Is that a decline in the *rate* or a decline in the overall *number*?
If it's the number... a lot of people have moved out of CA lately. I would bet they skew heavily toward kid-having age families, since school closures and the possibility of school V-mandates were a big driver of this.
If we now find that rates have also declined in t…
Is that a decline in the *rate* or a decline in the overall *number*?
If it's the number... a lot of people have moved out of CA lately. I would bet they skew heavily toward kid-having age families, since school closures and the possibility of school V-mandates were a big driver of this.
If we now find that rates have also declined in the states that massive numbers of people are moving *to*... that'd paint a very different picture.
But now that I think on it, if a significant portion of young families moved out of state, you could expect a decline in the rate as well as the number. Main question is how big a decline would you expect, and does it line up with what actually happened?
But what about North Dakota, with 56% vax rate but you said the birthrate is also down? Why would it be down just as much. Small population, maybe many work in healthcare or military thus were mandated?
I believe California overall only lost about 385K people. That is a staggering reversal given its steady growth for the previous century but still, it won't fuzz the noise that much. By county it can be much more drastic, for example SF loses more than 5% of its childhood age population per year 2 years running, and apparently 20% (wow) of 25-29 year olds left SF over the previous two years.
Is that a decline in the *rate* or a decline in the overall *number*?
If it's the number... a lot of people have moved out of CA lately. I would bet they skew heavily toward kid-having age families, since school closures and the possibility of school V-mandates were a big driver of this.
If we now find that rates have also declined in the states that massive numbers of people are moving *to*... that'd paint a very different picture.
Then I suppose we will see an increased birthrate in the other states, somewhere down the line; very soon.
(waits impatiently for the numbers)
But now that I think on it, if a significant portion of young families moved out of state, you could expect a decline in the rate as well as the number. Main question is how big a decline would you expect, and does it line up with what actually happened?
It takes a lot of families leaving suddenly and unexpectedly to make a change of THIS magnitude
But what about North Dakota, with 56% vax rate but you said the birthrate is also down? Why would it be down just as much. Small population, maybe many work in healthcare or military thus were mandated?
Maybe look at overall US birth rates, which would account for movement.
those are devilishly hard to get, at least this soon. All states report separately, and on a different deadline.
Usually about a year to collate the birth data, I think.
But this wouldn’t explain the birth rate decline in North Dakota that had minimal population decline
So noted!
I believe California overall only lost about 385K people. That is a staggering reversal given its steady growth for the previous century but still, it won't fuzz the noise that much. By county it can be much more drastic, for example SF loses more than 5% of its childhood age population per year 2 years running, and apparently 20% (wow) of 25-29 year olds left SF over the previous two years.