Coronavirus, by the Numbers, As I See It. Late November

Nov 30.

Until mid November, the number of new cases had been increasing at an accelerated rate.  At the end of September, the new cases per day was 40,000 increasing by around 2% per day.  By the end of October it peaked at 101,000 while growing an average of 4% per day.  By November 10th, the number of daily new cases hit a growth rate of 6% per day.  Since then the rate of increase has been declining.   November 20 had a peak of just over 200,000 new cases for the day.  However, since then there  seems to be a steady decline in new cases. The last week averaging 157,000 per day.

This brings the estimated number of active cases to 3.7 million.

I was asked if this increase in cases just because we are testing more, and as such finding more.  Which is a valid point. 

8 weeks ago, the number of tests was about 1,100,000 per day which resulted in 51,400 new cases.

On Nov 15, there were 1,475,000 tests, which resulted in 140,000 new cases.

8 weeks ago, the number of positive tests was around 6%.  On Nov 15th it was 9.5%.

So the answer is yes, more tests, and a higher percentage of positive results.  The two factors have a multiplicative effect, not a linear effect.  35% more tests, 274% more cases.

However, there is another point to be considered.  How long after someone catches C-19 will they be detectable?  How many of the new cases were asymptomatic or ill months ago, but tested for other reasons.  I don’t have an answer for that.  The numbers range from days to weeks.  We do know a lot more people have had it with no ill effects.  How many of the new cases simply “hang fires”, just waiting for a test to declare?  The answer is we don’t know, but it is something to consider.  As a mind experiment, let’s say 100 million were asymptomatic and still testing positive.  Then any random sampling will generate 30% positive results. We can try to adjust this to fit the current increase to 9.5% rate, but if we stretch out the out the positive time span to a month, this test positive group but past illness group would be only 15 million in size.  I cannot say how likely this would be at this time. 

But the normal test for C-19 is for the virus, not the antibodies.  As the antibodies don't develop until 3 weeks past infection, and would not be very useful to dealing with the symptoms now.  So I don't think a reasonable percentage of the new cases are asymptomatic "hang fires".

So let’s look at another measure, hospital admissions.  Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19-Associated Hospitalizations peaked first in mid April at 10 per 100k.  Then it dropped to 4 per 100k in mid June.  A second peak occurred in July to 8 per 100k.  Then dropped slowly until the end of September to under 4 before starting the current rise of 9.8 the second week of November.  For our age group the numbers are higher.  For ages 50-64, just add 5 to the above, and for 65+ we hit 30 per 100k mid November.

If these numbers do not seem accurate, it is because of the 56 states and territories, only 36 reports the hospitalized data, so any national accumulation can only show trends and vectors, not true numbers.

On Nov 28, the number of hospitalizations we know about due to C-19 was at 91,000, up 203% from October 28, at 44,200, which was up 50% from Sept 28 at 29,400.  The previous peak was at 59,000 on July 24, and that number was dropped by 1-2.5% per day over the summer.

Today’s count of ICU patients is 18,000+, and of them, 6,100 are on a ventilator.  The peak last April was 15,000 ICU and 6,000 on a ventilator.

Source: https://covidtracking.com/data/national/hospitalization

So we are currently surging upward.  But the news is not all bad.

In the spring, the infection was concentrated in the NE, now it is distributed nationwide. Less overall density of the virus, even though higher numbers. 

The overall mortality rate, if you catch C-19 today, is under 1%.  Long term effects about triple that.  This is down from 25% in the early stages.  The flu in 2019 claimed 34,200 lives over 35,500,000 cases for .09%, and so is 100 times less lethal than C-19.  This is down from 500 times earlier this year.

Temporary hospital bedding has been created, for example in a New York convention center, for non C-19 patients, allowing for some conversions to ICU Bedding in the hospitals themselves.

Equipment has been produced.

The only shortage is man hours available.  That is not easily produced.  A basic nurse takes at least 2 years of training.

3 companies have tested excellent efficacy with a vaccine over a large trial population.  2 tested over 90%, while one, Astrazenaca, had two trial groups, one over 90%, and one at 62%.   However 2 of the 3 vaccines require storage at extreme cold.  Pfizers needs to be kept at -94(F) degrees, while Astrazenaca’s is kept around 30(F) degrees.  Modera’s vaccine was announced to be stable at around -13(F). 

I have heard the Federal Government has created a number of mobile freezer units, both trucks and jets, in anticipation of the extreme cold to distribute the vaccine when available.  Well done.

An interesting study by Bocconi University in Milan has calculated that the economic closures in the spring have cost 169 billion, and saved 29,000 lives.  Or 6 million per life.  I don’t know how things are calculated so I cannot speak to the accuracy of the study.  The 29,000 lives seems very low.  We were vectoring on 8 million cases and 2 million dead at one point by mid spring.  Of course vectors are straight lines, when something like this needs to curve for a variety of reasons, like the must susceptible dying, and rapid behavior changes, or mask wearing and deliberate avoidance's of congested areas.

And how was the $169 billion calculated?  Are they counting the short term cost of economic activity?  Or the long term cost of a business dying, which removes its economic activity from the economy for 20+ years?  Then you have to factor in the dead and crippled victims.  The economic cost of their removal from economy.  So I would take this study with a healthy grain of salt. 

The reason for my opinion was based on the 911 atrocity.  I did a calculation on the economic hit that the strike on the two towers cost the economy.  The building replacement cost was fairly straight forward, a couple of billion, but for the people cost, I took the average income generated per year, for 20 years, and multiplied that by 2, because I figured if you were working in the world trade center, you were making more than the national average.  Then factored the multiplicative effect, as each dollar generated cycles many times in the economy, I came up with 200 billion.  Several years later the government, which spent millions on the calculation, came in on 170 billion.  I was off by 15%, but then I only spent 30 minutes doing the research. 

And that was for just 3,000 people.  So I find the economic cost of only 169 billion inaccurate with regard to the lives lost so far to C-19.  True, most of the victims are in retirement age (209,000), and contribute less to the economy in general, but many are not, about 55,000 as of this morning.  Certainly, much more value to the economy than 3,000 killed in 911.   

In the end, we live or die on the economy.  With most of us living in urban areas, we do not have the capacity to farm sufficient food.  We get that from the economy.  Shutting down parts of the economy reduces the ability of people to pay for the things they need, and without that, the people making those things have less ability to provide.  It is a degenerative cycle.  We have to learn to live with this until the vaccine is rolled out.  And try to keep the casualties, both people and businesses, to a minimum.

https://news.yahoo.com/169-bn-29-000-lives-013740202.html