Coronavirus: Los Angeles and the Poor

Back in April, I wrote a blog post about Los Angeles and questioned if Los Angeles was really doing that well when it came to controlling the coronavirus spread and also noted the divide in testing between rich and poor. Here's a part of what I wrote:

"Another Los Angeles Times article looks into the potential divide between testing that is going on between rich and poor neighborhoods. It mentions how wealthy neighborhoods like Bel-Air and Brentwood have high number of cases while poor neighborhoods like El Monte and Watts have fewer cases:

But those disparities do not mean the virus that causes COVID-19 is spreading more widely through rich neighborhoods than in poorer ones, public health officials and experts say. Rather, they are probably skewed by uneven access to testing and, in some instances, by wealthy residents who traveled internationally and had some of the earliest confirmed infections. There is also one fact in the article that stands out. Only 21,000 people have been tested in Los Angeles county. Yet we know that 51,809 (at the time I wrote this) have this virus in New York City. I've read articles about how

California and Washington are doing so much better at controlling the virus than New York. Yet when you read how Los Angeles county has done fewer tests than the number of cases in New York City, it makes you question if Los Angeles county is really doing that great of a job."


So maybe I was too negative there in my assessment that Los Angeles county wasn't doing that great of a job. In a way, the county was doing a solid job until one could argue there was a combination of the protests and bars re-opening. I know there are some arguments about if the protests caused the spread of the virus, but I doubt there would be much argument that the bars resulted in a greater spread. You just need to read articles from this LAist (Jun 28) to jump to that assumption.

Though perhaps I was too negative in my assessment on the virus progression in Los Angeles county when compared to New York City, I think I was correct when it came to my agreement with the LA Times regarding testing issues. Since that article, the LA Times has continued to focus on the impact of COVID-19 in poor neighborhoods.

LA Times (May 28):

L.A. County Department of Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer said the rise in infection rates in low-income communities and the gap compared to wealthier areas is so pronounced that it can’t be caused by increased access to testing alone. She thinks there are other factors driving it, including higher levels of exposure among frontline workers.

. . . Since the outbreak began, Travis Longcore has been working remotely from his Beverly Crest home, ordering food and other items online.

“There is the luxury of being able to stay home and perhaps continue to make a living,” said Longcore, former president of the Bel-Air/Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council. “To be able to pay other people to take on the risk of going to the store and exposing themselves to many more people than you are — it’s a real ‘two Americas’ story in that respect.”

So in regards to what Travis Longcore has to say. I also live in Los Angeles county. To me, there is a moral issue going on with his choice. I've seen articles around this topic of having delivery. Could I afford having someone deliver my groceries? Yes, I could. But for me, I have moral issues with someone else taking risks that I believe I should be taking. I also feel that risks can be mitigated for me by shopping at late hours such as heading over to Smart & Final or Sprouts at 9:15 p.m. -- getting my shopping done just prior to a 10 p.m. close time. I've generally found both locations have few customers at that time of hour. Of course, there are others who might not feel comfortable shopping at such a late hour or work during those hours. I must distinguish between moral and ethical. Moral is a personal belief. So maybe I have some personal issues with Longcore getting items delivered, but I wouldn't say he is acting in an unethical manner.

LA Times (May 29):

Coronavirus deaths per 100,000 residents by race and ethnicity 

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander: 53 to 154 deaths per 100,000 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander residents 

Black: 26 deaths per 100,000 black residents 

Latino: 22 deaths per 100,000 Latino residents 

Asian American: 16 deaths per 100,000 Asian American residents 

White: 13 deaths per 100,000 white residents

As can be seen, minority groups have much higher rates of death due to coronavirus than whites. Now I am not sure if these are considered statistically significant. They probably are. That would be interesting data, but the article doesn't go there.

LA Times (Jul 15):

As California sees a surge in coronavirus cases and hospitalizations, a group that has been especially hard hit are Latinos, who make up nearly 39% of the state’s population but 55% of its COVID-19 cases. According to recent L.A. County Department of Public Health reports, Latino residents are more than twice as likely as white residents to contract the virus. 

. . . On Friday, Los Angeles County health officials reported the deaths of four employees who worked at Los Angeles Apparel, a downtown garment manufacturer that has been making masks.

The company now has more than 300 confirmed coronavirus cases among its employees.

The article doesn't say, but did Los Angeles Apparel provide their workers with masks? I'd have to assume so. If so, masks wouldn't appear to give much protection when in an enclosed space and perhaps where there is a production process where masks are moved along from station to station until completion.

HOW MANY PEOPLE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY HAVE/HAD THE VIRUS?

LA Times (Jun 5):

The original study of 863 adults tested in L.A. County between April 10 and April 14 found that 4.1% tested positive for coronavirus antibodies.

. . . The new study’s results were dramatically different: Only 2.1% tested positive for antibodies. This time, 1,014 adults were tested in the county between May 8 and 12.

The new results also may mean that the coronavirus might be deadlier than previously suggested by the first survey in L.A. County, said Neeraj Sood, the L.A. County study’s leader and a professor at USC’s Sol Price School of Public Policy.

Sood said the average of the two results would lead him to guess that roughly 3% of L.A. County adults, or 236,000 people, have been infected with the coronavirus.

First, this article is a bit dated so the infection rate is higher in Los Angeles now than his roughly 3%. Second, I like the fact that he's taking the average. Third, his assumption is that maybe the differences between the two studies is that the virus might be deadlier than previously assumed. He is leaving out another possibility that has been explored at Peak Prosperity, which is that antibodies may not last long in the human body.