Covid blood testing in Telluride, expert projections + more

Submitted by blue in dc on April 4th, 2020 at 10:16 AM

I posted a link to a story last week saying that Telluride Colorado (San Miguel County) is doing some of the first wide scale blood antibody testing.   Early results are in, they’ve tested about 1000 of 8000 residents.

‘Of the almost 1,000 people tested for COVID-19 in San Miguel County, eight have come back positive and another 23 have either indeterminate or borderline results.”    (About 1% to 3%, but unclear if testing is being done randomly or there is an attempt to focus on those who are likely to have been exposed first)

https://www.cpr.org/2020/04/02/telluride-coronavirus-testing-uncovers-some-positive-results-but-also-more-uncertainty/


In other news, linked is the weekly survey of experts being done at U-Mass that 538 has been highlighting.    Myself and others have posted earlier iterations (I haven’t seen this one yet.When there is this widespread disagreement amongst experts, you can see why some of the debates here seem like they are based on completely different sets of facts   One tidbit:

“They believe there were between 289,000 and 12.8 million infections, with 1.1 million being the consensus estimate, implying that the experts think that only about 12 percent of all infections have been reported. This is in line with what they’ve reported for the past three weeks, when the share of reported infections has ranged between 9 percent and 12 percent.”

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/best-case-and-worst-case-coronavirus-forecasts-are-very-far-apart/

Also from 538, an interesting piece explaining some of the challenges with modeling Coronavirus.

‘So, imagine a simple mathematical model to predict coronavirus outcomes. It’s relatively easy to put together — the sort of thing people on our staff do while buzzed on a socially isolated conference call after work. The number of people who will die is a function of how many people could become infected, how the virus spreads and how many people the virus is capable of killing.

See? Easy. But then you start trying to fill in the blanks. That’s when you discover that there isn’t a single number to plug into … anything. Every variable is dependent on a number of choices and knowledge gaps. And if every individual piece of a model is wobbly, then the model is going to have as much trouble standing on its own as a data journalist who has spent too long on a conference call while socially isolated after work.”

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-its-so-freaking-hard-to-make-a-good-covid-19-model/

Finally - a few quick thoughts about exponential growth.

 5 doubles of 1 get you to 32. 10 doublings get you to 1024.  15 doublings to about 32,000.    Doesn’t seem to bad does it?  But 20 doubles gets you to over 1 million. And from there, things really take off.

blue in dc

April 4th, 2020 at 3:53 PM ^

What is happening right now in NYC is not normal for any given year.    The comparison isn’t how does 1000 deaths in a day compare to annual US deaths.   It is how do the deaths in NYC or southeast Michigan compare to capacity to treat them

As others have noted, without social distancing, the numbers would already be much worse.

MileHighWolverine

April 4th, 2020 at 1:47 PM ^

Also, most deaths had underlying conditions as well.....in NYC, 70% of deaths have an underlying condition: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/imm/covid-19-daily-data-summary-deaths-04032020-2.pdf

And only 1.50% are confirmed with no underlying condition with the rest waiting on confirmation of whether they had an underlying condition or not.

So, sick and the elderly is where we should focus the quarantines.

Njia

April 4th, 2020 at 2:05 PM ^

"Underlying condition," is a pointless qualifier, unfortunately. In the U.S., about half of the entire pollution has some form of cardiovascular disease. Statistically, that means a lot of people with CVD may be in the fraction of asymptomatic cases of COVID-19, just like they are with other respiratory viruses, including influenza. It also implies that there is no practical way of keeping half of the U.S. population confined to quarters.

I would guess, judging by my own experience, that most people are going to come to terms with their own personal risk(s) and find a way to carry on with their lives. It's already what I have to do every day since I also have CVD.

BrightonB

April 4th, 2020 at 2:29 PM ^

Estimated Influenza Illnesses, Medical visits, Hospitalizations, and Deaths in the United States — 2018–2019 influenza season

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

CDC estimates that influenza was associated with more than 35.5 million illnesses, more than 16.5 million medical visits, 490,600 hospitalizations, and 34,200 deaths during the 2018–2019 influenza season.

This "season" is normally from Oct through March.

Who knows how long Corona has actually been in the US. Let's just say DEC 2019.  So it has been here now 4 full months and there are currently 7800 deaths being reported in the US. 

So if you go by the CDC estimates for the flu for a FULL year (12 months) of 2018 through 2019 that would average out to be 2800 deaths a month.  If you factor in the season (if accurate) it would be 5600+ deaths a month.  Yet the media is still acting like this is the end of the world and instilling more and more panic in people. 

606,880 cancer deaths in 2019

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death in the United States, responsible for 840,768 deaths in 2016 (only full year I could find but it's still a big killer)

Diabetes contributes to the death of 252,806 Americans annually .

We are approaching around 7 million that have filed for unemployment and small businesses are truly in scary times.

Just mentioning the above to put things in perspective to life and death. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BrightonB

April 4th, 2020 at 8:18 PM ^

Maybe it's not 100% supported but there are people who had similar issues (stories in and from the US) and symptoms in Dec and early Jan that when tested for the FLU it was negative and doctors didn't know what it was.  One of the earliest known dates from Wuhan China was Dec 10th.   China tried to hide the details of this virus.  Is it not logically possible that it could of been spreading even before that date?  No one truly knows how long it was around until it got out of hand.  My guess is when people were being looked at for it it was treated as an unknown and sent home to rest.  Many people are recovering or have mild "flu like" symptoms from this. 

I am just thinking outside the box and was just saying lets "say" it was around in Dec or to be fair even early Jan.  The numbers still are not that much outside of that of the "flu" season so again my point of what I wrote was simple saying that yes it is somewhat bad but the media and this hysteria has many believe it is the worst thing that could happen and while not fun it's not the end of the world nor a "plague" like event.    That is all.

blue in dc

April 4th, 2020 at 5:23 PM ^

If this has been widespread in the US since December, what happened that in a number of places people just started dying in large numbers?   You can’t just arbitrarily assign the 7800 deaths to a 4 month period when we know they almost all happened in less than the last 30 days. Or that we are having a thousand people a day dying and the numbers are much more likely to go up then down.   Or that in multiple parts of the country hospitals are being completely overwhelmed.   What more evidence do you need to see that this isn’t just the flu?

JDeanAuthor

April 5th, 2020 at 8:58 PM ^

You're missing a key point of data: 80 percent of those infected register nothing more than mild symptoms.

If you have COVID19 but have mild symptoms for it, you may be one of those people who just stays at home and self-medicates (TheraFlu, Tylenol, etc). 

Meaning that it's VERY likely that people have had it, but did not go to the doctor in order to treat it.  Again, that's good and bad, to the extent that the mortality rate is probably lower than we think (good) and that it can spread faster and to more people than we think (bad)

I don't know about you, but unless my condition is severe, I don't go to the doctor.  I've gotten sinus infections that were at least as troublesome as the flu for me, yet I never went to the doctor for them.  I'm sure other people here do the same, as they're not in a high-risk category for cold, flu, COVID19, etc. 

That's one of the reasons why we need to take at least SOME of these stats with a grain of salt. If the OP's sourcing is true (and I don't see a reason why it can't be), people have probably been infected with it and ended up not being counted as it was not severe enough to require hospitalization. 

If you find the interview with the man in Illinois who caught it (and this was at the very beginning of it here in the U.S.) he said that, for him, it was no more severe than a common cold. Now, multiply that by thousands of others who probably have that same level of infection, and there's a whole lot of people who just let the virus come and go without reporting it. 

The large numbers come in the infection of high-risk individuals (people with COPD, lung issues, diabetes, elderly, etc).  Since elderly people often congregate together (especially when you factor in nursing homes), it should not surprise anybody that high hospitalization and potentially high mortality numbers would follow. 

By the way, let's clarify something: just because people are not screaming bloody murder and the End of the World over this does not mean that they are in denial of what it can do to people in the high-risk zone.  It's not as black-and-white as people here on either side are portraying it.  You can be aware of the risk and at the same time still realize that COVID19 is FAR less lethal than historical diseases such as the Spanish Flu or the Black Plague.  You want to talk mortality rates? Check out the Black Plague, where one-third to one-half of the population of Europe died. Let that sink in for a little bit: ONE-THIRD to ONE-HALF. We are NOWHERE NEAR that level. Of course, anybody dying from a disease is tragic, and prevention should be undertaken as well as possible. But sometimes a little bit of perspective needs to be shed on the course of human history when things like this happen. 

I'm not worried about the majority of people dying from catching COVID19: the numbers prove otherwise.  But I DO have concern for people who are high-risk, some of whom I know personally. I have a mother and a mother-in-law who, though healthy, are both over 70.  I have a student with an immunodeficiency that needs to be kept clear of kids with a common cold, let alone this or any other respiratory disease. And even though I'm not in the high-risk category, I still don't like to get sick, and I'm going to be responsible and take the proper steps to avoid contamination.

It's interesting to note how much of the current state of society has been influenced by the way people are talking themselves into it. People fly to stores and raid toilet paper and canned goods. Why? Because they believe their own hype that there's no tomorrow.  And when a narrative is repeated over and over, regardless of whether it's true, mob mentality takes over, and people do things like that.  It's pretty sad, as we create our own crisis in part.

So, am I denying that this disease can be potentially lethal to some people? Absolutely not. People have died; I don't know anybody who has denied that. COVID19 can kill, just like the flu can kill (and btw, I don't take that as making light of it when they compare it to the flu. Death is death, folks). Heck, even the Chicken Pox is lethal to a percentage of people. That's why people should not go out, especially if they know they don't feel well (like a foolish worker did at a KFC in Davison, and ended up making 5 other people sick and shutting the store down for Q-tine). I don't want sick people around me or my family, and I'm not idiotic enough to deliberately put myself into a position to catch sickness, even if it's not fatal to me. I just hate being sick, and I don't want to potentially endanger loved ones and friends in the high-risk zone.

But I'm also not screaming that this is the end of the world either.  I'm not somebody who (unlike a few people I've seen here on this site) seems to be actively wanting to hear about more bad news and more dire situations. A few posters on this site act like they WANT to wallow in the direness of the bad situation. I've seen people here who come across as dismissive of ANYTHING smacking of potentially good news, as if they don't want any good news. Vaccines are being developed; but heaven forbid we get excited about that anytime soon, even though initial results seem to be promising. Tom Hanks, a 60-plus year old diabetic, and his wife recover: people brush it off as just an anomaly.  Sean Payton, 56, recovers, and smarmy comments about him being rich are thrown around (and I fail to see how that's relevant, since last I check money doesn't vaccinate somebody from a virus).  Or how about THIS and THIS, stories of two Veterans who kicked this virus's @ss, guys who shouldn't have lived according to the odds?  People are beating this virus, and beating it hard. Over 250,000 have recovered from it, and THAT number, just like the overall infection number, is ALSO increasing exponentially.  How come naysayers don't talk about THAT number? Or are those stats too "positive" and cramping the narrative of total world collapse?

I'm in the middle, not jumping to either side, and that's where I'm staying. I'm aware of this virus. I know it's nothing to brush off. But I also know that it will only become the be-all-end-all of humanity if people keep creating a self-fulfilling prophecy about it by talking down society.  COVID19 will run its course, and life will return to normal.  The only reason it won't will be because people don't want to return to normal (BTW, for those worried about a recurrence in September, did you know you can't get reinfected with it once you've had it? Or does that ruin your apocalypse as well?). 

This is my last word on the matter. I'm done talking about this disease. There is more to life than living in fear and trembling of a disease you can stave off with commonsense precautions. You deniers, keep denying.  You fear-mongers, keep watching CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC all day and all night (if you're honest, they all do the same thing, just done from different motivations).

My life does not revolve around a damn virus.

Alumnus93

April 4th, 2020 at 4:18 PM ^

Does this test also see if they carry virus but don't have antibodies yet? Or are antibodies automatically present with virus ?

NittanyFan

April 4th, 2020 at 4:54 PM ^

FWIW, some numbers from Europe, focused on Western Europe:

Looking at "total new cases over the last 7 days", which takes away some of the day-to-day noise:

(1) Italy's highest number was on Thursday March 26.  Today they were 19% lower.

(2) Luxembourg had their highest number on Saturday March 28.  Today they were 23% lower.

(3) Norway had their highest number on Sunday March 29.  Today they were 10% lower.

(4) Austria and Andorra had their highest number on Monday March 30.  Today they were from 31%-33% lower.

(5) Spain and France both had their highest number on Wednesday April 1.  Today they were from 2%-5% lower.

(6) Switzerland and the Netherlands both had their highest number on Thursday April 2.  Today they were both 6% lower.

(7) Germany, Belgium, Sweden and Portugal had their highest number on Friday April 3.  Today they were from 1%-5% lower.

(8) The UK, Ireland and Denmark are still rising, as of Saturday April 4.

Now - it's still possible any of these countries could hit new highs.  Especially the latter groups.

But there is directional evidence that a good chunk of Western Europe, and not just Italy, is turning a corner here.
 

Moleskyn

April 6th, 2020 at 11:29 AM ^

This is interesting, but hits on a factor I've been wondering about: when we talk about increases or decreases of reported viruses, is that taking into account fluctuations in the number of tests being done? Or is there an underlying assumption that the number of tests remains constant?

From what I have generally seen, there isn't much discussion about the intersection between volume of testing and reports of positive tests. For example, if a country tested 1,000 people each day for a week, and there was a steady increase in positive tests from day 1 to day 7, then that is a clear indication that the virus is growing in that country. But if the volume of testing from day 1 to day 7 increased, and the number of positive cases similarly increased along with the volume of testing, does that necessarily mean that the virus is growing?

Hopefully that makes sense. I am genuinely curious about that. I am not a mathematician and much of the statistical reporting is over my head, but that is a factor I am surprised hasn't received much attention. This site is the only I've been able to find that talks about the volume of testing being done.

Edit: to summarize for clarity, my question is really: when we see numbers of positive cases increasing over time, does that mean that the virus is actually spreading and growing; or is it just our awareness of it that is growing? 

tigerd

April 4th, 2020 at 9:07 PM ^

I'd be more interested in serology testing results for such a group. To date I have yet to here of any kind of actual serology testing where we can get a better feel for how many people actually got this and recovered without even knowing they had it. 

killerseafood3

April 4th, 2020 at 11:07 PM ^

Here’s a question. My family literally hasn’t left the house in any capacity for 17 days ( groceries were delivered, wiped off with wipes outside, then brought in). 
 

my father in law and mother in law haven’t left their house in 15 days and follow the same rules for groceries. 
 

is it still safe to see them in person? 

JDeanAuthor

April 5th, 2020 at 2:43 PM ^

Your post seems to indicate what people have already surmised: that COVID19 has been in the population longer than we realized.  And again, that's a good AND bad thing.

The bad thing is obvious: more spread of the disease, which again is bad especially for those most vulnerable to it (elderly, heart/lung issues)

The good thing is that this virus might run its course far sooner than people believe.

Remember something: the Spanish Flu (FAR worse than this virus in mortality, btw) took about 7-8 months to run its course worldwide. We're going into the fifth month with COVID19 (it was first reported about in December in China, and may have been in existence as early as November).   As social distancing and sanitary precautions seem to be taken seriously by a good majority of the public (Michigan seems to be getting an A in this, per evaluations), that will help as well.