Some HOT SPOT.
Fewer cases than New York has deaths by far.
And still a whopping 7 deaths.
MarcATL want to come back and explain to us again....how this is a HOT SPOT ?
Or is he just repeating left wing batshit.
I guess I can be the stunt double..they are calling it a hot spot because of the per capita number of cases and the trending numbers. You posted the graph yourself....look at your zero point...count the number of days until today..take that slice and render it into a per capita reading..graph it. Now I'm not saying we're going to have a mass increase of cases in the future..prognostication is not my game...but using the term 'hot spot' is accurate if your comparison to other areas in the US bears out your conclusion..since it does not..in this case, SD was...and still may be, a hot spot. Raw numbers don't really tell the whole story--BTW..I know that you know --that using mortality rates is a goof--number of cases is what we're talking about. I'm pleased that the morbidity of the virus is staying low..good sign.
A reasonable response.
I would add that the number of cases as a percentage of population is also important to look at.
Sound Dakota has 750,000 people. So the number of cases getting to 1,000 says that we are looking at .13% of the population. That is still to small a number to be able to make many statements about. But, for now, I'll go with your comment.
However, it isn't clear if you are saying it fits or not.
There was a rapid rise and it may be that they are already in decline.
Also, the OP highlited a meat packing plant that was an infection zone.....
If you take those numbers out.....look at what remains and S.D is anything but a hot spot.
This is evidenced by not only the number of deaths, but the rate at which they occur.