Post #1329: COVID-19 trend to 11/23/2021, slow winter wave

Data source for this and other graphs of new case counts:  Calculated from The New York Times. (2021). Coronavirus (Covid-19) Data in the United States. Retrieved 11/24/2021, from https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data.”  The NY Times U.S. tracking page may be found at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html.

Case counts are rising slowly, and are rising in ever region except the Pacific states.

Tomorrow we begin our holiday season.  I’ve set up the second graph below so that I can track case counts relative to what happened during last year’s holidays.  Thanksgiving is one day earlier this year.

Up to now, I’ve been characterizing this year’s winter wave as “late”, compared to last year, likely owing to warm October weather in much of the country.  Best guess, based on mean October temperatures for the U.S., and the typical Fall month-to-month rate of temperature decrease, maybe two or three weeks late.

That may be true, but after this past week of slow growth, that’s starting to wear a little thin / stretch a little far / pick your own metaphor, as a complete description of what’s happening.

If the 2021 winter wave were a duplicate of 2020, just a couple of weeks later, we’d see the orange line above eventually paralleling the blue line.  Instead, ,that gap between last year’s line and this year’s line continues to grow.

Restated, either this year’s winter wave is much later than last year’s, or we have a generally lower rate of growth in cases this year, compared to last year.

We also have a more-or-less a complete lack of a winter wave in three states that were leaders of the winter wave in the Mountain region last year (ID, MT, WY).

Now that I look at it, the three states that led the Midwest region in last year’s winter wave have also mostly failed to get with the program this year.  Shown below.  It’s not as clear-cut as the leaders of the Mountain states — there is a slight upward trend in two of the three — but it is nevertheless a strong contrast to last year’s experience.

I’m not sure what to make of all that, yet, but given that it’s the holidays, I’ll try to end on an upbeat note.

Maybe we are due for a repeat of last year’s wave.  The same as much of Europe is suffering through right now. Just a bit later.

On the other hand, owing to our exceptionally high rate of infection in the past, and to a middle-of-the-road vaccination rate, maybe immunity in the population is now high enough to allow is to avoid another awful winter wave.

(Awful?  People forget.  For nearly the entire month of January 2021, we had an average of more than 3000 COVID-19 deaths per day.  As a result, for that period, the total U.S. death rate increased by more than one-third above the norm.)

Near as I can tell, we ought to be pretty close to “herd immunity”, for something as infectious as the Delta variant of COVID-19.  That’s defined as having enough immunity in the population (via infection or vaccination) to be able to suppress the spread of a virus with basic reproduction rate (R-nought) of 5.0.  (Where the average infected person would go on to infect five others, absent any interventions or immunity).  The table below shows 77%, where we’d need a value of 80% or more to suppress spread of a such a virus with no other measures taken (e.g., without wearing masks).

I have to make a lot of assumptions in that calculation, as it depends on a lot of things that cannot be observed.  For example, it doesn’t account well for the rate at which immunity fades over time.  It doesn’t account for the potential for re-infections (Post #1326).  And so on.

But I think this is enough to show that we’re in the ballpark.  Right now, infectiousness of Delta is rising owing to changing weather conditions.  So it would not be a surprise to have some winter wave.  But we ought to be close enough to herd immunity now that maybe we won’t have much of a winter wave.

Let me put it this way.  Let’s assume Spring is going to occur at roughly the same time this year as it did last year.  At the minimum, the heart of this year’s winter wave will be shorter than last year, reducing the total he total time we’ll spend at those very high winter infection rates.  And maybe we have enough immunity that the peak of this year’s winter wave will be lower as well.  Further reducing overall impact.

No matter how I slice it, it seems like we’re in for a “smaller” winter wave this year.  Either shorter in duration, or shorter in height, or, ideally, both.

Maybe we can take some inspiration from our northern neighbor.  For sure, if cold weather is the issue, they’ve got that covered.  And, while they have a much higher overall vaccination rate, but we beat them in terms of cumulative infections per capita.  So we’re not that different in terms of total population immunity.

And yet, compared to last year, so far, there’s not much of a winter wave happening there. Whatever it is that’s suppressing the start of the U.S. winter wave, it apparently is not limited to the U.S.

 

 

 

Post #1328: COVID-19 trend to 11/22/2021

 

We’ve reached the part of the year where we’re only going to get glimpses of the actual U.S. trend in new COVID-19 cases.  Between now and the second week of January, we will observe a mix of:

  • the true long-term trend of new case counts,
  • the lack of data reporting on weekends,
  • the even greater lack of data reporting on holidays,
  • reduction in test-seeking (and case counts) over holidays,
  • any actual impact of the holidays on new COVID-19 infections.

Today is a case in point.  When I left this last week (Post #1326), there seemed to be a sharp uptick in cases.  Now I can see that was temporary.

Data source for this and other graphs of new case counts:  Calculated from The New York Times. (2021). Coronavirus (Covid-19) Data in the United States. Retrieved 11/23/2021, from https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data.”  The NY Times U.S. tracking page may be found at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html.

The trend is still up, but at a much slower rate than appeared to be the case last week.

And that’s a good way to illustrate the potential data-reporting impacts of the holidays.  Holidays?  There were no holidays last week.  How could holidays have possibly affected this apparent slowdown in new case growth?

In part, the trend reflects a true slowdown in case growth, in states such as Michigan and many of the New England states.  But it also appears slower because I goofed:  I forgot about Veterans’ Day (11/11).   The non-reporting of cases for the Veterans’ day holiday, combined with the use of a seven-day moving average, provides a boost to the apparent growth rate on 11/18.  That’s the date on which the under-reported Veterans’ Day case count finally moves outside of the seven-day window, leaving only the additional cases that were reported on the day following Veteran’s Day remaining within the seven-day window.

If you failed to follow that last bit in every detail, that’s fine.  Suffice it to say that holidays scramble the numbers.  We’re entering the holiday season.  And so the numbers are going to be scrambled for the next few weeks.

We’re in the same situation as last year, absent the hindsight that allowed us to fill in the underlying trend after-the-fact.  Below is the graph of the U.S. new case rate, from last year’s holiday season.  Imagine trying to guess what the actual trend would be, at each step of the way.  That’s where we are for the coming holidays.  The two large “dips” in the line below — known only after the fact — are the large data reporting artifacts of Thanksgiving and Christmas/New Year’s.


The 2021 winter wave and popular press reporting.

First, I want to continue to highlight the behavior of ID, MT, WY.  These were leaders in the 2020 U.S. COVID-19 winter wave.  But this year, they appear to have peaked at the end of the summer Delta wave.  As yet, there’s no indication that they’ll have a winter wave this year.  I don’t know whether that’s a harbinger for the rest of the country, or whether they’re just a little late getting started.  Or whether it’s just something unique to those states, this year.

The South seems to be split along temperature lines.  States bordering on the Mid-Atlantic region and Midwest are showing slight upticks.  But south of Virginia on the Atlantic Coast, right on through the Gulf Coast, there’s no apparent increase in cases.  (This isn’t very different from last year, where those regions had late peaks of the winter wave.)

Finally, here’s the U.S., comparing the first and second pandemic years.  Aside from being a couple of weeks late, and missing part of the Mountain states, we still seem to be on track for a winter wave.

If you’ve stuck with this post, this far, you’ll probably understand why this graph above — the one that compares this year to the same time last year — is the only one worth looking at for the next six weeks or so.  The hope is that this year’s holiday “artifacts” are about the same as last year’s.  Which means that the only hope of making sense of this year is to compare it to the same period last year.

I’m guessing that most popular press reporting isn’t going to bother to do that.  But if you don’t see the comparison to last year, you really can’t make head-or-tail out of what the most recent trend has been.

For example, we should now expect to see a substantial decline in the new case counts, owing to the Thanksgiving holiday.  (Which never generated a “surge” in cases, despite what you may have read to the contrary (Post #1324, Winter Wave Buzzword Bingo)).

By itself, that decline is meaningless.  Only in the context of last year can we start making some judgments about where the trend is actually heading.  Look for the popular press reporting that does that, and you’ll have put your finger on the people who understand how to make sense of the numbers.  Ignore the rest.

Post #1326: COVID-19 winter wave gathers speed, and Missouri data on reinfections

Reinfections

Nobody cares about methodology.  That’s why I no longer bother to mention it when states make large one-day corrections to their data.  I undo whatever the state did, then get on with plotting the data as consistently as possible over time.

But today’s data boo-boo is  worth mentioning.  Missouri added about 6500 cases of re-infection to their counts.  There’s a formal definition of re-infection from the CDC, which says that a COVID-19 re-infection occurs when a person tests positive (via PCR or antigen test) at least 90 days after a previous positive test.  Restated, a positive COVID-19 test, more than 90 days after a prior positive test, counts as a re-infection.

This is noteworthy because it’s the first state I’ve seen that tracks the re-infection rate.  (It’s not as if I’ve looked for it.)  Without getting caught up in the exact details, Missouri is currently showing that about 1.5 percent of all COVID-19 infections in that state are re-infections.  (That is, re-infections divided by the sum of confirmed and probable cases = ~0.015.)

Source:  Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services.

There are a few caveats.

First, I wonder about the potential false-positive rate in that re-infection estimate, but I have no hard data on that.  Fragments of COVID-19 viral RNA and surface proteins can linger after a person has recovered and is no longer infectious.  (Standard PCR tests do not distinguish these “dead” viral fragments from virus that is still capable of reproducing.)  That’s why you are specifically directed NOT to get re-tested within 90 days of a confirmed infection, and why all institutions end quarantine based on a specified number of symptom-free days, and not based on a re-test (e.g., purely at random, here are directions from U.KY., Yale).

Second, I’m not sure you can accurately assess your odds of re-infection, based on the data above.  (That is, the odds of getting COVID-19 again, once you’ve already had it).  Among other things, I think you’d need to know what fraction of the entire population has already had one infection.

I bring up that second point because there’s a clear corollary:  Anything you might have read about low re-infection rates, early in the pandemic, is probably now out-of-date.  I mean, if few people had been infected at that point, then pretty much by definition you were going to see very few re-infections.  But now, it’s not so clear.  At any rate, that 1.5% above seems vastly higher than the fractional percents that appeared in the earlier research literature.

Without over-thinking it, I am a little surprised that the re-infection rate is that high.

But that’s only due to my ignorance.  As it turns out, re-infection by respiratory viruses is common.  We know that immunity fades over time.  I’ve certainly had flu more than once in my life.  But there are multiple strains of flu, so I’m not sure I’ve been “re-infected” with the same strain.  By contrast, researchers have looked for same-strain reinfections, and have found that a non-negligible fraction of people  get re-infected with more-or-less the exact same strain of flu on different occasions.  Apparently, it’s not even all that rare.

That said, the CDC continues to classify COVID-19 reinfection as “rare”.  But it’s not clear whether that’s merely because your risk of re-exposure is low (there just aren’t that many cases per 100,000 per day).  Or whether your likelihood of re-infection conditional upon re-exposure, is low (whether you really can’t catch it again, even if re-exposed).

So we can file this one away with all the other aspects of COVID-19 that I somehow thought must have been unique to this disease.  But that were in fact common across many viral respiratory diseases.  Things such as asymptomatic infections, and long-distance aerosol spread of disease, and so on.  And now, as it turns out, for your entire life, you were at risk of getting re-infected with more-or-less the exact same strain of flu virus.  Who knew?


Winter wave picks up speed.

Data source for this and other graphs of new case counts:  Calculated from The New York Times. (2021). Coronavirus (Covid-19) Data in the United States. Retrieved 11/18/2021, from https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data.”  The NY Times U.S. tracking page may be found at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html.

Do I need to belabor this?  The only news is that the rate of increase seems to be accelerating.

The U.S. new case rate is up 29% over the past seven days. 

Three regions (Midwest, Mountain, Northeast) are already well over their peaks from the summer Delta wave.

In the case of the Northeast, there are now three states that seem to be “going vertical” in terms of new case growth.

The only clear ray of light is what I discussed yesterday, the trio of ID, MT, WY in the mountain states.  Historically, they ought to be seeing increasing new case rates.  But instead, they seem to have peaked a few weeks ago, at the end of their summer Delta wave, and have been heading down since.

All of this, a bit over two weeks after the unusual summer warmth faded in October, and cold fall weather settled over much of the northern U.S. as of the first of November.

So, you look at Europe, you look at our mediocre vaccination rate, you look at the change in the weather, and I guess that a winter wave isn’t a surprise.

Problem is, we’re all sitting here, fingers crossed, hoping it won’t be too bad. All the while NOT looking at Japan, China, Korea, where somehow, for the second winter in a row, those high-mask-use countries seem to be sidestepping a significant winter wave.

While new research comes out — in this case, a meta-analysis or review of prior individual studies — concluding that:

Mask-wearing is the single most effective public health measure at tackling Covid, reducing incidence by 53%, the first global study of its kind shows.

And yet America remains dumb as a post.  A bare-faced post.

Worse, thanks to Republican politicization of masks, the facts no longer matter.  It has long passed the point where the actual efficacy of masks or vaccines, or lack thereof, has any relevance.  We’re stuck with a significant fraction of the population that ain’t gonna do neither, and you can’t make them.  So nyah.

I wear a high-filtration (N95, or maybe KF94) mask.  It’s not as if one lacks for good choices (Post #1246).  I’ve gotten my vaccines and booster.  I’m getting ready to fire up my humidifiers (Post #895).   I’m staying out of situations that I perceive as high-risk public indoor spaces, and certainly keeping my distance from the dumbasses who can’t be bothered to mask up in public.

I encourage my friends to do the same.

And I hope that with this winter 2021 wave, we finally have enough of the remaining population get infected so that we achieve something approaching herd immunity.  And COVID-19 can finally fade into the background in the U.S.A.

End of screed.

The crazy thing is, near as I can tell, we should be getting close enough to herd immunity that one more broad wave of infections should push us over the line.  Here’s my estimate of where we stand, now, where the magic herd immunity number is 80%, given how this is calculated.  Best guess, we’re somewhere around 77%.

 

Even accounting for the numerous uncertainties and assumptions that have to be made to produce this estimate, my point is, it’s not beyond reach.  One more wave, like last year’s winter wave, and we should be there.  Or in the neighborhood of there.

Meanwhile, vaccination (including booster shots) continues apace.  And every day, more people acquire immunity via infection.  We’re slowly reducing the fraction of the population (in red below) with no immunity to COVID-19.  If we can push that segment below 20%, then, in theory, the pandemic will collapse for lack of fresh disease carriers.  And while it will almost certainly not disappear, we should have long stretches of time where the circulating rate is low enough for most of us to ignore.

To me, it just looks like it’s going to take one more winter wave to do that.  And at this point, that winter wave is looking like a near-certainty.

Post #1325: COVID-19 winter wave, Mountain states

Map courtesy of datawrapper.de

Data source for this and other graphs of new case counts:  Calculated from The New York Times. (2021). Coronavirus (Covid-19) Data in the United States. Retrieved 11/18/2021, from https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data.”  The NY Times U.S. tracking page may be found at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html.

The U.S. winter wave continues apace, except in the Mountain region.  As you can see, the northernmost mountain states now form sort of a “hole” in the northern tier of U.S. non-Pacific-coast states.

 

Last year’s winter wave was led by the Midwest and Mountain regions, both of which peaked sometime around Thanksgiving.  This year, by contrast, while the Midwest is now rising rapidly, the Mountain region seems to have stalled (circled above).

Within the Mountain region, instead of any uniform trend, it’s a mixed bag.  As shown below, three states appear to have peaked.  Those are the same states that are circled on the first map graph above.

The three northernmost Mountain states are now showing a downward trend.  Based on my counts, it doesn’t look like they’ve hit herd immunity.  So what’s going on?

Turns out, it looks like they’ve had their winter wave.  Tough to say why, exactly, but it looks like the end of their summer Delta wave simply ran into and effectively became their winter wave.  Note that there’s no end of the Delta wave for those states.  Cases continued to climb from July all the way through to early October.  And has been noted in earlier posts, Idaho already had to declare “crisis standards of care”, allowing physicians to ration hospital beds to those who seemed most likely to survive.

The upshot is that instead of a distinct winter wave with a sharp peak late in November, their summer Delta wave just continued, with the result of a broad peak spanning most of September and October.  If I had to guess, I’d guess they’re done for the year.

The rest of the Mountain states, by contrast, had a low peak in early September, consistent with the end of the summer Delta wave.  And they’ve (mostly) started on a new Winter wave.  Those states don’t appear to be done yet, for 2021.

Time and again, the pandemic has run right up to the point where hospitals are full, and then stopped.  It’s as if there’s only a finite subset of the population at risk of infection at any one time.  And once they’ve been infected, the pandemic runs out of steam for a while.

And so, in those three northernmost Mountain states, it surely looks as if the summer Delta wave worked its way through all the infection-eligible population.   For all intents and purposes, it looks like the pandemic has simply run out of steam, in those three states, for now.  And so, there won’t be a  winter wave cresting around Thanksgiving.  Instead, they had two months of high case loads under Delta, leading to (among other things) crisis standards of hospital care in Idaho.

Maybe that bodes well for the entire U.S.  Maybe we’re finally reaching the point where there’s just some modest subset of the population left to be infected.  And so instead of a rip-roaring winter wave, as we had last year, maybe we’ll all go the way of WY, MT, and ID.  Maybe the people still capable of being infected will end up so thin on the ground that we’ll have just a modest peak this winter.

Post #1324: Winter Wave Buzzword Bingo

 

Looks like the U.S. is stuck on repeat, in terms of a COVID-19 winter wave.  I suppose that in addition to the case counts, this probably means a replay of much of the nonsense reporting we saw last winter.

In the interest of efficiency,  in this post, let me try to handle some of the known nonsense in bulk, rather than piecemeal.  We may see novel forms of it evolve.  But at least I can efficiently dispose of the stuff that’s a straight-up repeat from last year.

To be clear, this post is all about things that are wrong.  But that nevertheless make great click-bait, or allow people to feel all righteous about something, or otherwise seem to stick around despite clear evidence that they are incorrect.

This underscores yet again the fundamental problem with America today:

  1. Every citizen feels the unalienable right to have a strongly held and firmly expressed opinion.
  2. Nobody feels even the tiniest obligation to do their homework.

Hence, this list of pre-debunked items from last winter.  I’ve already done the homework so you don’t have to.


1:  Post-holiday surge.

So far, we have never had a post-holiday “surge” in cases in the U.S.  Never.  Not even once.  Not post-Thanksgiving.  Not post-Christmas. Not post-Superbowl, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day. Not not post-fill-in-the-blank.  Never happened.  Never never never never never.

And yet, you will almost surely hear solemn and dire warnings about the expected post-holiday surge in cases this winter. 

When you hear that, bear two things in mind.

1)  Nobody except me has ever bothered to define what “a surge” means.  A “post-holiday surge” is a coordinated increase in daily new COVID-19 cases, above the pre-existing trend, occurring in all or most states, roughly two weeks following the holiday.  (That last clause is consistent with the average lag between date of infection and date of case reporting.)

2)  Consistent with that, I seem to be the only person who has actually bothered to look at the data, after the fact, to see whether or not a surge actually occurred as predicted.  Among the reasons that you’ll never see that in the newspapers is that you have to wait two weeks to see whether or not a surge occurs.  That’s far longer than the attention span of the American people and their news media.

The data-driven part of this is not exactly rocket science.  U.S. reported COVID-19 cases fall on the holidays because state health departments are closed. Then (most of) the backlog of cases gets reported, and then cases return to their prior trend.  Not just once.  But over and over, holiday after holiday.

We have never had new COVID-19 cases surge, or jump, or suddenly rise after a holiday, so some level beyond the pre-holiday trend.  Never.

Below, you can see that I looked for those post-holiday surges, really hard.  Rather than walk you through it, I’ll refer you to many prior posts that go through this in detail for Thanksgiving, Christmas, and most specifically, for the Superbowl.

And Columbus Day.  Labor DayLabor Day again.  You get the drift, I hope.

Near as I can tell, all of this “post-holiday surge” nonsense dates back to a single epidemiologist who incorrectly asserted that there had been a huge surge in cases following Canadian Thanksgiving.   Why?  Because case counts were higher the week after Thanksgiving than the week before it.  But a) it takes two weeks for new infections to enter the data and b) that same statement had been true for every week so far that winter, up to that point, in Canada.  (Because they were in their winter wave, and cases were increasing week-after-week.)

No matter how obviously stupid and illogical that “surge” conclusion was, that has stuck.  And every holiday since, you’ve heard all the talking heads tut-tutting about the dangers of holidays and the inevitable post-holiday surge in new cases.

Accordingly, my favorite post-holiday-surge graphic is this one, suitable for the many Americans who know nothing about Canadian culture:

Posted on December 13, 2020

Stop: Before you read any further, take 30 seconds, study the graph above, and identify when Canadian Thanksgiving occurs, based on the huge surge in cases that occurred two weeks afterwards.

The other graph that gets the point across is this one, where I’ve simply filled in the trend line.

Posted on January 13, 2021

Source:  Calculated from NY Times Githib COVID data repository.  Thick blue line is the U.S. average.

What we actually get with major holidays, first and foremost, is a steep reduction in reported cases because state governments shut down.  And, oddly, we also get small, permanent reductions in actual total cases.  Seems as if a lot of people just don’t bother to get tested over a holiday.

This is followed by a return to the prior trend, as all that gets sorted out.  What we never get is a surge in cases, above prior trend, two weeks after the holiday.

Finally, if you want to see what a surge actually looks like, try Post #920, Now That’s a Surge.  That’s just a summary of the past two decades’ worth of U.S. flu seasons.

If you wonder why we never get a surge, consider how one-sided the pundits’ discussion of the holidays is.  Two things happen on major holidays.  One, work stops.  Or at least, slows down for most of us.  Two, families gather.  All you ever hear about from the talking heads is the second aspect.  But, arguably,  the reduced risk from time off work may more-than-offset the increased risk from family gatherings.

 


2:  Massive increase in air travel for the holidays.

Ah, just see Post #939.  Here’s the graph of actual TSA passenger screenings at U.S. airports.  Spot the huge holiday-related surges, please:

This is the fourth quarter of the year, and the blue line is 2020.  The thin wavy line is the actual  daily data, and the thicker line is a seven-day moving average.  So, yes, there are more airline passengers in the holiday season.  But the increase is only about 100,000 per day above the baseline.  Against a U.S. population of 330,000,000, any modest rate of infections occurring on those flights is just rounding error.  I went through all that arithmetic in Post #939.


3:  Predictions of smooth sailing from now on.

So far, official predictions of the course of the pandemic have had poor accuracy.  I’m hardly the first person to note that.  Or to have shown that with some degree of formality.

In the first year of the pandemic, when you’re still trying to figure things out, that’s forgivable, I guess.  But now?  When we have more than a year’s worth of experience?  When a few simple factors such as indoor relative humidity appear to explain the Southern summer wave and Northern winter wave?  When state after state goes right to the point where hospital beds are completely filled, but rarely goes much beyond that?

By now, it seems like we pretty much ought to have a fairly good grip on the likely ups and downs.

Arguably, some of the worst predictions have come from CDC, from the consortium of modelers that they tasked to provide some sort of official prediction.  Let me just repeat the last one, which is that there would be no winter wave this year.  That prediction was made in September.

Source:  Cited just above

These predictions suffer from the same basic problem as “the surge”.  Our collective attention span is so short that no news agency can be bothered to look back and check the accuracy of the forecast.  And so, assess the forecaster’s history of inaccuracy.  Before presenting the next forecast.

As a result, the same forecasters who repeatedly provided poor predictions in the past remain free to provide equally poor predictions going forward.  And whenever those predictions match something that somebody wants to hear, you’ll see them in the popular media.  And the long track record of being incorrect will just be swept under the rug.

The CDC-organized group that made the projection above, in early September, is slated to redo their projections again in December.  Without a doubt, given the CDC imprimatur, whatever they say will be duly reported in the news.  And equally without doubt, their incorrect prior predictions will simply be ignored.


4:  Florida has fewer cases than fill-in-the-blank now, thus proving fill-in-the-second-blank.

I went through one of these in Post #1319.  The current Fox push seemed to be “thus proving that masks don’t work”. I’m sure at some point that second blank will morph into “vaccines”, or maybe “Biden”.  Whatever fits the need of the moment.

All of that is aimed at people who are too stupid and lazy to take literally one minute to look at the actual data.

All you have to do is Google “COVID Florida”, and Google will provide you with a graph of new COVID-19 cases in Florida over time.  Barring that, Googling “NY Times Florida COVID” will give you a graph of COVID-19 cases in Florida over time.  Either of which could then be compared to (say) California.  In either case, you’d see that most of the time, Florida has exceeded California in terms of daily new case count.

It’s not as if we lack for ready sources of the data, available with absolutely minimal effort.

It’s just straight up Rule 1 and Rule 2 above:

  1. Every citizen feels the unalienable right to have a strongly held and firmly expressed opinion.
  2. Nobody feels even the tiniest obligation to do their homework.

Normally, I would add a third rule:

3:  And nobody cares whether or not they are right on the facts.

But Rule 3 is a misstatement.  Near as I can tell, it’s far worse:  Nobody wants to see facts that might contradict a firmly-held belief.  It might make then have to think, and thinking is hard.

And  so, as outlined in Post #1319, any set of statistics that varies over time or in a cross-section becomes a ready propaganda tool.  Wait until the numbers are leaning your way, add whatever semi-attached figure you wish, and loudly proclaim that the data make your point.  When they lean the other way, say nothing.  And you can reliably count on the laziness and stupidity of your audience to do the rest.

It’s cheap, simple, and effective.  Of course it’s going to be re-used this winter.  To stop it, people would have to wise up.  And I predict that is unlikely to happen, based on our experience to date.

Post #1323: COVID-19 winter wave accelerates

 

This year’s U.S. winter COVID-19 wave is not quite looking like an exact repeat of last year, but it’s looking fairly close.  It’s running a couple of weeks late, probably owing to warmer weather this year.  It’s starting from a higher base rate of infections, owing to the tail-end of the U.S. summer (Delta) wave.

But it’s now starting to parallel last year’s wave.  Like so:

Data source for this and other graphs of new case counts:  Calculated from The New York Times. (2021). Coronavirus (Covid-19) Data in the United States. Retrieved 11/16/2021, from https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data.”  The NY Times U.S. tracking page may be found at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html.

It’s not a straight-up rerun.  Last year the winter wave was led by the Midwest and Mountain states.  The Midwest seems right on track, but the Mountain states are not.  That’s probably worth look at, at some point.

That said, the Mountain states behaved oddly last year as well.  Where the Midwest had a single, well-defined peak (blue line above), the Mountain states peaked and receded three times before the wave was finally over for them last year (gray line).  So it’s not clear how solid an indicator they are.

By eye, this seems to be shaping up to be more “compressed” this year compared to last year.  By that I mean that the lag between the leader (Midwest) and followers (all other regions) looks to be shorter than last year.  For example, the South in general (South Atlantic, South Central regions) peaked about two months after the Midwest, last year.  By contrast, this year they appear to be turning upward just three weeks after the Midwest.

If true, that would give the overall U.S. average curve a steeper profile than last year.

FWIW, my house finally dipped well below 50% relative humidity this morning (northern Virginia, USDA hardiness zone 7).  I’d guess my house is average size and construction for this area.  It’s a fair bet that most of the indoor spaces in this area are making that transition right about now, with increased rates of disease transmission soon to follow.  We’re not quite at the 40% relative humidity level where risk of transmitting respiratory diseases increases sharply.  But it should only take a few more days of cold weather to get this part of the country to that state.  I’m prepared (Post #895, humidifiers).


Have we learned anything important?

I think the answer is pretty clearly no. 

Obvious point #1:  Masks.

Let’s start with the most obvious one first.

Last year, the entire first-world northern hemisphere had a severe winter wave of COVID.  Except for the Asian countries (Japan, Korea, China).  The worst of the three was South Korea, which topped out at about 1000 cases per day.  Or, on a per-capita basis, Korea’s winter wave peak was about 2.5% as high as the U.S. winter wave peak.

This year, the entire first-world northern hemisphere is in the process of having a severe winter wave of COVID.  Except for the Asian countries.  Again.  Japan and China have virtually no cases.  South Korea is again the outlier there, with about 2000 new cases per day, or, on a per-capita basis about 14% of the current U.S. average.

I wonder what might possibly explain that. What behavior could those first-world Asian countries have in common what we somehow lack in America and Europe? /s

Here’s a Forbes article documenting better than 90% mask use rate in public spaces in Japan.  That’s based on both survey data and from on-the-ground observation.  The comparable survey-based data from the U.S. would put us in the mid-30-percents (for “always wear a mask”).

It’s not as if this is a secret.  It’s just that, as a country, we are amazingly stupid and stubborn about this particular point.  When the U.S. CDC initially declared that Americans didn’t need to wear masks, it took a rebuke from no less than the head of the Chinese CDC to make them see the light (Post #590).  I think that’s well worth repeating, even if the head of the Chinese CDC said it more than a year and a half ago.  Note “The big mistake”.

Q: What mistakes are other countries making? 

A: The big mistake in the U.S. and Europe, in my opinion, is that people aren’t wearing masks. This virus is transmitted by droplets and close contact. Droplets play a very important role—you’ve got to wear a mask, because when you speak, there are always droplets coming out of your mouth. Many people have asymptomatic or presymptomatic infections. If they are wearing face masks, it can prevent droplets that carry the virus from escaping and infecting others.

Source:  Science, the magazine of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science. March 2020.

Obvious Point #2:  Lags in data reporting.

The second point that I think will never seep into the American consciousness is that today’s case counts reflect the infections that were occurring a couple of weeks ago.   That’s due to the time it takes for symptoms to develop, for symptomatic individuals to decide to seek care, to get tested, to have the labs turn those tests around, and to have pubic health agencies tally and report those test results.

Which means, obviously enough, that you have to be proactive.  You need to put your mask back on and change your behavior when cases start to rise, not once the hospital beds are full.

At this point, it’s beyond optimistic to think that Americans are going to be proactive.  So we are once again going to see preventive steps taken by the average American only after the hospitals are overflowing, and that gets reported in the popular press.  That seemed to be the point at which things started to sink in last time around.  I’m guessing it’ll be the same this time.

Point #3:  Putting 1 and 2 together.

Obviously, the right thing to do, given how this is shaping up, would be to increase COVID-19 hygiene now.  Ahead of time.  Put your mask back on now, before case counts go up.

It’s too late for vaccination, I think.  Right now, 59% of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated.  That compares to 70% to 76% for the Asian countries above, 75% of Canada, and so on.  We aren’t quite down with the third world, but the list of countries with higher COVID-19 vaccination rates than the U.S. is kind of embarrassing.  Brazil, Argentina.  Mongolia?  Mongolia has a higher COVID vaccination rate than the U.S.?  Yep.

But at this point, it looks like, with a few exceptions (e.g., California), our collective state strategy is going to be to ignore this until the hospitals are full.  And maybe even after that point.

The only bright spot I’m seeing is that if we have one big blow-out of a winter wave in the U.S., then that ought to be the end of it.  At that point, between vaccination and infection, enough people ought to have enough immunity that this can recede into the background.  Looks like it’s going to be around forever.  But there won’t be enough potential carriers left to carry it on at pandemic levels in the U.S.  At least, that how it appears when I do my calculations.  YMMV.

Post #1322: Changing Town of Vienna elections: Avoiding high voter turnout?

 

There’s a public hearing tomorrow (Monday 11/15/2021) regarding proposals to change Town of Vienna elections.  This is in response to legislation that requires all Virginia towns to hold elections on the standard first-Tuesday-in-November election day, instead of in May.   According to the sponsors of that legislation, the point is to boost voter participation in those local elections.

I foolishly thought that the transition from May to November elections was cut-and-dried, because Virginia statute lays out a simple process for doing that.  As you move the election date back six month (from May to November), you give each incumbent roughly an additional six months in office.  After that transition, no other change is needed.

Then I took a look at the complex wording of the options the Town is considering.  And I could not for the life of me figure out why they’ve opted to make the proposed changes.  Why take something as potential simple as this, all laid out neatly in statute, and complicate it?

I had to put all the options in a table to realize that the only thing NOT up for discussion in the officially-sanctioned options is even-versus-odd-year elections.  It looks like the citizens of Vienna can have any November election schedule they want — as long as all elections are held in the off-years. 

This choice runs  contrary to what the overwhelming majority of November-voting Virginia Towns have chosen.  Choosing the odd years means not just being in the minority on this issue, it means minimizing voter turnout for Town of Vienna elections into the foreseeable future.  I think that’s a bad choice.


Background:  This could be straightforward.

If you need some background on the general issue of the switch to November Town elections in Virginia, you can read through these prior posts:

  • Start with Post #340, which introduces the benefits of moving Town elections to the standard first-Tuesday-in-November election day.  That’s where I first learned that Herndon’s election turnout tripled when they did that.
  • Post #1095 introduces recently passed legislation in Virginia that moves all Town elections to the standard first-Tuesday-in-November date.
  • Post #1135 was about our more recent town election, which, barring new legislation, will have been the last May election in Vienna.

Throughout my discussion of the change, I assumed that the Town would follow the transition to November elections as laid out in Virginia statute.  The transition from May to November elections is laid out in “§ 24.2-222.1. Alternative election of mayor and council at November general election in cities and towns“.

C. ... Mayors and members of council who were elected at a May general election and whose terms are to expire as of June 30 shall continue in office until their successors have been elected at the November general election and have been qualified to serve.

In effect, you give the incumbents another half-year in office, for the transition from May to November, and you’re done.

And so, this transition could easily be handled by holding elections in November and making no other changes, other than lengthening the terms of the incumbents as specified in Virginia statute.  Right now, Town Council has staggered two-year terms, with three seats up every year, and the Mayorship in every even year.  All they have to do is extend terms as outlined in the law, and they’d be done.  Elections would occur every November, and that would be the only change.

If you want to see the likely impact on voter participation, just look at nearby Herndon (above).  They switched to November voting in (the even year of ) 2016.  And voter participation in their Town elections roughly tripled.


But for some reason, that’s not what’s on the table in the Town of Vienna.

I had (foolishly) assumed the Town would do just that.  Keep it simple, and change the elections as outlined in statute.  But I was wrong.  As with much of what the Town does, it’s all but impossible to take the written documents and understand what’s being proposed.

Aside:  It shouldn’t be this hard.

You can find some limited popular-press reporting of this issueThat reporting is the only place where it is clearly stated that you, as a citizen, may suggest your own alternative to the Town’s proposed changes, at this hearing.  But when you try to find out what the actual language of the proposals is, that’s when it gets difficult.

Let me put aside just how hard it is to know that this is in play.  Chrome on a PC won’t even open up the Town’s website due to a misconfigured security certificate message.   Firefox on a PC or Chrome on a phone will open it, but the splash page is so misconfigured that you can’t actually read what the public hearing is supposed to be about.  The text bleeds off the page.  And if you click on the public hearing link, you are informed that there is, in fact, a public hearing on Monday.   But with no clue as to what the hearing is about.  As pictured below:

Long story short, if you already know that this is happening and you already know where to look, you can find that out.  You have to look at the Town’s Legistar page, find the link to the meeting, and find the particular agenda item.  (And realize there are, I think, at least two separate public hearings scheduled for Monday).

If you read the Town’s official notice, and you’ve read the popular press reporting, then you might be able to infer that this phrase ” The Town Council will consider the listed options, options as modified, as well as additional options suggested at the Public Hearing.” means that you have been invited to suggest alternatives.  But, honestly, I read that and I didn’t grasp the fact that “additional options suggested at the Public Hearing” was an invitation for the public to suggest alternatives. 

Maybe I’m just slow, but I had a hard time grasping what all the complication was about.  Particularly because, as noted above, Commonwealth statute lays out a simple and obvious transition.

Instead, the Town is considering the following options: Changing to staggered four-year terms (three Town Council seats up for re-election every two years), or to un-staggered two year terms (all Town Council seats up for re-election every two years).  They’re considering some combination of giving some incumbents an additional year-and-a-half on their existing term, skipping one year’s election, and inserting some three-year terms, in order to make that all work out.

Once again, the complexity of that struck me as odd.  It’s almost as if they’ll consider anything but the system we’ve used for decades (half of Town Council is up for re-election every other year).  I would have assumed that the baseline was to do the simple thing (each existing term is about six months longer, no other changes.)  But that’s not even on the table.

It wasn’t until I put the three options in a table that I finally figured it out:  You can have any voting you like, as long as the vote is held in the off years (odd years) only.  Based on some earlier reporting on this issue, this apparently is what the majority of current Town Council wants.  That seems to be based on the fear that holding Town elections in the even years will somehow taint them with partisanship, or reduce attention on Town issues.  (N.B., as is true in almost all states, local elections of this type are non-partisan.  Since 1870, Virginia has barred the listing of party affiliation on ballots for local elections.)

Let me put the table of options here, because without that, based solely on the text descriptions, you may have a hard time seeing this plainly.

The key point is circled in red.  Much of the rest of the complexity, highlighted in the notes section, is a consequence of moving the current even-year elections to an odd year.  By simple arithmetic, doing that is going to require one term with an odd number of years.  By law, you are not allowed to shorten anybody’s existing term to make this transition.  So, practically speaking (barring having a transition election for a one-year term of office), moving the current even-year election to an odd year is going to involve a three-year something for the incumbents up for election in 2022.  Either give them a three-year term when they are re-elected in 2022 (Options 1 and 3), or convert the existing terms to three years by skipping an election (Option 2)..

I’ll make the obvious point that you could just as easily configure this so that elections are held in the even (high-turnout) years.  Or just leave it as it is, do the simplest possible transition, and have half the elections in the even years, and half in the odd years.


The data

Source:  Virginia Department of Elections

It’s no secret that election turnout is higher when there’s a high-stakes national election.  Above you see Virginia’s turnout (as percent of registered voters) for the past 45 years.  Turnout is highest in the (even) presidential election years, and lowest in the (odd) year just prior to a presidential election.

Let me formalize that by actually calculating the averages instead of just eyeballing it.

:

Source:  Virginia Department of Elections, and, separately, calculated from Fairfax County Office of Elections data for the Town of Vienna (TOV).

Above, first two bars, in Virginia, you get about one-third more voters (about 16 percentage points higher turnout) in even years.  Above, second set of bars shows that participation runs coincident with the U.S. Presidential elections.  Above, third set of bars shows the dismal turnout for a typical Town of Vienna election, and the mediocre turnout even in a hotly-contested election.  (It isn’t unusual for all seats in the Town elections to go uncontested, so low average turnout isn’t unexpected.  For those elections, there’s no practical point to voting.  For the uncontested elections, my wife votes, I don’t.  But even for a contested election, less than one-quarter of the electorate votes.)  I documented Town of Vienna election turnout in Post #266.

The obvious implications here are that, in terms of maximizing voter turnout, any November election is better than the May Town election.  And that November elections in even years are superior to November elections in odd years.

That said, we can ask one final empirical question:  What do other Virginia Towns do?  In particular, what do the Towns that already have a November election date do?  As I noted in Post #340, almost half of Virginia Towns have already opted for November elections.  So it’s not as if we lack for data on the typical choice.

Source:  Tediously calculated from the .pdf supplied at this page, by the Virginia Department of Elections.

Virginia Towns with local elections in November have opted to hold those elections in the higher-turnout even years, by a 4.5 to 1 margin.  Town Council seems to be suffering from some free-floating fear of partisan taint of local elections held in even years.  The clear point of this table is that a) a lot of Towns manage to survive, and b) if you want to base the decision on facts, there are seventy-odd Virginia towns that should be able to answer the question “are local elections tainted if held in November of even years”.

In any case, that vague and un-documented fear aside, the whole point of moving the elections to November is to increase voter participation in local elections.  If that’s the goal,  then to me — along with the clear majority of Virginia Towns so far — even years are clearly superior to odd years.

Vienna could leave things much as they are, and have half of the local elections in even years, half in odd years.  They could follow the example of the vast majority of Virginia Towns with current November elections and go for the higher-turnout even years.  Or they could go out of their way to pick the years with lower voter turnout, based on the un-documented fear of partisanship in local elections.

Seems like if you’re going to do that, minimum due diligence would be to call up a few of the Towns with November elections and try to benefit from their experience.  Heck, take a field trip:  Herndon, Dumfries, and Leesburg are nearby towns with even-year November elections.  (Per the Virginia Department of Elections).  Why not ask them?  In short, do anything but lock in lower voter participation, for all eternity, based on what amounts to an undocumented fear, when you could easily put that fear to rest (or find out that it’s real!) with a few phone calls.

Post #1321: William and Mary COVID-19 trend to 11/12/2021 — one more case this week, and the U.S. winter wave in the South Atlantic states.

Source:  Calculated from the William and Mary COVID-19 dashboard, accessed 11/13/2021

2021 Winter wave in brief.

Things look great at William and Mary, but for the U.S. as a whole, it looks like the winter wave has started.

Last year, the winter wave started in the Midwest states.  Eventually, all areas of the country saw a mid-winter increase in daily new cases.  Last year, the South Atlantic states ran a month or two behind the Midwest.  The Midwest peaked around Thanksgiving, the South Atlantic did not peak until mid-January 2021.

This year, new cases turned upward in the Midwest around Halloween. And now, about six weeks later, it looks like cases are just starting to rise in the South Atlantic states.

That’s later than last year, plausibly due to much warmer weather in the middle of the country this year, compared to last.  Below are maps for October 2020 and October 2021.  Last year (top) was much colder than normal in the middle of the country, this year (bottom) has been much warmer than normal.

In any case, below, that little upturn in cases at the right edge of the graph may not look like much.  But it’s more-or-less right on time to be the start of the winter wave in Virginia this year.  The fact that several adjacent states (NC, VA, WV, MD, DE) all show the same pattern suggests that it’s weather-related, and not just a statistical fluke in (say) Virginia’s case counts.

Data source for this and other graphs of new case counts:  Calculated from The New York Times. (2021). Coronavirus (Covid-19) Data in the United States. Retrieved 11/13/2021, from https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data.”  The NY Times U.S. tracking page may be found at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html.

My best guess is that the little upturn above is, in fact, the start of the winter wave in Virginia.  At this point, there’s no telling where that’s going to go.

I guess I’ll mark the start of the U.S. winter wave at 10/25/2021.  That’s when the U.S. daily new case count reached that most recent minimum.  In the past seven days, new case counts rose 9% for the U.S. as a whole, and were  rising in all regions except the Pacific region.

You’d think we wouldn’t have a winter wave this year, with all the people who’ve been vaccinated or have recovered from infection.  But the example of Europe pretty clearly shows us that a winter wave is possible.

When I look at the numbers, I estimate (guess) that we’re in roughly the same situation as we were last winter, in terms of the ability of the virus to spread (the “R-effective”).

Compared to last winter, we have:

  • Higher levels of population immunity (best guess 71% now versus about 10% in October 2020).
  • A far more infectious variant of COVID-19 (best guess, R-nought of 5 for Delta, versus maybe 2.5 for last year’s native strain, meaning that without any preventive measures, each person infected with the Delta variant would have infected an average of five others.)
  • Much lower levels of COVID-19 hygiene (no restrictions on public gatherings, mask-wearing down from 95% in the middle of last year’s winter wave to 60% now).

When I run that through a crude formula, including my own estimate for the impact of peak COVID-19 hygiene, and an assumption that current COVID-19 hygiene is, on net, half as effective, I come up with:

  • R-effective last winter 1.035
  • R-effective this winter 1.075

I wouldn’t put a lot of faith in either number.  I’m just saying that the magnitudes of these effects are in the ballpark of cancelling each other out.  It’s entirely possible that we’ll have a winter wave despite having 59% of the population fully immunized, and a further large percentage with some immunity due to prior infection.

Source:  CDC COVID data tracker.

To recap:  Best guess, that level of vaccination, plus all the prior infections, is just about enough immunity to offset the greater infectiousness of Delta and the reduction in COVID-19 hygiene.

Finally, FWIW, in the popular press you’ll hear the rise in cases attributed to people spending more time indoors.  Near as I can tell, that’s more-or-less nonsense.  In the modern world, there’s maybe one hour’s difference in total indoor time, winter-versus-summer, for the average adult.  There’s far more evidence to suggest that flu season is a result of dry indoor air.  Low relative humidity reduces the body’s ability to clear way inhaled pathogens (“mucocilliary clearance”) and otherwise reduces the effectiveness of the immune system at fighting respiratory illnesses.  I lay out the evidence for various hypotheses regarding why we have a winter flu (and now, coronavirus) season in Post #894 about relative humidity and flu.