From a Washington Post article,
"Very rural areas have a 60 percent higher death rate from flu than the big metro areas, according to analysis of CDC death records. "
In terms of raw numbers, yes, a rural location is not going to see the numbers that NYC will have. But rural areas have their own set of problems. Many hospitals in rural hospitals have closed, as for-profit companies have deemed them unnecessary. In normal times, you would just transfer patients to the city for treatment. This is where looking at the flu stats can be helpful. Identify, the potential trouble ares, which includes the rural ares due to resources available and age of the population. And for this, IMO, the population of rural areas perhaps more likely to have underestimated this outbreak because they don't live in a high density area. So they were continuing to congregate longer than it was safe to do so. Each of us, can look at our state and see that most counties have cases. So how do you handle a small town that has an outbreak of 30 senior citizens when the local hospital has 2 ICU beds, or the nearest hospital is in a large community that is 3 hours away, but is overwhelmed? The media will likely continue to be enamored with NYC, NO, and other big cities. We'll get big headlines with 500 die in 24 hours, 1000 people die in 24 hours. The deaths that comes in 5s, 10s and 20s won't make their radar, except hidden in the national totals that will grow larger than we can imagine because we aren't thinking about the drips and dribbles that are happening everywhere.
So to answer the first quoted post. You're assuming that there will be "less impacted" areas. Many, many places will be overwhelmed...on a per capita basis. It won't be anymore safe to open up a farm town if their resources are overwhelmed even if it's a minuscule amount as compared to NYC. The areas with truly less impact, are likely going to be too much of a patchwork to organize anything even at a state level, for awhile.