Worcester County's lower health risks should benefit long-term outbreak numbers
Photo | Grant Welker
Beaumont Rehabilitation and Skilled Nursing Center in Worcester
Among counties in urban areas across the country, Worcester County has been among the hardest hit per capita — but a relatively healthy population should help the region over the long term.
Worcester County scores well on key factors that should make residents less susceptible to the virus: heart disease, heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes and obesity. Data from the firm PolicyMap of each county's risk factors nationally places Worcester County in the second best of six risk categories, placing better than the national average in each of those categories.
Massachusetts has been among the hardest-hit states in the past two months, but it has relatively good health on its side. Each of the state's 14 counties scores better than average, according to the data, which was analyzed by The New York Times.
Suffolk County, which is home to Boston, and Hampshire County, which includes Amherst and other smaller towns north of Springfield, were in the lowest-risk category. In the next-best, lower-risk category with Worcester County were five others, including Middlesex and Norfolk counties. The remainder were medium-low, just better than average.
The most at-risk areas are counties primarily in southern states that haven't yet been hit as hard as places like Boston or New York, in more rural areas in Alabama and Mississippi.
Advantages of better health could be one trend to work to Worcester County's advantage. On a per-capita basis, the county has had multitudes more coronavirus cases than counties home to Charlotte, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco or Seattle, according to the Times' analysis. Worcester County's rates have also been comparable to counties with some of the densest and hardest-hit cities nationally including Chicago and Philadelphia.
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments