As of today, Minnesota has reported more than 6,000 #COVID19 deaths.
Tomorrow, January will probably pass May as Minnesota's third-deadliest month of the pandemic so far. But we’ve fallen behind the pace of deaths in November (when deaths were rising, not falling as they are now):
Minnesota has averaged about 28 #COVID19 deaths per day over the past week. That compares to an average of 35 deaths/day last Thursday.
For context, on Nov. 1, MN was averaging 18 COVID deaths/day. On Oct. 1, 9/day.
#COVID19 death rates have been falling both in and out of long-term care settings, but both remain elevated above the death rates we saw over the summer.
#COVID19 cases also continue to decline, down to an average of 1,280 cases/day:
Though testing volume has been on the decline, the fall in cases holds true even if you adjust for testing volume. The positivity rate is down to 4.4%, the lowest since Oct. 5.
#COVID19 hospital admission rates have also been falling. It’s unclear if ICU admissions might be bottoming out at around 10/day, the level we saw for most of the summer. I’ll keep monitoring.
In worse news, Minnesota’s #COVID19 vaccination pace has actually been SLOWING.
It’s possible the aparent *decline* shown here is due to reporting issues. The bigger issue is that the vaccination pace isn’t RISING, since it’s too slow at present.
To vaccinate most of the adult population in a reasonable period of time, Minnesota needs to be administering at least 4 times as many shots per day.
One metric I’m watching: the share of Minnesota’s new #COVID19 cases who are health care workers.
With health care workers getting vaccinated, we’d EXPECT this line to start falling soon, right? No sign of it yet.
That said, you’ll notice that big dip in November? That wasn’t because fewer health care workers were getting sick, it was because more of everyone else was. So this chart only tells you so much.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Minnesota reported 21 #COVID19 deaths today. That’s the lowest figure on a Friday since the 18 reported on Oct. 30. Just two Fridays ago, Minnesota reported 48 #COVID19 deaths.
Cases and positivity rate have also been trending down:
It looks like #COVID19 ICU admissions in Minnesota might have bottomed out at around 10 per day. That’s about where Minnesota was at for about 4 months earlier this year, from early June through late September.
Alright, America has a new president, but #COVID19 stats keep on coming, and so do the graphs.
Minnesota reported 34 additional #COVID19 deaths today. That’s down from 50 last Wednesday (but possibly is nudged down by the holiday Monday). The 7-day average is down to 29 deaths per day — the first time Minnesota has averaged fewer than 30 COVID deaths per day since Nov. 10.
An extra 1,237 newly reported cases is down from 1,504 last Wednesday. The 7-day average is down to 1,324 cases per day, the lowest since Oct. 15.
A majority of you quickly settled on one of two names: Johnson and Clinton. Those are the two front-runners… but JOHNSON is the winner here. There have been 5 people named Johnson to receive Electoral College votes.
- Richard Mentor Johnson, VP candidate in 1836 & 1840 (the 2nd was an odd one)
- Herschel Vespasian Johnson, Stephen Douglas’s 1860 running mate.
- Andrew Johnson, 1864
- Hiram Johnson, TR’s 1912 “Bull Moose” running mate
- Lyndon Johnson
There have to date been FOUR Clintons to receive electoral votes:
- George Clinton (got VP electoral votes in 1788, 1792, 1796, 1804, & 1808, & pres votes too in 1808)
- His nephew DeWitt Clinton, the federalist nominee in 1812
- Bill Clinton
- Hillary Clinton
TRIVIA: Two people with the last name “Roosevelt” have received electoral college votes, one of 20 such last names with multiple electoral vote recipients.
What last name has the MOST individuals bearing it who have received electoral votes?
A follow-up question: there are FIVE last names born by three or more individuals to receive Electoral College votes. (Another 15, like Roosevelt, have received two.) What are these five names?
I’ll announce the answer in 10 minutes, so get your guesses in now!
Reading HW Brands’ “The Zealot & The Emancipator,” I was struck by a good way to analogize Lincoln’s famous lack of political experience — a single, decade-old term in Congress, and a few even older terms in the state legislature, before an unsuccessful bid for U.S. Senate. 1/
2/ It’s not that Lincoln was an outsider, like Zachary Taylor, elected president on the basis of his war heroism despite having never served in any prior political office and indeed never really expressing any political beliefs. Lincoln was intensely involved in IL politics.
3/ No, Abraham Lincoln in the 1850s was the 19th Century equivalent of a modern cable news commentator.
This piece gets at an element of the ongoing debate over whether certain terms — “lie,” “coup,” “fascist,” “socialist” — should be applied today. The two sides are sort of talking past each other, with some people focusing on LOGICAL definitions & others on EMOTIONAL ones.
One person says, “Well, I define [Term X] as [definition], and event A, while terrible, doesn’t fit that definition. Rather, we should use [alternative technical term].”
Others basically argue, “Stop quibbling! This is bad, let’s use the term that conveys how bad it is!”
People using “emotional definitions” don’t want to use a dry technical term to describe something or someone they dislike. They want to use a term with a powerful (negative) emotional valence, to capture the proper attitude to the target.