this is a jpg of an earlier image i posted, scrawled over slightly in a javascript clone of microsoft's paint.
new york is bigger and more densely populated than anywhere else on this continent, so the numbers in new york will inevitably be bigger than anywhere else. so, we can scratch the numbers out, along with the dates. it's the shape of the curve you want to look at...
we have been getting mixed messages about where we are on this curve in places like toronto and los angeles, with some suggestions that we are passing the peak. that's where the green arrow points.
however, i think these suggestions are past the point of optimistic and are rather just flat out delusional. deaths are piling up in both of these places, at higher rates, not lower rates. lower case counts are probably better explained in both jurisdictions by under-testing than they are by decreasing transmission rates.
further, it would seem as though the introduction of the virus into new york was very, very early - which is why it peaked very, very early, relative to other jurisdictions. toronto is probably not days behind new york, as the green arrow would suggest, but weeks - or even months.
rather, i think we're in the part of the curve that the red arrow points to.
we'll see who is right over the next seven to ten days or so.
my track record, so far, has been pretty good...but it's your prerogative as to what you should believe and what you shouldn't. don't take me or anybody else on authority. what do you think, based on the evidence presented to you?
if toronto and los angeles are where the red arrow points, it would mean that cities like calgary and winnipeg are at an even earlier stage. they may not peak in calgary until july. i suspect that detroit and montreal are both further along, but are not at the peak quite yet. i got very sick in detroit in early december....
so, what does that mean for re-opening?
first, you have to realize that it means that much of the country shut down too early, and is now talking about reopening before they peak. is that potentially catastrophic? is it worse than staying shut down until the fall?
see, i'm not yet sold on the efficacy of any of these measures, so i'm not yet sold on the idea that any of these measures have made any difference, or that staying shut down will reduce transmission, much. it's easy to say "this is working", but we don't know that, yet.
if they ease up in toronto and see a spike in cases, they may very well blame it on easing up too early and call it a "second wave". but, i need to insist on rigour, here - there's no convincing evidence of a peak, and, rather, quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. that "second wave" may actually be the initial wave cresting.
i would favour re-opening, with specific measures taken to protect the weak. but, there's no clearly correct answer at this point, and the responses need to be strictly regional to account for it.