You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
We know there were relative disease burden differences. But to what degree?
Of Toronto’s 140 neighbourhoods, in the 2nd wave… The 35 lowest income neighbourhoods vs. the 35 highest income neighbourhoods had*: 2.9x more cases 2.7x more hospitalizations 2.2x more deaths *all figures are per 100,000pic.twitter.com/Ms6WCQ0yBE
The 35 neighbourhoods with highest concentration of visible minorities vs. the lowest 35 had: 2.6x more cases 2.1x more hospitalizations 1.6x more deathspic.twitter.com/wyWbOK5N7X
The 35 neighbourhoods with highest household densities vs. the lowest 35 had: 2.9x more cases 2.2x more hospitalizations 2.0x more deathspic.twitter.com/UOe1YvJyHv
And lastly, the 35 neighbourhoods with highest concentration of non-healthcare essential service industries vs. the lowest 35 (i.e. work-from-home neighbourhoods) had: 3.2x more cases 3.0x more hospitalizations 1.9x more deathspic.twitter.com/k9LZUcLsk1
IMO, these data show that OST and gov’t lockdown policy may have facilitated dramatically higher C-19 disease burden in the most mobile/vulnerable areas, by reducing the relative mobility of high income, work-from-home, low visible minority, low household density areas.
Yet we are calling for more of these restrictions?https://toronto.citynews.ca/2021/03/15/ontario-hospital-association-province-third-wave-covid19-toronto-de-villa-variants/ …
I first pointed out the disastrous disease burden shifts already occurring across Toronto neighbourhoods back in November 2020, in two extensive threads (this one from the 22nd):https://twitter.com/rubiconcapital_/status/1330602256685821955?s=20 …
4 days later, on Nov. 26, @SteiniBrown of the OST, for the 1st time (to my knowledge) directly addressed disease burden differences. But he blamed “long-standing structural factors” (not the pandemic or policy) and offered a new term: “Prevention Gap”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoe4g-2qrTk&t=1056s …pic.twitter.com/co0UIrwdGn
On January 28th, @SteiniBrown also acknowledges higher C-19 case burden borne by essential services workers (below slide), but simply reiterates need for workplace safety measures, and does not elaborate on the relative disease burden causes, imo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dynMhEzxXGM&t=869s …pic.twitter.com/cVJr1UrjYD
But (and lastly), before we declare, as many do, that SARS-CoV-2 is simply a prejudicial virus, and its prejudice (and not lockdowns) caused the relative disease burden differences, let’s think a little deeper and remember that…
….as we know, higher service worker neighbourhood concentrations correlate strongly with cases per 100k...pic.twitter.com/ygySLAZwuj
…but that, unfortunately, the following neighbourhood characteristics also strongly correlate with high service worker concentration… Visible minorities Average household size Average income (inversely correlated)pic.twitter.com/2cOyZuIMh8
C-19 is not a prejudicial virus—but imo, the Ontario Science Table and gov’t policies turned the virus prejudicial when it shut down all of society, shifting relative mobility, contact, and thus disease burden onto those the services-based/low-income/vis-min/dense neighbourhoods.
/sources addendum Toronto C19 Data: https://open.toronto.ca/dataset/covid-19-cases-in-toronto/ … Service industry definitions:https://twitter.com/rubiconcapital_/status/1330598859052097544?s=20 …
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
your mobility *relative to the population*, shifting community disease burden onto you. They did not care about you. They cared about themselves and their failed policy.