Impact of the new Coronavirus where you are?

[Cigar Surgeon]

49 minutes ago, rcarlson said:

The latter rate is misleading because of selection bias in testing. The degree of bias is uncertain because available data are limited. But it could make the difference between an epidemic that kills 20,000 and one that kills 2 million. If the number of actual infections is much larger than the number of cases—orders of magnitude larger—then the true fatality rate is much lower as well. That’s not only plausible but likely based on what we know so far."

Here's what we can use to compare against: Italy had 24,981 deaths in 2017 due to influenza for the entire year. In just over a month they've had 7,503 deaths from Covid, or 30% of the annual deaths attributed to influenza.

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(19)30328-5/fulltext

Italy has applied aggressive quarantine measures to contain the virus, there were no quarantine measures applied to influenza in 2017. 

Even if we assume (and I think it's logical to do so) Italy has had way more than 85k infected, their total population is 60.48 million. The influenza stats I posted above was based on 9% of the population being infected.

If 9% of the population were infected with Covid at the same mortality rate they're currently seeing, then they'd have over a half a million deaths.

The problem comparing seasonal influenza and Covid is that Covid seems more infectious than typical season influenza, not less. And it spreads asymptomatically. Add into that mix a higher mortality rate and this is why Governments are reacting with such strong quarantine measures.

[rcarlson]

12 minutes ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

Here's what we can use to compare against: Italy had 24,981 deaths in 2017 due to influenza for the entire year. In just over a month they've had 7,503 deaths from Covid, or 30% of the annual deaths attributed to influenza.

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(19)30328-5/fulltext

Italy has applied aggressive quarantine measures to contain the virus, there were no quarantine measures applied to influenza in 2017. 

Even if we assume (and I think it's logical to do so) Italy has had way more than 85k infected, their total population is 60.48 million. The influenza stats I posted above was based on 9% of the population being infected.

If 9% of the population were infected with Covid at the same mortality rate they're currently seeing, then they'd have over a half a million deaths.

The problem comparing seasonal influenza and Covid is that Covid seems more infectious than typical season influenza, not less. And it spreads asymptomatically. Add into that mix a higher mortality rate and this is why Governments are reacting with such strong quarantine measures.

And if it was 50-70%?  

Both propositions are covered in my posts/liks.  

[Cigar Surgeon]

2 minutes ago, rcarlson said:

And if it was 50-70%?  

Both propositions are covered in my posts/liks.  

Post a model that can demonstrate even 9% of the Italian population (5.4mm) being infected in under 40 days.

I'm by no means an epidemiologist but I haven't come across any type curves that would even remotely come close to modeling that.

[rcarlson]

4 minutes ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

Post a model that can demonstrate even 9% of the Italian population (5.4mm) being infected in under 40 days.

I'm by no means an epidemiologist but I haven't come across any type curves that would even remotely come close to modeling that.

What would the model you want be intended to show?    

[Cigar Surgeon]

14 minutes ago, rcarlson said:

And if it was 50-70%?  

Both propositions are covered in my posts/liks.  

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/03/oxford-study-coronavirus-may-have-infected-half-of-u-k.html

I just read over their work. They're proposing that 33mm people in the UK have been / are infected with Covid. That doesn't even pass basic probing and requires enormous leaps of logic without any data to support it.

Quote

If this modeling is confirmed in follow-up studies, that a minuscule number of those infected require hospital treatment, with a majority showing very minor symptoms, or none at all.

So 33mm people in the UK were silently infected in only 3 weeks and social media, journalists, the health care system wasn't completely overwhelmed with daily observations about how many people had 'minor symptoms' of a flu?

That's just absurd.   

2 minutes ago, rcarlson said:

What would the model you want be intended to show?    

How you can possibly infect 33mm people with any sort of infectious disease in just 3 weeks. 

[rcarlson]

4 minutes ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/03/oxford-study-coronavirus-may-have-infected-half-of-u-k.html

I just read over their work. They're proposing that 33mm people in the UK have been / are infected with Covid. That doesn't even pass basic probing and requires enormous leaps of logic without any data to support it.

So 33mm people in the UK were silently infected in only 3 weeks and social media, journalists, the health care system wasn't completely overwhelmed with daily observations about how many people had 'minor symptoms' of a flu?

That's just absurd. 

Believe what you will.  

Could you direct me to their work?  For Ferguson, it's vast.  Can't speak to the Stanford profs.  Haven't tried either.  

[rcarlson]

8 minutes ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/03/oxford-study-coronavirus-may-have-infected-half-of-u-k.html

I just read over their work. They're proposing that 33mm people in the UK have been / are infected with Covid. That doesn't even pass basic probing and requires enormous leaps of logic without any data to support it.

So 33mm people in the UK were silently infected in only 3 weeks and social media, journalists, the health care system wasn't completely overwhelmed with daily observations about how many people had 'minor symptoms' of a flu?

That's just absurd.   

How you can possibly infect 33mm people with any sort of infectious disease in just 3 weeks. 

That's a a permutation I'll bet you could do yourself.  I think (only thinking) that rate often used is doubling every 2-3 days.   

[Cigar Surgeon]

4 minutes ago, rcarlson said:

Believe what you will.  

Could you direct me to their work?  For Ferguson, it's vast.  Can't speak to the Stanford profs.  Haven't tried either.  

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

On one hand you have the WHO and leading epidemiologists showing a mortality rate and disease progression that can be modeled and tested and follows the real data that is coming out of Italy, Spain, Canada, et. al. On the other hand you have an Oxford model that would require massive leaps in modeling and basic logic (as I explained above regarding flu symptoms). 

From her Twitter: https://www.dropbox.com/s/oxmu2rwsnhi9j9c/Draft-COVID-19-Model (13).pdf?dl=0

[Kitchen]

Just saw that jobless claims jumped 3,000,000 in the last week in the USA.  I just dont think this can last much longer before we have severe long term damage done to the economy.  

[rcarlson]

39 minutes ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

On one hand you have the WHO and leading epidemiologists showing a mortality rate and disease progression that can be modeled and tested and follows the real data that is coming out of Italy, Spain, Canada, et. al. On the other hand you have an Oxford model that would require massive leaps in modeling and basic logic (as I explained above regarding flu symptoms). 

From her Twitter: https://www.dropbox.com/s/oxmu2rwsnhi9j9c/Draft-COVID-19-Model (13).pdf?dl=0

Massive leaps in both directions.  

And I'm not sponsoring nor can I validate anyone's homework.  But how can disease progression and mortality rate be "tested" and established when actual infection rates are not known?

Perhaps you're right, but you are surely challenging me to dual over something I don't think I ever said.  The only point is that flawed assumptions (infection rates, that have changed over the course) result in flawed results, and potentially dramatic ways.  

I apologize, but I'm not going to comb through a link or study dump to reach a conclusion.  If you're willing to spell out whatever it is you're positing, please go ahead.  I'm not big the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, particularly when it's not one I have any way to evaluate.  FWIW, neither the Stanford profs nor Ferguson could be described as "right wing" or "conservative" by any stretch.     

[Cigar Surgeon]

Just now, rcarlson said:

Massive leaps in both directions.  

And I'm not sponsoring nor can validate anyone's homework.  But how can disease progression and mortality rate be "tested" and established when actual infection rates are not known?

Perhaps you're right, but you are surely challenging me to dual over something I don't think I ever said.  The only point is that flawed assumptions (infection rates, that have changed over the course) result in flawed results, and potentially dramatic ways.  

I apologize, but I'm not going to comb through a link or study dump to reach a conclusion.  If you're willing to spell out whatever it is you're positing for me, please go ahead.  I'm not big the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, particularly when it's not one don't have any way to evaluate.     

... it isn't a massive leap to believe the data the WHO and leading epidemiologists have been putting out to date. It matches everything that is understood about viral pandemics. I understand that people are pushing back against quarantines and the idea of frightening future uncertainty, but as a result people are grasping at straws to try and ease that emotional reaction.

As far as disease progression and mortality; I'm just a data analyst so it's beyond my scope. But what I can tell you is that I started modeling this in analytics software back in early February when news from China was blowing up and what we've seen to date around the world lines up to that modeling. 

Quote

If you're willing to spell out whatever it is you're positing for me, please go ahead.  I'm not big the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, particularly when it's not one don't have any way to evaluate.     

The more logical leaps you have to make in order to try and prove a theory (the Oxford model) the less likely it's going to be true. In order to disprove all other scientists and models they're going to at least have some real world results to support it. 

 

[rcarlson]

2 minutes ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

... it isn't a massive leap to believe the data the WHO and leading epidemiologists have been putting out to date. It matches everything that is understood about viral pandemics. I understand that people are pushing back against quarantines and the idea of frightening future uncertainty, but as a result people are grasping at straws to try and ease that emotional reaction.

As far as disease progression and mortality; I'm just a data analyst so it's beyond my scope. But what I can tell you is that I started modeling this in analytics software back in early February when news from China was blowing up and what we've seen to date around the world lines up to that modeling. 

The more logical leaps you have to make in order to try and prove a theory (the Oxford model) the less likely it's going to be true. In order to disprove all other scientists and models they're going to at least have some real world results to support it. 

 

Well, we won't have to wait long to find out whether anyone's modeling is accurate, including yours. You've piqued my curiosity.  If it pans out, you'd certainly have earned some bragging rights,  Would you mind sharing you modeling?    

[Cigar Surgeon]

1 minute ago, rcarlson said:

Well, we won't have to wait long to find out whether anyone's modeling is accurate, including yours. You've piqued my curiosity.  If it pans out, you'd certainly have earned some bragging rights,  Would you mind sharing you modeling?    

Yeah I don't really feel that there's anything to brag about here. The model uses my companies analytics software so unfortunately I won't be sharing that externally.

Here are some posts you can read if you're curious where people were modeling and discussing data a month or more ago:

 

[rcarlson]

1 minute ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

Yeah I don't really feel that there's anything to brag about here. The model uses my companies analytics software so unfortunately I won't be sharing that externally.

Here are some posts you can read if you're curious where people were modeling and discussing data a month or more ago:

 

Thanks, Brah!

[Subcomandante]

My worksite is about 40 guys. We are city workers. Trimming trees, patching potholes, pick up large trash people dump in alleyways and on streets, change street signs, etc. Because of this we are constantly switching trucks and are in close quarters with fellow employees. As a government entity we are considered essential. One of my coworkers wife was diagnosed with Covid-19 last week. Instead of quarantining himself he showed up to work. I took two weeks off. But I spent time in a small office with him last week. I am worried for the others including some guys in their 70’s and people with existing health issues. 

Sorry for the language. But what an a$$hole putting others at risk after finding out. 

[TheGipper]

Excess mortality graphs in Europe courtesy euromomo.eu.  Small graphics, but slightly larger versions available at their website.

http://euromomo.eu/outputs/number.html

[Habana Mike]

If anybody would like to do their own analysis or modeling there's this https://www.snowflake.com/datasets/starschema/

[Ken Gargett]

9 hours ago, Cairo said:

This is a double-edged sword.    There are enough high-profile folks testing positive that the odds are at least a few of them will actually die from it.

I think we are in wild-card territory--nothing would surprise me at this point.

if i were harvey weinstein, i wouldn't be buying long term magazine subscriptions. 

[mpq]

In Tampa, things are ok with the virus. We have a relatively small number of cases and only a handful of deaths which is somewhat surprising considering the large population of seniors in the area. Everything is shut down, the streets are pretty empty, and hopefully these draconian measures will stomp out the virus soon.  

But our economy is going to take a pretty steep dive. I guess it is the same as most of the world, but I am pretty concerned as commerce here has basically come to a stop. Lots of businesses are going to fail, and a huge number of people have already been let go. Commercial lenders are already looking to exit deals in the pipeline, and I would expect construction (which has been booming the past few years) to take a major hit that will affect our local economy for at least a year or two.  College towns like Gainesville are going to get absolutely hammered as school is likely to be shut down for remainder of semester at least, and pretty much all of the businesses their depend on students for business.  I know the Fed is printing money like crazy and there will be some significant government stimulus, but realistically I will be shocked if thousands of Florida businesses don’t fail or go in to bankruptcy because of this.

 

 

[JamesKPolkEsq]

10 hours ago, rcarlson said:

A primo example why a sober, dispassionate approach to all of this is needed -- and the media ain't gonna provide it.  

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-intensive-care-units-for-coronavirus-expert-predicts/

By way of background, Neil Ferguson led studies recently warned of 500,000 deaths in the UK.  He has himself tested positive.   

Ferguson now says less that 20,000, more than one-half of whom would've died by the end of the year from old-age/sickness.

Ferguson's change of direction is because estimates of transmissibility have increased, meaning more people are believed to be infected than previously thought.  From that he has revised his estimate of the epidemic's peak is now two to three weeks away rather than the 18 months he originally predicted. 

From Ferguson's Twitter account:

https://mobile.twitter.com/neil_ferguson/status/1243294815200124928

I think it would be helpful if I cleared up some confusion that has emerged in recent days. Some have interpreted my evidence to a UK parliamentary committee as indicating we have substantially revised our assessments of the potential mortality impact of COVID-19.

This is not the case. Indeed, if anything, our latest estimates suggest that the virus is slightly more transmissible than we previously thought. Our lethality estimates remain unchanged.

My evidence to Parliament referred to the deaths we assess might occur in the UK in the presence of the very intensive social distancing and other public health interventions now in place.

His update unfortunately isn't based on the premise you put forward - instead it is based upon effective social distancing being mandated by the UK government and other public health interventions. 

[rcarlson]

10 hours ago, JamesKPolkEsq said:

From Ferguson's Twitter account:

https://mobile.twitter.com/neil_ferguson/status/1243294815200124928

I think it would be helpful if I cleared up some confusion that has emerged in recent days. Some have interpreted my evidence to a UK parliamentary committee as indicating we have substantially revised our assessments of the potential mortality impact of COVID-19.

This is not the case. Indeed, if anything, our latest estimates suggest that the virus is slightly more transmissible than we previously thought. Our lethality estimates remain unchanged.

My evidence to Parliament referred to the deaths we assess might occur in the UK in the presence of the very intensive social distancing and other public health interventions now in place.

His update unfortunately isn't based on the premise you put forward - instead it is based upon effective social distancing being mandated by the UK government and other public health interventions. 

I'll look at (when I get to it).  Always willing to stand corrected.  I would like to understand the foundation for the opinion.  I suppose he will clear that up somewhere, but I haven't looked.  

As an observation, I think you might agree that the internet is a grab bag of confirmation bias for all of us on the sidelines.  I'm trying my best not to be guilty of it, but do tend towards optimism -- and I'm only human.  I am really tired of the so-easily-exploited claim to moral high ground that pervades the entire discussion of this unprecedented event by those that are no more knowledgeable than their prefered sources.

Thanks for pointing out the contradiction. 

[Fugu]

On 3/26/2020 at 7:02 PM, rcarlson said:

But how can disease progression and mortality rate be "tested" and established when actual infection rates are not known?

This is the crux of the problem. We simply don't know "the real data" at this moment (and all honest experts actually admit it being so). A valid statement about infection rates, infectivity and lethality would necessitate a randomized, representative sampling of the population. I.e. antibody plus direct virus detection (PCR) - and preferably repeatedly done on the same set of probands. Which no one has done so far, afaik. Plus - the respective diverse quarantine / social-distancing measures introducing an extra variable, adding to the dynamics of the whole process.

Any modelling can only be as good as its underlying core assumptions.

18 hours ago, JamesKPolkEsq said:

"This is not the case. Indeed, if anything, our latest estimates suggest that the virus is slightly more transmissible than we previously thought. Our lethality estimates remain unchanged"

...statement doesn't make much sense to me. I'd simply call that rowing back.

See above - if you'd adjust your assumptions about infectivity (put simple "spreading rate") and you as such adjust your estimate of total number of persons infected, then in turn your estimate of fatality rate can't remain unaltered. What he obviously is talking about is case fatality rate of patients showing sympthoms (which can more easily be assesed, were it not for the discussed issues of underlying health conditions). But this is ≠ lethality of the disease.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting his statement, then someone please give me a hint.

[Capt. Corona]

The actual rates are what they are.

The tested confirmed numbers are 94K+ confirmed positive.  Sadly 1435 dead.

The numbers in every state are pointing almost straight up with no relief in sight.  The ONLY way, and I've been on the top of roof shouting this for weeks, that we are going to get the numbers to flat line is a national lockdown.  Most of the top medical doctors in the United States are preaching the same.  Screw the economy, it can and will recover.  We can't dig up our family and friends to talk to them ever again. 

[rcarlson]

28 minutes ago, Fugu said:

This is the crux of the problem. We simply don't know "the real data" at this moment (and all honest experts actually admit it being so). A valid statement about infection rates, infectivity and lethality would necessitate a randomized, representative sampling of the population. I.e. antibody plus direct virus detection (PCR) - and preferably repeatedly done on the same set of probands. Which no one has done so far, afaik. Plus - the respective diverse quarantine / social-distancing measures introducing an extra variable, adding to the dynamics of the whole process.

Any modelling can only be as good as its underlying core assumptions.

...statement doesn't make much sense to me. I'd simply call that rowing back.

See above - if you'd adjust your assumptions about infectivity (put simple "spreading rate") and you as such adjust your estimate of total number of persons infected, then in turn your estimate of fatality rate can't remain unaltered. What he obviously is talking about is case fatality rate of patients showing sympthoms (which can more easily be assesed, were it not for the discussed issues of underlying health conditions). But this is ≠ lethality of the disease.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting his statement, then someone please give me a hint.

Yes, "mortality rate" and "lethality" juxtapose.  But he seemed to refute what you and I both understand about a greatly underestimated existing infection and transmissibility rate.  Muddier waters for a simpleton like myself.  

[TheGipper]

Latest CDC tables on ILI visit counts.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2019-2020/data/senAllregt12.html