Study estimates epidemic is not under control in much of the US

8,474 Views | 66 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by DadHammer
Jmiller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
May 24, 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.25561/79231
Quote:

Summary

As of 20 May 2020, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 91,664 confirmed or probable COVID19-related deaths, more than twice the number of deaths reported in the next most severely impacted country. In order to control the spread of the epidemic and prevent health care systems from being overwhelmed, US states have implemented a suite of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), including "stay-at-home" orders, bans on gatherings, and business and school closures.

We model the epidemics in the US at the state-level, using publicly available death data within a Bayesian hierarchical semi-mechanistic framework. For each state, we estimate the time-varying reproduction number (the average number of secondary infections caused by an infected person), the number of individuals that have been infected and the number of individuals that are currently infectious. We use changes in mobility as a proxy for the impact that NPIs and other behaviour changes have on the rate of transmission of SARS-CoV-2. We project the impact of future increases in mobility, assuming that the relationship between mobility and disease transmission remains constant. We do not address the potential effect of additional behavioural changes or interventions, such as increased mask-wearing or testing and tracing strategies.

Nationally, our estimates show that the percentage of individuals that have been infected is 4.1% [3.7%-4.5%], with wide variation between states. For all states, even for the worst affected states, we estimate that less than a quarter of the population has been infected; in New York, for example, we estimate that 16.6% [12.8%-21.6%] of individuals have been infected to date. Our attack rates for New York are in line with those from recent serological studies [1] broadly supporting our modelling choices.

There is variation in the initial reproduction number, which is likely due to a range of factors; we find a strong association between the initial reproduction number with both population density (measured at the state level) and the chronological date when 10 cumulative deaths occurred (a crude estimate of the date of locally sustained transmission).

Our estimates suggest that the epidemic is not under control in much of the US: as of 17 May 2020, the reproduction number is above the critical threshold (1.0) in 24 [95% CI: 20-30] states. Higher reproduction numbers are geographically clustered in the South and Midwest, where epidemics are still developing, while we estimate lower reproduction numbers in states that have already suffered high COVID-19 mortality (such as the Northeast). These estimates suggest that caution must be taken in loosening current restrictions if effective additional measures are not put in place. We predict that increased mobility following relaxation of social distancing will lead to resurgence of transmission, keeping all else constant.

We predict that deaths over the next two-month period could exceed current cumulative deaths by greater than two-fold, if the relationship between mobility and transmission remains unchanged. Our results suggest that factors modulating transmission such as rapid testing, contact tracing and behavioural precautions are crucial to offset the rise of transmission associated with loosening of social distancing.

Overall, we show that while all US states have substantially reduced their reproduction numbers, we find no evidence that any state is approaching herd immunity or that its epidemic is close to over.
PJYoung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Herd immunity is 60-70% infected and most of the states are somewhere near 5%.

This is obviously gonna take a while.
Jmiller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Have we conceded to the point of view that we will not or can not contain this virus?

What if natural immunity to this virus is gone within three to six months?
Beat40
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jmiller said:

Have we conceded to the point of view that we will not or can not contain this virus?


If the virus is really as contagious as it's been claimed to be, we never had a chance to contain the virus from the outset.
Joe Exotic
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jmiller said:

Have we conceded to the point of view that we will not or can not contain this virus?


Yes, many of us have. Many of us also no longer care and are living lives normally and without masks or social distancing.
Old Buffalo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PJYoung said:

Herd immunity is 60-70% infected and most of the states are somewhere near 5%.

This is obviously gonna take a while.
Herd immunity was an old view when we thought this thing was 3-5% IFR. With the CDC saying it's closer to 0.26%, then I'm not too worried.
Jmiller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Beat40 said:

Jmiller said:

Have we conceded to the point of view that we will not or can not contain this virus?


If the virus is really as contagious as it's been claimed to be, we never had a chance to contain the virus from the outset.
Other countries seem to have done it, but more observation is needed.
Pulmcrit_ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Beat40 said:

Jmiller said:

Have we conceded to the point of view that we will not or can not contain this virus?


If the virus is really as contagious as it's been claimed to be, we never had a chance to contain the virus from the outset.


This. Slowing down/shutting down briefly to prep for the inevitable but now it will surge/smolder indefinitely. In a way we are lucky to have lost control early. Places like China where they established control will have to fight tooth and nail forever to maintain that and in the end will not be successful. Maybe a vaccine in the future but otherwise it's a fools errand.
DCAggie13y
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Is this the same team that produced the initial doomsday model? I know they fired the lead researcher but not sure how much credibility this group has given their previous forecasts.
Keegan99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is more nonsense from the "experts" at Imperial College.

It was discussed here.

http://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3113789
Not a Bot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jmiller said:

Have we conceded to the point of view that we will not or can not contain this virus?

What if natural immunity to this virus is gone within three to six months?


Most of us have come to the conclusion that perpetual lockdowns and quarantines are worse than the virus itself, especially for relatively healthy people under 60.
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
He asked the question. The virus is not contained. Life goes on.
Carolin_Gallego
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Prof Neil Ferguson is still with the Imperial College London but quit as a government adviser after he allowed his girlfriend visit him during lockdown.

The forecasts from the Imperial College London have been fine. Many illogical people like to mention the 2.2 million US deaths they estimated "in the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behavior" so that they may advance a political narrative that models can not be trusted.

ETA: Trump also used the infamous 2.2 million number on April 16 in a White House briefing.
We believe progress is made through MORE discussion, not LESS, and we believe that to be true even if the topics are uncomfortable and we occasionally disagree with one another. - TexAgs
The name-calling technique making false associations is a child's game. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject a person and their argument on this false basis.
Squadron7
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Define "controlled", Rook.
Beat40
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jmiller said:

Beat40 said:

Jmiller said:

Have we conceded to the point of view that we will not or can not contain this virus?


If the virus is really as contagious as it's been claimed to be, we never had a chance to contain the virus from the outset.
Other countries seem to have done it, but more observation is needed.


What is your definition of contained?
BowSowy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Is "reaching herd immunity" the next page in the playbook for the people who want to keep things locked down?
Carolin_Gallego
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BowSowy said:

Is "reaching herd immunity" the next page in the playbook for the people who want to keep things locked down?
It is the other way around - it's being push by people wanting to open things up. The Sweden model is a common reference.
We believe progress is made through MORE discussion, not LESS, and we believe that to be true even if the topics are uncomfortable and we occasionally disagree with one another. - TexAgs
The name-calling technique making false associations is a child's game. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject a person and their argument on this false basis.
KidDoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Beat40 said:

Jmiller said:

Have we conceded to the point of view that we will not or can not contain this virus?


If the virus is really as contagious as it's been claimed to be, we never had a chance to contain the virus from the outset.
I disagree. China had a chance to contain it in December/Jan but they refused to shut down international flights.

Criminal disregard for safety IMO.

At this point no, it cannot be contained, just tolerated.

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:

BowSowy said:

Is "reaching herd immunity" the next page in the playbook for the people who want to keep things locked down?
It is the other way around - it's being push by people wanting to open things up. The Sweden model is a common reference.


Swedish leaders have said all along that herd immunity wasn't the goal. The argument for opening is that the virus is here to stay, it's not a legitimate threat for most of the population, and lockdowns are ineffective and unsustainable. Moving toward herd immunity is a positive side effect.
DCAggie13y
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I heard other researchers say their code was a mess in the original model. Not sure if true or politically driven.

If the CDCs estimated IFR is accurate, there is no way 2.2 million deaths would occur even without any actions. They must have assumed a much higher IFR.
Beat40
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KidDoc said:

Beat40 said:

Jmiller said:

Have we conceded to the point of view that we will not or can not contain this virus?


If the virus is really as contagious as it's been claimed to be, we never had a chance to contain the virus from the outset.
I disagree. China had a chance to contain it in December/Jan but they refused to shut down international flights.

Criminal disregard for safety IMO.

At this point no, it cannot be contained, just tolerated.




That's fair. I agree with that in regards to China.

I meant the USA really had no chance of containing it from the outset of it spreading beyond China.
Carolin_Gallego
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gumby said:

I heard other researchers say their code was a mess in the original model. Not sure if true or politically driven.

If the CDCs estimated IFR is accurate, there is no way 2.2 million deaths would occur even without any actions. They must have assumed a much higher IFR.
The CDC estimated IFR is optimistic based on data collected by other studies, many of which are cited in this forum.

Yes, the ICL study came out very early in this pandemic when the IFR was believe to be much higher. It was stated in the study that that high-end projection was unlikely. But those facts do not keep it from being used for political propaganda in the Political forum, here, and elsewhere.
We believe progress is made through MORE discussion, not LESS, and we believe that to be true even if the topics are uncomfortable and we occasionally disagree with one another. - TexAgs
The name-calling technique making false associations is a child's game. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject a person and their argument on this false basis.
Squadron7
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:

Gumby said:

I heard other researchers say their code was a mess in the original model. Not sure if true or politically driven.

If the CDCs estimated IFR is accurate, there is no way 2.2 million deaths would occur even without any actions. They must have assumed a much higher IFR.
The CDC estimated IFR is optimistic based on data collected by other studies, many of which are cited in this forum.

Yes, the ICL study came out very early in this pandemic when the IFR was believe to be much higher. It was stated in the study that that high-end projection was unlikely. But those facts do not keep it from being used for political propaganda in the Political forum, here, and elsewhere.

So which numbers from the CDC are political propaganda and which ones are not?
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The ones that aren't scary enough are fake
FireAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Let's be crystal clear about something...

Shutting down our economy and way of life for this virus was a HUGE mistake...HUGE...

There was no rational reason to do this...we shot from the hip based on bad data and blew it all up for no reason...
JB99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Their analysis and modeling has been woefully inaccurate through this whole ordeal. They can report numbers after the fact, but they are clueless in making predictions. I give zero credence to this report.
BiochemAg97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BowSowy said:

Is "reaching herd immunity" the next page in the playbook for the people who want to keep things locked down?
Well that kinda doesn't work.

If you keep locked down and lockdowns are effective, you never get to herd immunity.

If you can get to herd immunity while locked down, then the lock down isn't effective, so why do it. See NYC where there was significant transmission of people in lockdown. China reported similar.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"Effective" doesn't mean zero transmission. Well, I mean clearly if you could do that an eradicate the virus completely that would be great, but I don't think that was ever actually the goal. My understanding that the intent was to chip away at the transmission rate to try to keep it manageable and to reduce overshoot. Whatever numbers or goals you want to assign to "manageable" and whatever cost that is per reduction in transmission rate is clearly an open question, but there's no reason to make this a binary point (lockdown vs no).

A big disservice is done to the discussion when we lump all social distancing measures together as "lockdowns."
DadHammer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:

Prof Neil Ferguson is still with the Imperial College London but quit as a government adviser after he allowed his girlfriend visit him during lockdown.

The forecasts from the Imperial College London have been fine. Many illogical people like to mention the 2.2 million US deaths they estimated "in the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behavior" so that they may advance a political narrative that models can not be trusted.

ETA: Trump also used the infamous 2.2 million number on April 16 in a White House briefing.
You couldn't be more wrong.

Their model was proved to be horse crap. they couldn't even get the same result with the same data input.
fig96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BiochemAg97 said:

BowSowy said:

Is "reaching herd immunity" the next page in the playbook for the people who want to keep things locked down?
Well that kinda doesn't work.

If you keep locked down and lockdowns are effective, you never get to herd immunity.

If you can get to herd immunity while locked down, then the lock down isn't effective, so why do it. See NYC where there was significant transmission of people in lockdown. China reported similar.
Would you agree that this lacks context that's really important? I've heard the same thing mentioned, but we don't know anything about whether or not these people were washing their hands and taking care of other hygiene, had family members working outside the home in higher risk areas, etc.

Just seems like saying "they were in lockdown but got it anyway" leaves a lot open to interpretation.
CompEvoBio94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Define "controlled"

Based on their statement: "Our estimates suggest that the epidemic is not under control in much of the US: as of 17 May 2020, the reproduction number is above the critical threshold (1.0) in 24... states", I think they are using R > 1 for their definition of controlled.
Fitch
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
DadHammer said:

Carolin_Gallego said:

Prof Neil Ferguson is still with the Imperial College London but quit as a government adviser after he allowed his girlfriend visit him during lockdown.

The forecasts from the Imperial College London have been fine. Many illogical people like to mention the 2.2 million US deaths they estimated "in the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behavior" so that they may advance a political narrative that models can not be trusted.

ETA: Trump also used the infamous 2.2 million number on April 16 in a White House briefing.
You couldn't be more wrong.

Their model was proved to be horse crap. they couldn't even get the same result with the same data input.


Not defending the model or the insinuations, but the post is an accurate description. My own opinion is there was a media frenzy that focused on the number without the (relatively implausible) context that it assumed no mitigation or changed behavior. You can get to the same number with the latest CDC data with pretty simple multiplication.
Pasquale Liucci
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That's not the issue with the Ferguson / Imperial College survey. The issue was that the model had no consistency when it was picked apart. Output values never converged to the same mean with common parameters.

ETA that you are correct regarding the media frenzy, 110%.
NASAg03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

No model, no matter how accurate its epidemiologic assumptions, can illuminate or predict the secondary and tertiary effects of particular disease mitigation measures. Nor, for example, can it assess the potential effects of high absentee rates resulting from home or regional quarantine on the functioning integrity of essential services, such as hospital care or provision of food and electrical service to the community. If particular measures are applied for many weeks or months, the long-term or cumulative second and third order effects could be devastating socially and economically. In brief, models can play a contributory role in thinking through possible mitigation measures, but they cannot be more than an ancillary aid in deciding policy.

- D.A. Henderson
Mike Shaw - Class of '03
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I read that inconsistency was from when they ported the code to a different language. The underlying model was published (and peer reviewed) in Nature in 2006. I'd be really, really surprised if it was horribly flawed / inconsistent.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.