6 ms·

(Removed)

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
logicallee 7y ago
This line: >Recent data clearly show the spread of Covid-19. On March 19, the share of Americans with temperatures indicating they had flu-like symptoms was about 4.9% when it typically would be expected to be about 4.0%. This was likely a result of the spread of Covid-19, according to Kinsa’s researchers. ... means that 1 week ago 2,964,898 Americans (0.9%) had Covid-19. Today there are 65,950 recorded cases in the United States: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
- mrfusion 7y ago
  Wow that’s pretty amazing. Really makes you wonder. And that would just be the people with symptoms right now. It wouldn’t include recovered, asymptomatic, nor people in the incubation period.
  - logicallee 7y ago
    Or the data is invalid. We'll find out soon enough, there are millions of test kits being made available soon.
    - o-__-o 7y ago
      I dont understand what millions of millions of test kits will do. I’m not going to get tested because I have no symptoms. If I had symptoms I would stay in lockdown until it got worse. I don’t see rationale for anyone going to get tested just because (and based on some of the photos from drive through testing, a very easy way to contract COVID yourself)
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        What if you're an asymptomatic carrier? The drive-through test sites are pretty well thought out. You're not likely to get the virus from the car in front of you.
        o-__-o 7y ago
        the human element will always be a failure mode. Every photo I have seen in my area has shown the testers either reaching into the car or having contact with the patient. So you may be asymptomatic or you may not, but then you possibly end up catching it at the test site but your test was negative so you continue about your routine and start spreading it for real. Not saying the above scenario is a reason not to get tested, I’m saying it’s an argument against getting tested for the sake of getting tested. I am safer and I am making the world safer by locking myself down until this passes. See China as example. I urge you to do the same..
        ceejayoz 7y ago
        The testers wear PPE - gloves, gowns - that gets changed between tests.
        o-__-o 7y ago
        I don’t believe that when we have a shortage. The guidelines even state don’t come to a testing site if you are not showing symptoms as you may catch the covid. I mean why are you not even considering my viewpoint? Look at China, is it testing that’s working there or the lockdown?
        cycomanic 7y ago
        Another example is to look at South Korea, which got a handle on things with lots of testing (and tracing) . I think this is actually a better example than china, considering that it is a democracy. Lots of testing is btw also the WHO recommendation.
        7y ago
- lukeschlather 7y ago
  The error bars on that 4% number are huge, I imagine. Like 4% - 2% or +15%. It's entirely possible you could get 4.9% with zero Covid-19 infections, just from normal variation. Not only possible but I'm sure there's a month in the past decade which had more.
  - onion2k 7y ago
    Why would the error range be that high? We'd know about huge spikes like that through hospital data, insurance claims, and the sales of drugs, and there aren't spikes like that. The number of people who are ill is relatively stable year-on-year.
    - lukeschlather 7y ago
      I'm not sure what you're basing your assertion on, but the estimated number of symptomatic flu illnesses ranges from 9.3 million to 45 million annually over the past decade, which as I said is roughly from between 3 and 15% of the US population. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html
- beamatronic 7y ago
  I am definitely buying one of these to support the company.
- robocat 7y ago
  Given that US COVID19 fatalities are 1,031 today. Assuming 0.5% death rate after 3 weeks, then 3 weeks ago there were 200000 infected. Assuming cases double every 5 days, then multiply that by 2^4, therefore: The US has 3.2 million infected.
  - lukevdp 7y ago
    How did you come to the .5% death rate after 3 weeks assumption?
    - sadfklsjlkjwt 7y ago
      It is not an assumption just arithmetic. Median time to first symptom is 6 days. Median time from first symptom to hospitalization is 5-7 days. Median time to death is about 7 days. Add them up and the median time from contact to death is about 3 weeks.
    - robocat 7y ago
      Pick whatever numbers you think are reasonable based on the data you have read - I think you will end up with a worrying result. I use this analysis because the number of deaths is hard to fudge, and the fatality rate after x days, and the infection rate are somewhat measurable (I believe there are statistically valid measurements of those numbers). Any analysis based upon detected cases is deeply flawed IMHO, because detected cases can be anything (look at different countries with wildly different values with no basis in reality).
      - logicallee 7y ago
        The number of deaths is hard to judge but as for >Assuming cases double every 5 days, then multiply that by 2^4, therefore: ... you're not allowed to assume that. It means on April 26th two thirds of all Americans (204.8 million）will be infected.
        PeterisP 7y ago
        You can assume that as long as you're far below saturation. Yes, the logistic curve comes to play at some point, slowing down the spread, stopping at some large proportion of the population - it's plausible that two thirds of Americans will be infected, but that will take longer. However, until the total number of infected is less than, say, 10% of total population, it certainly makes sense to just use the average doubling rate.
- lukevdp 7y ago
  There is probably some selection bias - it’s 4.9% of people using the thermometers, which would skew towards people that are thinking they have a fever.

(Removed)

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

This line: >Recent data clearly show the spread of Covid-19. On March 19, the share of Americans with temperatures indicating they had flu-like symptoms was about 4.9% when it typically would be expected to be about 4.0%. This was likely a result of the spread of Covid-19, according to Kinsa’s researchers. ... means that 1 week ago 2,964,898 Americans (0.9%) had Covid-19. Today there are 65,950 recorded cases in the United States: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

mrfusion 7y ago
Wow that’s pretty amazing. Really makes you wonder. And that would just be the people with symptoms right now. It wouldn’t include recovered, asymptomatic, nor people in the incubation period.
- logicallee 7y ago
  Or the data is invalid. We'll find out soon enough, there are millions of test kits being made available soon.
  - o-__-o 7y ago
    I dont understand what millions of millions of test kits will do. I’m not going to get tested because I have no symptoms. If I had symptoms I would stay in lockdown until it got worse. I don’t see rationale for anyone going to get tested just because (and based on some of the photos from drive through testing, a very easy way to contract COVID yourself)
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      What if you're an asymptomatic carrier? The drive-through test sites are pretty well thought out. You're not likely to get the virus from the car in front of you.
      - o-__-o 7y ago
        the human element will always be a failure mode. Every photo I have seen in my area has shown the testers either reaching into the car or having contact with the patient. So you may be asymptomatic or you may not, but then you possibly end up catching it at the test site but your test was negative so you continue about your routine and start spreading it for real. Not saying the above scenario is a reason not to get tested, I’m saying it’s an argument against getting tested for the sake of getting tested. I am safer and I am making the world safer by locking myself down until this passes. See China as example. I urge you to do the same..
        ceejayoz 7y ago
        The testers wear PPE - gloves, gowns - that gets changed between tests.
        o-__-o 7y ago
        I don’t believe that when we have a shortage. The guidelines even state don’t come to a testing site if you are not showing symptoms as you may catch the covid. I mean why are you not even considering my viewpoint? Look at China, is it testing that’s working there or the lockdown?
        cycomanic 7y ago
        Another example is to look at South Korea, which got a handle on things with lots of testing (and tracing) . I think this is actually a better example than china, considering that it is a democracy. Lots of testing is btw also the WHO recommendation.
      - 7y ago
lukeschlather 7y ago
The error bars on that 4% number are huge, I imagine. Like 4% - 2% or +15%. It's entirely possible you could get 4.9% with zero Covid-19 infections, just from normal variation. Not only possible but I'm sure there's a month in the past decade which had more.
- onion2k 7y ago
  Why would the error range be that high? We'd know about huge spikes like that through hospital data, insurance claims, and the sales of drugs, and there aren't spikes like that. The number of people who are ill is relatively stable year-on-year.
  - lukeschlather 7y ago
    I'm not sure what you're basing your assertion on, but the estimated number of symptomatic flu illnesses ranges from 9.3 million to 45 million annually over the past decade, which as I said is roughly from between 3 and 15% of the US population. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html
beamatronic 7y ago
I am definitely buying one of these to support the company.
robocat 7y ago
Given that US COVID19 fatalities are 1,031 today. Assuming 0.5% death rate after 3 weeks, then 3 weeks ago there were 200000 infected. Assuming cases double every 5 days, then multiply that by 2^4, therefore: The US has 3.2 million infected.
- lukevdp 7y ago
  How did you come to the .5% death rate after 3 weeks assumption?
  - sadfklsjlkjwt 7y ago
    It is not an assumption just arithmetic. Median time to first symptom is 6 days. Median time from first symptom to hospitalization is 5-7 days. Median time to death is about 7 days. Add them up and the median time from contact to death is about 3 weeks.
  - robocat 7y ago
    Pick whatever numbers you think are reasonable based on the data you have read - I think you will end up with a worrying result. I use this analysis because the number of deaths is hard to fudge, and the fatality rate after x days, and the infection rate are somewhat measurable (I believe there are statistically valid measurements of those numbers). Any analysis based upon detected cases is deeply flawed IMHO, because detected cases can be anything (look at different countries with wildly different values with no basis in reality).
    - logicallee 7y ago
      The number of deaths is hard to judge but as for >Assuming cases double every 5 days, then multiply that by 2^4, therefore: ... you're not allowed to assume that. It means on April 26th two thirds of all Americans (204.8 million）will be infected.
      - PeterisP 7y ago
        You can assume that as long as you're far below saturation. Yes, the logistic curve comes to play at some point, slowing down the spread, stopping at some large proportion of the population - it's plausible that two thirds of Americans will be infected, but that will take longer. However, until the total number of infected is less than, say, 10% of total population, it certainly makes sense to just use the average doubling rate.
lukevdp 7y ago
There is probably some selection bias - it’s 4.9% of people using the thermometers, which would skew towards people that are thinking they have a fever.