There’s a lot of talk these days about the coronavirus “peak”:
- “As Coronavirus Cases Near 2 Million, Countries Try to Look Beyond Peak” (New York Times, 4/14/20)
- “US Nearing Coronavirus Peak as Deaths Climb Over 22,000” (US News, 4/13/20)
- “California Is Days Away From Its Projected Coronavirus Peak” (USA Today, 4/12/20)
- “Coronavirus State-by-State Projections: When Will Each State Peak?” (NPR, 4/7/20)
The idea of a “peak” gives the comforting impression that there is a corner to be turned, around which life will get back to some kind of normal. “The worst is over,” as New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo was quoted in the New York Times (4/13/20). Or as President Donald Trump told Fox News (4/7/20; New York Post, 4/8/20), “I think New York is getting ready if not already, but getting ready to peak, and once it peaks, it will start coming down and it’s going to come down fast.”
Predictions of a peak are based on computer modeling, particularly from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). “The models do show that we are very close to the peak,” FDA commissioner Stephen Hahn told ABC‘s This Week (4/12/20). IHME’s model produces graphs that tend to suggest a rapid rise and fall in Covid-19 deaths—what you might describe as a peak:
IHME’s projection for Covid-19 deaths in the United States.
I certainly hope to see the toll of the coronavirus trailing away like that. But I think this might be another case (FAIR.org, 3/17/20) where media are misleading by paying more attention to computer simulations than to real-world examples. (The following charts come from 91-DIVOC, an invaluable data visualization project.)
Take Italy, the Western country with the earliest major Covid-19 outbreak. When you look at new cases per day, they’ve been arriving at a fairly consistent rate of about 3,000–6,000 a day for a month now:
New Covid-19 cases per day (Italy highlighted)
This, in turn, has led to a quite steady level of active cases of infection:
Active cases of Covid-19 (Italy highlighted)
Which explains why the number of deaths per day in Italy is falling very gradually, if at all:
Covid-19 deaths per day (Italy highlighted)
You see similar plateaus in other Western countries that had early major outbreaks, like Spain and France. And the same pattern can be seen in California, the first—and one of the best-controlled—outbreaks among US states:
New Covid-19 cases per day (California highlighted)
It’s possible that these longstanding, seemingly self-sustaining outbreaks will soon take a turn for the better, and new cases and deaths will indeed fall off sharply. But it’s also possible that the response to the coronavirus’ pronounced lethality and asymptomatic infectiousness—a drastic physical separation necessary to prevent a quickly mounting death toll—means that Covid-19 will not be a normal disease with a steep arrival curve and an equally sudden departure.
In other words, there may be no peak.
People should indeed be thinking about how elements of normal life can be resumed most safely if the coronavirus ebbs away. But we also need to think about what we’ll do if physical separation is something that needs to be sustained not for weeks, but for months—possibly even until a vaccine is developed, which optimistic estimates put at least a year away. How does one keep a population fed and sheltered while most of their economy is unable to function? And how does one maintain that economy in a state that can eventually be revived? These are questions that we may have no choice but to answer.
UPDATE: See the Annals of Internal Medicine (4/14/20) and a Twitter thread (4/15/20) by University of Washington biology professor Carl T. Bergstrom for a more substantive critique of the IHME model.
Featured image: Projection of Florida’s coronavirus deaths from IHME (CBS12.com, 4/14/20).
It is a “Brave New World,” and no one knows the future——-Perhaps now is the time for all philosophies and religions to consider that this brave new world can only be navigated by sharing and MAYBE—- to begin immediately to treat ALL people the way we would want to be treated.
This is what you would hope. Unfortunately, conservatives are going to go in the same direction they always do (which is to say the opposite direction from what we would hope to see): in their mind, now is the time to hoard and fortify, to put the well-being of you and yours over and above anyone and even EVERYone else, if need be. Time to stock up on toilet paper and hand sanitizer, and then on guns to defend your TP and soap stockpile from the angry mobs of immigrants and working poor who (you imagine) are coming to try to take it from you.
I love to criticize conservatives as much as any liberal, but let’s be smart and fair about it.
In the context of coronavirus, it’s not fair to say that conservatives, as a general rule, put their well-being above the well-being of others. It’s not fair to say that conservatives are the ones that hoard while liberals don’t.
It’s perfectly fair to say that certain prominent conservatives downplayed the danger of coronavirus, and worse, claimed it was some kind of Democrat hoax. It’s fair to say that certain prominent conservatives have blood on their hands; indeed, Trump’s been very busy recently trying to wash that blood off his hands.
Regarding guns, well, most gun nuts are conservatives, but keep in mind that most conservatives are not gun nuts.
It’s sad to see how people in the U.S. generalize the intentions of ‘conservatives’. This ‘conservative’ gives over 10% (~$1K) of his gross income – a month- to 1) sponsor and international child 2) help a distant relative through a drug re-hab program and 3) help a church provide community assistance, plus occasionally help a Nepali friend on a work permit and weekly assist someone on full disability get groceries. Except for intangible benefits from the church, I wouldn’t say I wake up every morning thinking “what’s in it for me’. It’s pathetic how society has abdicated their *personal* responsibility to care for their neighbors to the welfare state. Mr. Mason probably has stats on the giving habits (as measured against gross income) of conservatives and liberals alike. And since when does being pro-life equate with being selfish? Selfish is conceiving a human life, equating the embryo to an organism, like’s he/she is a virus, that should be eradicated because it will inconvenience you for life, then at some point pivoting your logic that *now* it is human life, and you’d be criminally charged if it was killed. Pro-life means speaking up for those that have no voice -yet – if they’re allowed to live, and be adopted if necessary. And yes, I have hunting rifles, eat what I hunt, and that’s all.
The problem, as I see it, is that one can only be certain a peak has been reached by looking back from a great distance.
Richard
This article brings up some fair points (no pun intended). That being said, even the most realistic, fact-based politicians must necessarily project some degree of optimism about “flattening curves,” “reaching peaks,” or “turning corners.” If nothing else, it tells people the signs that we’re looking for.
Public statements tend to play semantic games. If need be, a plateau can be a peak. If it turns out to be an extended plateau, I expect optimists will accentuate the positive of the inevitable sharp decline. There’s already talk of a requirement for everyone to wear masks in public. An extended plateau would probably ensure such a policy.
I know people who have been given special passes and badges by the companies they work for, to display to any police officer who stops them for the “crime” of leaving their homes. One of them works as an IT tech, one is a construction worker, one works at a grocery store. I’m confused by this, because as far as I know it isn’t a crime to leave one’s home. I leave my house to get groceries and I take walks for exercise.
“as far as I know it isn’t a crime to leave one’s home” This is the reason that COVID-19 will continue to spread. Entitled a-holes with a “Nobody tells me what to do” mentality.
Wow, Heywood (you’ve got a great name, by the way).
So you think only “entitled a-holes” get groceries and take walks for exercise?
I suppose I could have my groceries delivered, but is that any safer for society than doing my own grocery shopping? Please be more specific.
Groceries and exercise are among the “essential” activities that are exceptions to the shelter-in-place/self-quarantine/etc orders.
So naturally any reasonable observer assumed you were talking about activities besides those, because OBVIOUSLY the things that are explicitly allowed, are allowed.
Enai, my comment was very specific about the activities I was talking about, so it’s quite “unnatural” for “reasonable observers” to assume more than that.
If Heywood wants to talk about stupid people flaunting restrictions, he needs to be more specific. And that’s what I asked him to do.
Exactly. Don’t be selfish. Observe the recommended safety measures, including social distancing and sheltering in place.
This is such an extreme reaction, one has to wonder if Heywood is a troll. We’ve seen many efforts to create conflict in this way by Russian and other trolls.
Actually, if we are in the midst of a quarantine or shelter order, then yes, leaving your house for non-essential activities is a crime.
Not only a crime, but selfish, irresponsible, and immoral. Your ability to do what you want when you want to do it is not more important than other people’s lives or health. So don’t be a dick, and observe the proper safety precautions, including staying at home.
Enai wrote: “Actually, if we are in the midst of a quarantine or shelter order, then yes, leaving your house for non-essential activities is a crime.”
Enai, if you’re going to respond to my comment, please don’t take my words out of context or distort my meaning. It is NOT a crime to leave one’s house, period, end of subject. It’s what one does outside of one’s home that might be a crime.
Actually, leaving one’s home is not the problem. In the context of coronavirus, it is quite possible to commit a crime in one’s own home. For example, if I had 50 people in my neighborhood come to my house for Easter dinner, that would be a crime. That would be “selfish, irresponsible, and immoral.”
Observe proper safety precautions at home and outside of home.
There won’t a be vaccine in a year, in 18 months, in two years, and in all likely hood, probably ever. There has never been a vaccine for any corona virus even though research has been going on for over 70 years. If someone defies the million to one odds against developing a vaccine, the nature of the virus only affords very temporary immunity.
Everyone needs to process the reality of this situation.
The graphs should be normalized by population, as per standard epidemiological practices.
Richard, please explain why normalizing the graphs by population makes a difference for a plateau in a given area (such as a city, state or country).
To make your case against a peak, you have inappropriately used a log chart rather than a linear chart. Log charts are indispensable in the rapid growth phase. In this case, however, Italy’s new daily cases have fallen from 6,000 17 days ago to 3,400 today. That’s not a plateau. It’s not a steep decline, either. Here’s my source:
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus
Lee makes an excellent point. I didn’t notice it was a log chart.
Happily, you are wrong. Case counts depend entirely on testing rates, which are rising. Deaths are a better measure and in Italy they are now less than half their peak value. The risk is not a plateau, its another spike if we reintegrate society too soon.
Tom makes a good point about testing rates and the risk of another spike. Of course death rates are dependent on various factors as well.
Thanks to Lee and Tom, I realize I didn’t apply a sufficient amount of critical thinking to this article. Perhaps the main fact we can salvage from the data is that the decline in deaths is not as steep as the previous rise in deaths.
In that case, Jim’s statement, “Covid-19 will not be a normal disease with a steep arrival curve and an equally sudden departure,” might hold, more or less. However, I’m not an epidemiologist, so I have no idea what the graphs typically look like for “a normal disease.” For all I know, it may not be unusual for arrival curves to be steeper than departure curves.
Everyone is so sure a vaccine will come along. No one can say for sure it will work.
But if 80% of cases are asymtomatic the better odds are that natural immunity might save the day, after a time.
I live in Beijng and have lived here for 20 years. I was here for SARs and this one too, of course. China’s had this the longest and they’re still being very careful here so I don’t look for any changes to some behavior patterns for some time to come. Our condo complex has restricted access and we have to have temp checks when we come in as well as showing a complex issued ID which shows we are residents. Most people still wear masks. I actually don’t wear one often unless I enter a store which is seldom, but I wear one on the grounds of our condo complex grounds as if I don’t, people get excited about foreigner who is obviously going to pass them the virus. Anyway, as you wondered, I think this is going to be with us for quite some time.
Lee Price is absolutely correct. I wish I could post an image of a chart here, but if you have Excel, I encourage you to go to the ECDC website and download the raw “COVID-19 cases worldwide as of [today’s date]” dataset (https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/download-todays-data-geographic-distribution-covid-19-cases-worldwide), then:
-Filter on Italy
-Copy and paste the ‘dateRep’ and ‘cases’ columns to a new sheet
-Sort the dateRep column in ascending order, ensuring that the cases values sort with their corresponding date
-Create a line chart with the data
-Look at the chart
-Decide whether FAIR and Jim Naureckas presented an accurate article, or a dishonest and/or breathtakingly ignorant article
Right-wing media is saying ignore the science because it’s fake news. FAIR/Jim Naureckas are saying ignore the science because computers did the modeling and maybe this is different. How about if we don’t ignore the science and stop cherry-picking data visualizations that make for extraordinary, if easily verifiably inaccurate, stories?
Mr. Naureckas, you wrote, “Take Italy, the Western country with the earliest major Covid-19 outbreak. When you look at new cases per day, they’ve been arriving at a fairly consistent rate of about 3,000–6,000 a day for a month now:”
Again, I wish I could post a chart, but here is what “consistent rate of about 3,000–6,000 a day for a month now” actually looks like for Italy (as of the publication date):
3/14: 2547
3/21: 5986
3/28: 5969
4/4: 4585
4/14: 3153
Again, looking at each day in a chart provides a much better picture, but is it true that the rate has been between about 3,000 and 6,000 cases a day? Yes it is. Is it true that the rate has been consistent, indicating a plateau? Absolutely not!
Saying that something is between a value and twice that value, and suggesting that such a range indicates consistency is questionable in itself. But in this case, the source data clearly show that the new cases start at one value, PEAK at ~200% of the starting value, then end at a value much nearer the starting value than the peak, all within your defined timeline. This does not describe a plateau.
You also wrote, “I think this might be another case… where media are misleading by paying more attention to computer simulations than to real-world examples.”
Are you suggesting that the reported Italian new case data are not real-world examples–that they are somehow fake news or computer simulations?(!)
If not, since FAIR’s stated mission is fairness and *accuracy* in reporting, how do you justify claiming that daily new-case figures that demonstrate an arc (peak) within your timeline, are really evidence of a plateau?
And how is it *fair* to accuse the media of “misleading” by focusing on computer simulations rather than real-world examples when the real-world data are clearly more supportive of the computer modeling than your plateau theory?
Who is misleading whom, Mr. Naureckas?
How can you say that we will reach the peak point and after that the statistics will definitely decrease. In my opinion, these speculations cannot be relied on and believed at all, and only time and the passage of time will show everything.
That’s a rather clumsy straw man. I don’t believe anyone (author or commenters) has made pronouncements about what will definitely happen in the future. I did, however, describe what reported case data indicate has already happened over the reporting timeline, and how the raw data differ from the author’s interpretation of it; which is definitely not to say that there can’t be new peaks over a longer timeline. I also think you misunderstand, the meaning of the word, speculation (or more likely, simply use it as an inflammatory device). I’m sorry that your opinion prevents you from believing in science, or in this case, basic arithmetic.
See, “Jayden” that last sentence is a less clumsy straw man: I don’t actually think you don’t believe in science or arithmetic, I just think that your position, much like your straw man, is lazy and troll-ish. Also, nice troll move using a screen name so close to my real name. You must be extremely brave.
I hope the Sooner get ride of this virus.
I hope this virus will be eradicated as soon as possible