You mean CA and FL have stated similar cases but, as y’all like to claim when it suits your needs, the number of reported cases depends on testing. But we do know that the death rate in FL is almost twice that of CA, and growing.
And again you don't know what you are talking about.
Having more or less testing doesn't mean more cases per million.
If you look at the data there are states that have far more testing vs CA or FL that have lower cases per million. There are also others that have similar testing per million that have substantially higher cases per million.
So it does not work as you think...more testing = more cases PER million.
It also isn't consistent on cases per million vs deaths per million. That fluctuates all over the place as well.
The point being, and the reason
@dad4 is silent is because despite his preferred outcome (and yours as well) CA hasn't stopped the spread in any meaningful way vs states that he and you have railed on for months now.
If it were as simple as masks and lockdowns, you would see dramatic differences in cases per million. The reality is despite what CA has done, their cases per million are little different vs states like TX and FL where biz is open, schools are open, people are working, etc.
@dad4 claims to be a math guy. Apparently he doesn't understand the concept of cost/benefit nor it seems does he have the ability to look at real world data and come to the conclusion his preferred solutions have not worked in reality. Same as you big boy.
And remember, the point you and others say lockdowns are masks are important is to REDUCE the spread of the virus. The data shows gov policy has not had an affect in that area.
So why the lockdowns?
Recent studies are now showing asymptomatic people are not spreaders of the virus either.
So with that in mind, why the lockdowns?