\n\n“Cuomo and other New York leaders were initially slow to react to the coronavirus, letting the pathogen spread rapidly through the population before the state closed down. Some of that was due to a lack of understanding of the disease early on, but there were also steps Cuomo and others, experts argued, should have known to take even back then.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But once New York\u2019s leaders and the public acted, they did a lot of things right, from social distancing to testing to masking.”… Cuomo\u2019s office has rebuked the criticisms, arguing that it acted on the best evidence and expert advice it had at the time. To the extent the state was slow to recognize the threat of Covid-19, officials claim it was due to federal missteps and inaction that hindered testing early on in the crisis, leaving the state, one adviser said, \u201cflying blind\u201d and unable to detect its full epidemic before it was too late.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “The state\u2019s late success as much of the country continues to struggle with a second coronavirus wave offers a lesson to the rest of the US and world: Covid-19 is not something that can simply be vanquished in a matter of weeks or months. It requires continued and sustained vigilance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Unfortunately, it\u2019s a lesson that only came about after Cuomo and state leaders oversaw and learned from the worst Covid-19 outbreak in the country and one of the worst in the world.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “On March 1, New York state reported<\/a> its first Covid-19 case. On March 2, Cuomo acknowledged<\/a> that community transmission within the state \u201cis inevitable.\u201d By March 3, the state confirmed<\/a> the first case of community transmission. At that point, the state\u2019s first big outbreak took off in New Rochelle<\/a>. On March 5, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said<\/a> that \u201cyou have to assume [the virus] could be anywhere in the city.\u201d Each of these events could have served as early red flags for aggressive action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It became increasingly clear, too, that the coronavirus was spreading not just in far-flung places like China and Iran, but in the West too. Italy was struck hard first by March, leading to haunting stories of overflowing hospital wards, patients turned away, and a growing death toll. Spain, Belgium, and France soon followed with big outbreaks and climbing death tolls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cuomo and other New York leaders started to mobilize. They began holding regular news conferences, warning of the virus and threats. They started to close down parts of the state, including in-person teaching at schools and large gatherings, while recommending people work from home if possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even then, the messaging was muddled. Cuomo on March 2 told reporters<\/a>, \u201cWe have been ahead of this from Day 1.\u201d De Blasio on the same day tweeted<\/a> that he was \u201cencouraging New Yorkers to go on with your lives\u201d and \u201cget out on the town despite Coronavirus\u201d \u2014 offering a movie recommendation for The Traitor<\/em><\/a>.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Cuomo was vocally skeptical of a stay-at-home order. Asked about de Blasio\u2019s comments advocating for a \u201cshelter-in-place\u201d order, Cuomo on March 19 suggested such a move was unnecessary, arguing<\/a>, \u201cI\u2019m as afraid of the fear and the panic as I am of the virus, and I think that the fear is more contagious than the virus right now.\u201d Behind the scenes, the mayor and governor reportedly bickered<\/a> about the order, with Cuomo remaining resistant. Meanwhile, the San Francisco Bay Area issued<\/a> the country\u2019s first regional stay-at-home order on March 16, which went into effect the next day, and California issued<\/a> an order on March 19 that went into effect the same day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On March 20, Cuomo acquiesced \u2014 issuing a stay-at-home order for the whole state that would take effect two days later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A few days of delayed action may not seem like a long time. But exponential growth means cases of Covid-19 can double in a couple of days, quickly spiraling out of control \u2014 making early action key to nipping the problem in the bud before it explodes out of control. Tom Frieden, who served as the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under President Barack Obama, told the New York Times<\/a> that the state could have reduced its death toll by 50 to 80 percent if it locked down a week or two earlier.”… The virus also initially spread when we simply knew less about it. We didn\u2019t know what parts of lockdowns would be effective, or that outdoor spaces, for example, were comparatively safer. We had much less research on the benefits of masks<\/a>. And it was still unclear how this virus would affect the US in particular.”… The idea was to limit hospital occupancy \u2014 a huge point of concern, as the coronavirus strained hospitals worldwide, including in New York. But critics say the advisory pushed Covid-19 into some of the most vulnerable places in the state.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Cuomo and the New York State Health Department have pushed back against the claims. Cuomo has described<\/a> the criticisms as \u201cpolitical.\u201d The New York State Health Department released a report<\/a> suggesting Covid-19 was spreading in nursing homes prior to the advisory and largely due to infections among staff, not formerly hospitalized patients.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But experts have been highly critical of the state\u2019s report<\/a>, arguing its shoddy methodology wouldn\u2019t make it into a reputable scientific journal. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Experts told me that, overall, New York\u2019s nursing homes were likely to suffer Covid-19 deaths once there was a big outbreak in the state, even if Cuomo\u2019s administration hadn\u2019t issued the advisory \u2014 a reflection of longstanding problems with infection control in these facilities<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Still, they argued that the advisory likely made things worse. Even the state\u2019s report admits that some patients who were transferred back to nursing homes were infectious, although it\u2019s not clear how many and which led to more infections.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “While New York did some things very wrong, it was also true that Trump and the federal government often didn\u2019t help \u2014 and, with their own failures and inaction, actually made it much harder<\/a> for New York and other state and local governments to respond to the coronavirus pandemic.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “The situation has improved dramatically in New York since the spring. Today, the state is in the bottom three for daily new cases<\/a>, with a rate of 3 per 100,000 people. Its test positive rate is the third lowest in the country<\/a> at less than 1 percent \u2014 an indication of a controlled outbreak.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Experts say Cuomo and other leaders in the state deserve a lot of credit for such outcomes. New York dramatically scaled up testing \u2014 with the third-highest testing rate, when controlling for population, among all states. It built up a contact tracing system. It imposed a masking mandate. It has, in general, adhered closely to expert advice and empirical data as it\u2019s evolved and shifted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Perhaps most importantly, Cuomo resisted what many other states did not: reopening too quickly. The state imposed strict regional metrics<\/a> that localities have to meet to reopen, and it\u2019s stuck with them. New York City still hasn\u2019t allowed indoor dining or bars, both of which present a huge risk for Covid-19 transmission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s a sharp contrast to California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D). He was the first in the country to close down his state but, under pressure from local and private actors, allowed counties to reopen more quickly<\/a>, getting waivers that effectively allowed them to ignore the standards the state previously set. That allowed indoor dining, bars, and other risky indoor spaces to reopen \u2014 until cases exploded in California, forcing Newsom to eventually reel back.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “There are factors beyond policy that have helped New York. Because the state suffered a massive outbreak in the spring, there\u2019s likely some element of population immunity<\/a> making it more difficult for cases to spread too widely as long as people follow some precautions. The public has helped, too, remaining cautious even as the state has reopened; a New York Times analysis<\/a>, for example, found New York had some of the highest rates of mask-wearing in public of any state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cOnce we did [act], it\u2019s truly an incredible testament to New Yorkers that we have been able to do what was needed to get where we are today,\u201d Nash, of the City University of New York, said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n New York\u2019s success in the aftermath of a deadly outbreak shows the need for continued and sustained vigilance. It\u2019s not enough to merely push down cases and test positive rates \u2014 as many states did early in the summer \u2014 people also need to stay cautious and keep the spread of the virus from getting out of control again. Resisting temptation, such as with reopening risky indoor spaces like bars, is crucial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The unfortunate reality is Covid-19 won\u2019t go away until a vaccine or similar treatment is widely available.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“nursing homes. A New York State Department of Health advisory memo was widely interpreted<\/a> by the facilities as forcing them to take Covid-19 patients from hospitals, potentially worsening the spread of the disease.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Cuomo\u2019s office questioned whether the state could have acted quicker. A week before Cuomo issued a stay-at-home order, the state had reported<\/a> around 50 Covid-19 cases a day and zero deaths. By the time of the order, there were nearly 1,000 cases and 10 deaths a day. Without that level of spread, the public may have been skeptical of drastic measures.”
…
“New York may have gotten unlucky, too. Its position as a major international hub, its density, and its widespread dependence on public transportation made it uniquely vulnerable to Covid-19. These factors \u2014 considered upsides to New York in most other situations \u2014 were out of Cuomo\u2019s control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Cuomo\u2019s second big mistake came after the state started treating Covid-19 as a serious threat. On March 25, his administration issued an advisory<\/a> that effectively forced nursing homes to take in Covid-19 patients from hospitals after they supposedly recovered. The rules barred nursing homes from demanding a coronavirus test prior to the transfer. In general, nursing homes interpreted the rules<\/a> to force them to take in Covid-19 patients.<\/p>\n\n\n\n