That's one takeaway from the first chart in this NYT story:
| Metro area | Population | cases | Per thousand |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wuhan, China | 11.1 mil. | 50,821 | 4.59 |
| Lombardy region, Italy | 10 mil. | 34,889 | 3.48 |
| New York | 20 mil. | 43,016 | 2.15 |
| Albany, Ga. | 153,000 | 206 | 1.35 |
| New Orleans | 1.3 mil. | 1,674 | 1.32 |
| Seattle | 3.9 mil. | 2,543 | 0.65 |
| Bridgeport metro, Conn. | 944,000 | 607 | 0.64 |
| Mount Vernon-Anacortes, Wash. | 128,000 | 78 | 0.61 |
| Pittsfield, Mass. | 126,000 | 73 | 0.58 |
| Detroit | 4.3 mil. | 2,468 | 0.57 |
| Kingston, N.Y. | 179,000 | 89 | 0.50 |
| East Stroudsburg, Pa. | 170,000 | 67 | 0.40 |
| Show Low, Ariz. | 110,000 | 43 | 0.39 |
| Albany, N.Y. | 883,000 | 340 | 0.38 |
| Bellingham, Wash. | 226,000 | 86 | 0.38 |
Although Chicago in recent news reports has been deemed a new potential "hotspot," its per capita rate of confirmed case was 0.262, about 1/8th the rate of New York City and half the rate of Detroit, for example. That rate will go up, but hopefully over a long enough period of time to avoid catastrophe: that's basically all communities can try to do at this time. (For details on Chicago and NYC, see this post.) (By the way, regarding Italy, it's worth noting that Italian officials, by their own admission, are not testing everyone, and that they think there are five to ten times as many actual cases as "confirmed" ones. As with Wuhan and New York City, the issue is how quickly those cases came.)
Leave a Reply