Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is the summary portion of a study published by the Faculty of Medicine at Imperial College, London:
Summary
As of 20 May 2020, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 91,664 confirmed or probable COVID-19-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 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.
And then there is this:
Quote:
Neil Ferguson’s team at Imperial College London quickly gathered enormous attention by producing enormous death estimates. Dr. Ferguson had previously publicized almost equally sensational death estimates from mad cow disease, bird flu and swine flu.
Germany, South Korea, Chile, Japan, China (including Wuhan itself), Lebanon, Iran, Saudi Arabia. Those are just the ones I know about that eased restrictions, and then saw cases rise again. So they were forced to reenter lockdown.
South Korea I know went for an elimination and perimeter strategy. They only ever locked down one city, and have not done a lockdown over the latest outbreak. Germany has not re-entered lockdown, despite breathless stories about "huge" jump which appears to merely be part of a weekly cycle (this is an artifact, of course). Japan initially did no lockdown, then did a light lockdown; only one island did two lockdowns. I can find no information that Chile did two lockdowns; they are in one, and it's killing them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retriever
Here is the summary portion of a study published by the Faculty of Medicine at Imperial College, London:
The bad news is the Imperial College model says the epidemic is out of control. The good news is that the Imperial College is known for models which are bug-filled junk.
New Jersey’s hospitals reported 3,405 patients with confirmed or suspected coronavirus cases as of Tuesday night — a 58% drop from the peak of 8,084 on April 14.
At the state’s 71 hospitals, there are less than 1,000 people in intensive or critical care and 750 people on ventilators — using about a quarter of the state’s ventilator capacity, according to the data.
“These three data sets – hospitalizations, ICU and ventilator counts – are the most-significant known metrics which influence our thinking about where we are on our road back," Gov. Phil Murphy said during his daily coronavirus briefing in Trenton. “These are concrete numbers which speak both to improving overall public health and improving conditions, clearly in our hospitals.”
Murphy has said the hospitalization number is the best real-time indicator of the status of the outbreak and a key measure he would use to continue to loosen restrictions put in place to slow the virus’ spread.
New Jersey’s 71 hospitals reported 2,857 patients with confirmed or suspected coronavirus cases as of Saturday night, down 65% from the peak in hospitalizations on April 14, when 8,084 patients were being treated. The state had 760 patients in critical or intensive care, with 639 on ventilators, as of Saturday night.
Yes. The numbers are extremely low now. I really hope the Governor goes to Stage 2 this week, and stage 3 soon after. I already know of restaurants in NJ reopening this week either way for outdoor dining.
Yes. The numbers are extremely low now. I really hope the Governor goes to Stage 2 this week, and stage 3 soon after. I already know of restaurants in NJ reopening this week either way for outdoor dining.
I wouldn't call that number of people on ventilators "extremely low", and neither would you if you were one of them or if you loved somebody and they were one of them. It's better. It's not extremely low.
I wouldn't call that number of people on ventilators "extremely low", and neither would you if you were one of them or if you loved somebody and they were one of them. It's better. It's not extremely low.
But dang, I know ya gotta get to a restaurant.
Same. I'm okay with a slow reopening and seeing how we handle it rather than rushing into this. Reopening too quickly and having to go back into lockdown would be far more disruptive and damaging than a safe but slow reopening.
We're not reopening too quickly. If anything, we're 2 weeks behind the data that determines dates.
There are still steps between that need to be followed though. That's what I'm referring. There's no need to rush into full reopening. The slow pace and seeing if it works is good.
Is Stage 2 really any better? Are we any less likely to get the virus than we were before? I'm not convinced. And before everyone piles on, I am desperate to get back to normal. People in my building call me the invisible woman, because I'm usually never home. But I also don't want to get this effing virus. I have seen (lost) my mom and my husband who were on ventilators (not recently) and I don't want to be one of them. It was awful.
Is Stage 2 really any better? Are we any less likely to get the virus than we were before? I'm not convinced.
Great question. I'd say we're no less likely to get the virus, but less likely to get seriously ill from the virus -- if for no other reason than for the harvesting effect.
Doing the reopening in "stages" makes sense, but in light of the data, the stages need to be alot closer together. Murphy is stretching this out for reasons not related to the data.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
