6 ms·

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 ab

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.
      - DanBC 7y ago
        The tests can tell you if you have covid-19. What they can't do, because they have such a high false negative rate, is tell you that you don't have it.
        7y ago
    - fragmede 7y ago
      By the time you feeling symptomatic, our current understanding[0] is that you've been shedding the virus all over the damn place for the past 2-14 days[1], spreading germs everywhere you've been. By the time you feel sick, it's too late. It's spring, are you really going to self-isolate for 14 days just because you sneezed once? What sounds better, going to get tested, so you can know if it's a sneeze and you can go about your life, or self-isolate because of you sneezed once. During spring. We failed at preparing for this. Let's not double down on failure. [0] https://www.uptodate.com/contents/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/abstract/32 https://www.uptodate.com/contents/coronavirus-disease-2019-c... [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/s...
      - MikeAmelung 7y ago
        Even if they go and get tested, and it comes back negative, that doesn't prevent them from being infected (possibly even at the testing site, as they mentioned) and then being an asymptomatic spreader.
      - o-__-o 7y ago
        Where am I spreading germs all over the place if I’m isolating myself in my home? Please read my text.. I agree Let’s not double down on failure. Look at what China did, it worked let’s follow them. Practice social distancing until July. There is no other option until our hospitals are under control...
        macintux 7y ago
        You’re missing the point. You might be spreading it everywhere right now and you wouldn’t have any symptoms for another two weeks.
        o-__-o 7y ago
        I have been locked in for two weeks, if I am spreading it everywhere then my house is a biological war zone. But that’s the point of self isolation, it’s to make sure you are not spreading it to others. Why would I go to get a test if I’m isolating? If I’m negative that doesn’t mean I will never get it. So why not just stay inside until hospitals are less overwhelmed (and THEN get tested on a regular basis to avoid contamination — you know what we should have been doing since day 1) Everyone should be doing this so you wouldn’t have to assume I am spreading it everywhere. Look at China, its working.
    - stOneskull 7y ago
      Sydney airport just started checking everybody arriving and it causes a big queue and people all breathing on each other.
    - cycomanic 7y ago
      It's not just about people with symptoms to get tested. It's about people who are known to have had contact with infected to get tested. Also importantly you want to regularly (at least once a week) test health workers and others who are in contact with vulnerable people. And finally, by doing lots of so called sentinel tests (random testing around the country) you can get a much better picture of how the virus spreads. In short it is not about your interest if you get tested it is about societies interest.
      - o-__-o 7y ago
        Hey I agree with you, but I am not a health worker. I think we need to remember what spawned this thread and not move the goalposts for talking points. Even if you are not showing symptoms stay inside so you are not spreading the disease. Getting tested won’t prevent the spread, staying isolated will. Look at China.
        landryraccoon 7y ago
        Why do you keep saying China instead of countries that have contained the virus like South Korea and Taiwan? Aggressive testing are key aspects of their strategy for containing the virus.
        o-__-o 7y ago
        Because South Korea govt was allowed to look at citizens credit card transaction data and cell phone location data to enforce quarantine, something US cannot do without creating very unpopular laws. US can do what China did, heavy handed lock people inside with supplies and test anyone who moves outside of the house. You test positive you either go into mandatory quarantine (hospital) or you get an ankle monitor. China method works better than SK method when you think about how we got the TSA and how it helps our daily lives
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.

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.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      The tests can tell you if you have covid-19. What they can't do, because they have such a high false negative rate, is tell you that you don't have it.
      - 7y ago
  - fragmede 7y ago
    By the time you feeling symptomatic, our current understanding[0] is that you've been shedding the virus all over the damn place for the past 2-14 days[1], spreading germs everywhere you've been. By the time you feel sick, it's too late. It's spring, are you really going to self-isolate for 14 days just because you sneezed once? What sounds better, going to get tested, so you can know if it's a sneeze and you can go about your life, or self-isolate because of you sneezed once. During spring. We failed at preparing for this. Let's not double down on failure. [0] https://www.uptodate.com/contents/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/abstract/32 https://www.uptodate.com/contents/coronavirus-disease-2019-c... [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/s...
    - MikeAmelung 7y ago
      Even if they go and get tested, and it comes back negative, that doesn't prevent them from being infected (possibly even at the testing site, as they mentioned) and then being an asymptomatic spreader.
    - o-__-o 7y ago
      Where am I spreading germs all over the place if I’m isolating myself in my home? Please read my text.. I agree Let’s not double down on failure. Look at what China did, it worked let’s follow them. Practice social distancing until July. There is no other option until our hospitals are under control...
      - macintux 7y ago
        You’re missing the point. You might be spreading it everywhere right now and you wouldn’t have any symptoms for another two weeks.
        o-__-o 7y ago
        I have been locked in for two weeks, if I am spreading it everywhere then my house is a biological war zone. But that’s the point of self isolation, it’s to make sure you are not spreading it to others. Why would I go to get a test if I’m isolating? If I’m negative that doesn’t mean I will never get it. So why not just stay inside until hospitals are less overwhelmed (and THEN get tested on a regular basis to avoid contamination — you know what we should have been doing since day 1) Everyone should be doing this so you wouldn’t have to assume I am spreading it everywhere. Look at China, its working.
  - stOneskull 7y ago
    Sydney airport just started checking everybody arriving and it causes a big queue and people all breathing on each other.
  - cycomanic 7y ago
    It's not just about people with symptoms to get tested. It's about people who are known to have had contact with infected to get tested. Also importantly you want to regularly (at least once a week) test health workers and others who are in contact with vulnerable people. And finally, by doing lots of so called sentinel tests (random testing around the country) you can get a much better picture of how the virus spreads. In short it is not about your interest if you get tested it is about societies interest.
    - o-__-o 7y ago
      Hey I agree with you, but I am not a health worker. I think we need to remember what spawned this thread and not move the goalposts for talking points. Even if you are not showing symptoms stay inside so you are not spreading the disease. Getting tested won’t prevent the spread, staying isolated will. Look at China.
      - landryraccoon 7y ago
        Why do you keep saying China instead of countries that have contained the virus like South Korea and Taiwan? Aggressive testing are key aspects of their strategy for containing the virus.
        o-__-o 7y ago
        Because South Korea govt was allowed to look at citizens credit card transaction data and cell phone location data to enforce quarantine, something US cannot do without creating very unpopular laws. US can do what China did, heavy handed lock people inside with supplies and test anyone who moves outside of the house. You test positive you either go into mandatory quarantine (hospital) or you get an ankle monitor. China method works better than SK method when you think about how we got the TSA and how it helps our daily lives

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.