@solo-act
Yeah, I saw that map, and I also noticed it
didn't remove trips to the grocery store; i.e., necessities.
I have to go about 3 miles in any direction to get to the nearest of my grocery stores. My brother-in-law has to travel a good fifteen miles, since he lives in rural Virginia.
Notice the map is actually about measuring travel per trip and shows "when the
average distance fell below two miles" (emphasis added). Well, an
average distance usually involves some trips that are
shorter, and some that are
longer. But I can't possibly have any trips that are shorter!
If I travel less than two miles, there's exactly one thing I can possibly be doing: Visiting a neighbor's house. It's a good 3/4ths of a mile just to get to the front of my neighborhood. There are two churches I can get to in less than 1.5 miles, but I don't attend either of them. There's also a gas station, which is the only place I go that's under 1.5 miles' driving distance. But I don't want to waste gas making a special trip to the gas station; and anyway, it's on the way to my nearest Publix. Consequently, I'll get gas there when I'm on my way to the nearest grocery store, which is 1.2 miles further away.
I don't know how this affects everyone else. But I live in one of those states that the map singles out for opprobrium, and I've literally been inside my house since late February apart from grocery-store runs.
So, I'm doing it
correctly, and yet that map marks
me, and everyone who lives nearby, as part of the problem.
Do I think the article-author intended to misrepresent me, and others, to his readers? No, of course not. I just think he probably lives in an urban area where everything is within walking distance, and consequently is ignorant about other areas of the country. Someone with more experience outside urban centers could set him straight...but perhaps his editor is in the same boat.
Re: correcting the misleading data, itself: This is not an insoluble problem. Perhaps there's some more-accurate way to mine the data, to get something less misleading? For example, could the cell-phone location data note the location of any trips where a grocery-store (or other "necessity") is on either end of the trip, and extract those trips from consideration?
For that matter, why was 2 miles selected as the cutoff? I don't think it says. In what part of the country does a more-than-2-mile drive represent a frivolous trip, and under-2-miles represent a visit to an "essential service?" Seems arbitrary to me.
One other item: I've been seeing a lot of shots of people on crowded subways (something we don't have in my area) in the newspapers. Surely folk in such circumstances are
far more problematic than folk alone in their cars, provided the car-drivers keep 10' distant from other humans after they arrive at their destination. If my job is to be loud in scolding others for their dangerous behavior, should I be yelling, "Stop riding subways, people!" ...?
Just kidding! ...but to say it a tad more seriously: Is there any way to identify locations by their use of dense, sharing-the-same-air mass transit, and correlate
that with increased cases per square mile? I'll bet there's a relationship (though no doubt other variables will confuse the issue).