Measuring Virus Progression
A test can see if a person has ever been infected, even if they had no symptoms

Article by Antonio Regalado│ March 18, 2020 │MIT Technology Review

A team at Icahn School of Medicine in New York City has just developed a test to identify coronavirus antibodies in a person’s blood. If the antibodies are present, that person has previously been infected with the virus – even if they never showed symptoms. This type of test can give a more accurate account of how many people have been infected and survived the virus, highlighting previous cases that have gone unnoticed. It is likely that this type of data would show that the mortality rate from COVID-19 is much lower than previously believed. Furthermore, it would identify individuals with immunity who could help on the front lines of healthcare, critical infrastructure, or economic rebirth.

Probabilistic Models
Estimating actual COVID 19 cases (novel corona virus infections) in an area based on deaths

Video│March 14, 2020│Khan Academy

Based on analysis of Tomas Pueyo, this video shows us how to estimate the actual number of COVID 19 cases as opposed to “positive” or confirmed cases based on testing. China extrapolated back in time to when confirmed COVID-infected patients reported first noticing symptoms. From there, they could estimate how many people were exposed to that patient and had likely become infected. They could see that the virus had already spread well beyond the population they had tested to date.

In the United States, where testing has lagged well behind the rest of the world, it is likely that the virus has already spread much more than we realize.

Coronavirus: Why You Must Act Now

Article by Tomas Pueyo │ March 10, 2020 │ Medium

Pueyo shows how “true” cases in China were much greater than identified cases. Chinese doctors identified when confirmed cases of the virus first started experiencing symptoms, indicating the “first” day of their disease as the first day of symptoms, not the day they sought treatment or received a positive test result. The difference between “true” cases and official cases was dramatically different. The effect of shutting down Wuhan and neighboring cities dramatically slowed the growth of true cases even though official cases appeared to still be rising for a couple more weeks. Pueyo’s analysis shows the impacts of early containment and the high cost of waiting. Even a day matters.

Coronavirus: The Hammer and the Dance
What the Next 18 Months Can Look Like, if Leaders Buy Us Time

Article by Tomas Pueyo │March 19, 2020 │ Medium 

This is Pueyo’s follow-up piece to the March 10th article above. A 30-minute read but worth your time. Every idea is illustrated with compelling graphics. 

Pueyo defends his assertion that virus suppression though early interventions are the best way to (dramatically) reduce mortality in the U.S. Furthermore, he challenges the model published by the Imperial College of London that suggests that a second wave of infection (of similar magnitude) is likely when interventions are suspended in the next few months. Pueyo argues that time can suppress the spread and allow the U.S. to become better prepared to fight the virus. The key will be to keep the transmission rate (R) below 1. Politicians and decision-makers can assess suppression measures according to their apparent costs and benefits to reducing transmission. 

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)

Video by Grant Sanderson │ March 6, 2020 │ 3blue1brown

You want to get into the weeds? Let’s look at more sophisticated models of COVID-19. ProbabilityManagement.org is coordinating with modeling experts to simulate the virus’s spread and eventual containment. Whet your appetite with this short video explaining the basics of exponential growth.

When is it enough?
White House Takes New Line After Dire Report on Death Toll

Article by Sheri Fink │March 16, 2020 │New York Times

Short and sweet, this article highlights the increasingly drastic mitigations recommended by experts to avoid 2.2 million U.S. deaths from the virus. On Sunday, groups of 50 or more were restricted. By Monday, groups of 10 or more were taboo. These recommendations largely referenced an Imperial College London report (see below).

This study’s projections were shared with the White House a week before (~ March 9th) the findings were released to the public March 16.

More bad news: until a vaccine is developed, it is likely that stringent social distancing will continue - probably 18 months or more.

Straight from the Epidemiologists: Imperial College London
Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand

Report by Neil Ferguson et al │March 16, 2020 │ Imperial College London

Used by the White House, this report was written by over 30 scientists on behalf of the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team. Ultimately, they conclude that suppression of the epidemic, or reducing the transmission of the virus, is the “only viable option” at this time. Their simulations indicate that removal of the stringent social distancing policies currently in effect may result in a second wave of infection. It will take a few weeks to measure the impacts and efficacy of the current mitigation effort.

We may see mitigations adjustment as more data becomes available; we will find out in the coming weeks if our efforts are working. However, we are currently using many strategies – school and university closures, event and large gathering limitations, even “shelter-in-place” and mandatory business shutdowns. How will we know which strategies are effective?

Flattening the Curve
Why outbreaks like coronavirus spread exponentially and how to “flatten the curve”

Article by Harry Stevens │March 14, 2020 │ Washington Post

If you are not already convinced to adhere to social distancing recommendations, check out this article’s use of animated graphics to simulate how infection spreads through a community. It compares the simulated effects of various levels of mitigation including free-for-all, attempted quarantine, moderate distancing, and extensive distancing.

No surprise: extensive distancing was dramatically more effective at “flattening the curve” than anything else. In fact, it slowed the spread enough so that the population could develop herd immunity.

You can share these animations with older kids. There is no math involved. If they want to know why we are “sheltering-in-place” and they cannot see their friends, this should be effective.

How canceled events and self-quarantines save lives, in one chart

Article by Eliza Barclay & Dylan Scott │March 10, 2020 │ Vox

“Flattening the curve” has become part of our daily lexicon thanks to this article and their concise graph. Why is it so important to slow the spread of COVID-19? Because our healthcare system has a limited capacity. There are only so many hospital beds, ventilators and (healthy) healthcare staff to support critically ill patients. If we overwhelm our healthcare system, mortality increases. “Flattening the curve” refers to slowing the spread of the virus so that fewer patients need critical hospital services at one time. Effectively it extends the duration of the virus’s hold on the population while saving millions of lives.

Why Not Increase Healthcare Capacity?
A War Footing: Surfing the Curve

Article by Joshua Gans │ March 14, 2020 │ The Startup

So…we are all saturated with the reality of “flattening the curve,” but why aren’t we talking about increasing healthcare capacity? Where is that conversation taking place? What do we really need in order to address the healthcare needs of this pandemic? If our healthcare system could increase capacity, then the mortality risk would decline sufficiently to allow more exposure, infection, recovery and – hopefully – herd immunity. Right?