Initial COVID-19 infection rate may be 80 times greater than originally reported

[sl8]

From https://news.psu.edu/story/623797/2020/06/22/research/initial-covid-19-infection-rate-may-be-80-times-greater-originally

Initial COVID-19 infection rate may be 80 times greater than originally reported

New research studies early stages of coronavirus outbreak to re-evaluate rate of initial spread in U.S.

Jordan Ford
June 22, 2020

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. - Many epidemiologists believe that the initial COVID-19 infection rate was undercounted due to testing issues, asymptomatic and alternatively symptomatic individuals, and a failure to identify early cases.

Now, a new study from Penn State estimates that the number of early COVID-19 cases in the U.S. may have been more than 80 times greater and doubled nearly twice as fast as originally believed.

In a paper published today (June 22) in the journal Science Translational Medicine, researchers estimated the detection rate of symptomatic COVID-19 cases using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s influenza-like illnesses (ILI) surveillance data over a three week period in March 2020.

“We analyzed each state’s ILI cases to estimate the number that could not be attributed to influenza and were in excess of seasonal baseline levels,” said Justin Silverman, assistant professor in Penn State’s College of Information Sciences and Technology and Department of Medicine. “When you subtract these out, you’re left with what we're calling excess ILI – cases that can't be explained by either influenza or the typical seasonal variation of respiratory pathogens.”

[...]

[Squinch]

1. There was a stock broker, very early on, who used the spread in the Princess cruise ship, to

make this same determination.

He gave a few benchmarks to check to see if his estimate was a reasonable one. Each bench mark was met.

This was at the time when everyone was watching IHME's estimate of 60,000 deaths, and this guy said it would be 120,000 by June and would continue to rise after that, and actually speed up.

It made me look into IHME which, it turned out, was based on absolutely ridiculous assumptions.

I posted this guy's article and people yelled at me and told me I was a ghoul who just wanted more deaths.

But if we go by that guy's estimates, the numbers will keep climbing for a long time to come.

[Boomer]

2. You're in good company

Climate scientists are used to that reaction. The most pessimistic predictions from climate scientists were ridiculed and dismissed. Fast forward 20 years and it turns out their "doomsday" scenarios were too optimistic and have been exceeded by reality.

[wackadoo wabbit]

4. I'd like to read that article

Would you be willing to post it again?

[Squinch]

5. Let me see if I can find it. I had it bookmarked for a while but erased the bookmark.

[wackadoo wabbit]

6. Thanks! I'd appreciate it (n/t)

[NNadir]

3. Here is a link to the original paper. It's open sourced.

Using influenza surveillance networks to estimate state-specific prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States (Justin D. Silverman1,2,*,†, Nathaniel Hupert3,4 and Alex D. Washburne5,*,† Science Translational Medicine 22 Jun 2020: eabc1126