AAQ -Here’s what I meant:
You said to look at different communities with different attitudes toward being careful (the topic was people not recognizing low probability dangers)
Then, in continuation of that statement you bring in Lakewood, which we all know is a place you see as having a wrong, incorrect and dangerous attitude toward caution or being careful. And to “prove” how wrong they are, you specify that the death rate there was 2 or 4 times the nearby communities.
The problem is that a death rate tells you how it blows thru the community and too many social and geographical factors (and Gd) decide how it blows. The “uncaring attitude” you speak of was after the first bout of covid when the lock downs wouldn’t lift and the mask mandates were in place. During these times you and your peers talked about the murderous people gathering in minyanim and halls. If you want to know if the careless attitude really was murderous (which you claim to be a slam dunk yes), then the death rate is irrelevant. You would need to see where the second waves, third waves or surges were in those neighborhoods and in relation to the murderous events.
Things didnt’ quite pan out that way for you. The indoor minyanim thankfully did not fair worse overall than the outdoor minyanim. The weddings and funerals did not result in multiple waves AS WE WERE TOLD IT WOULD. So it is exciting for you to point out how many Jews died in communities like lakewood and try to correlate it to the attitude you disdain, but the larger scale graphing did not support your theory.
I’m guessing you will now tell me I misunderstood you. Or that I am not making sense. Okay. At least I tried.