than 76% of the states.
Even if you are a utilitarian — and you shouldn’t be — the kind of psychological, political and economic warfare that was unleashed against society by the virus cult
could only be defended if there was a truly enormous difference in virus outcomes between the locked down and the free.
Instead there is no difference to be found whatsoever.
Not large, not moderate, not small, not tiny.
None whatsoever.
While virus outcomes vary wildly across geographic regions and time there is no correlation to lockdowns whatsoever.
Truly, why didn’t South Dakota’s hospitals collapse?
Why weren’t there bodies in the streets and in the hospital corridors?
Why did its population actually grow?
How is anyone even alive there?
Why does South Dakota still have seniors and nursing homes?
Covidians will throw out something about the low population density, however, in March 2020 they were not saying that places with a low population density would be spared apocalypse, or that these places needed not lock down as harshly.
Besides, why didn’t this low density save Nevada and North Dakota which followed the Covidian cult but sustained a similar virus outcome?
You think their lightly populated nature when coupled with Draconian shutdowns should have produced a better outcome than South Dakota’s if these shutdowns actually affected virus outcomes.
Besides the “low” density was always something of a red herring.
South Dakota may have only 11 people per square mile but it is not as if these people are spread out in equal distance from one another.
They still overwhelmingly live together in cities and towns.
Yes these are smaller and further apart than cities in the east but then South Dakotans drive more and further than New Yorkers, many of whom go years without stepping foot in a neighboring borough.
Entire North America had fewer than 20 million people in 1500.
How is that for “low density”?
That didn’t stop the vast overwhelming majority dying when the continent was visited by actual killer germs.
In the big picture, the concentrations and networks of people in South Dakota still offer up a potential contagion highway infinitely faster than human viruses would have had available for nearly all of human history marked by isolated tribes of 200 people.
And also still incredibly faster than was available in Medival Europe or in post-Colombian North America when dangerous pathogens had absolutely no problem spreading like wildfire and causing real apocalypse if they had the prerequisite lethality.
(It is rarely understood that diseases traveled across North America far quicker than the Europeans who carried them and far ahead of them.
When Europeans moved west they would encounter Indian societies who had been decimated and ruined by disease many decades, or sometimes even a century or more, before they ever saw a white colonist.)
Perhaps the infection highway available in New York is even faster, but clearly at some point it no longer matters.
Whether the virus has Ridiculous Speed or Ludicrous Speed available to it no longer makes much difference to the equation.
Neither is a bottleneck and both are overkill.
To the contrary, we see that even with forced mass house arrest the highway speed factor in the equation is still so fast that it makes exactly zero difference even to short-term outcomes.
Clearly, human interaction whether in New York or South/North Dakota isn’t the bottleneck having the decisive influence on virus spread, and that is even true no matter how much we reduce it.
It’s the equivalent of trying to fight a giant forest fire by sucking out the oxygen around it.
Theoretically, fire without oxygen must stop, but which wouldn’t make the attempt to remove all oxygen from the entire Earth’s atmosphere to stop it any less idiotic, futile, or suicidal.
You don’t attack an outdoor fire on its strong point (oxygen) but its “bottlenecks”; heat and fuel.
Yet in the case of the virus, the cult insists on a line of attack against the one thing the virus clearly has in overabundance no matter what we do (short of turning ourselves into Matrix pod people in hermetically sealed cocoons).
Virus is gonna virus.
Lower population density isn’t making the least bit of a dent.
Neither is artificially increasing distances between people with police-enforced mass home confinements.
We’re talking about viruses that managed to survive, spread and thrive, when there was just a few million of us spread out in roving bands, before the first-ever road was ever paved.
What has instead in newer times kept us relatively safe are the immune systems benefiting from millions of years of training
and our better baseline health courtesy of our material prosperity and advancement
— exactly the things the cultists are now attacking.
Largest city in South Dakota has 180,000 inhabitants.
That is a size London didn’t reach until 1580.
Has anyone heard of disease having a difficult time spreading through pre-1580 London?"
