Los Alamos Experts Warn Covid-19 “Almost Certainly Cannot Be Contained”, Project Up To 4.4 Million Dead

Authored by Sharon Begley via StatNews.com,

At least 550,000 cases. Maybe 4.4 million. Or something in between.

Like weather forecasters, researchers who use mathematical equations to project how bad a disease outbreak might become are used to uncertainties and incomplete data, and Covid-19, the disease caused by the new-to-humans coronavirus that began circulating in Wuhan, China, late last year, has those everywhere you look. That can make the mathematical models of outbreaks, with their wide range of forecasts, seem like guesswork gussied up with differential equations; the eightfold difference in projected Covid-19 cases in Wuhan, calculated by a team from the U.S. and Canada, isn’t unusual for the early weeks of an outbreak of a never-before-seen illness.

But infectious-disease models have been approximating reality better and better in recent years, thanks to a better understanding of everything from how germs behave to how much time people spend on buses.

“Year by year there have been improvements in forecasting models and the way they are combined to provide forecasts,” said physicist Alessandro Vespignani of Northeastern University, a leading infectious-disease modeler.

That’s not to say there’s not room for improvement. The key variables of most models are mostly the same ones epidemiologists have used for decades to predict the course of outbreaks. But with greater computer power now at their disposal, modelers are incorporating more fine-grained data to better reflect the reality of how people live their lives and interact in the modern world — from commuting to work to jetting around the world. These more detailed models can take weeks to spit out their conclusions, but they can better inform public health officials on the likely impact of disease-control measures.

Models are not intended to be scare machines, projecting worst-case possibilities. (Modelers prefer “project” to “predict,” to indicate that the outcomes they describe are predicated on numerous assumptions.) The idea is to calculate numerous what-ifs: What if schools and workplaces closed? What if public transit stopped? What if there were a 90% effective vaccine and half the population received it in a month?

“Our overarching goal is to minimize the spread and burden of infectious disease,” said Sara Del Valle, an applied mathematician and disease modeler at Los Alamos National Laboratory. By calculating the effects of countermeasures such as social isolation, travel bans, vaccination, and using face masks, modelers can “understand what’s going on and inform policymakers,” she said.

For instance, although many face masks are too porous to keep viral particles out (or in), their message of possible contagion here! “keeps people away from you” and reduces disease spread, Del Valle said. “I’m a fan of face masks.”

The clearest sign of the progress in modeling comes from flu forecasts in the U.S. Every year, about two dozen labs try to model the flu season, and have been coming ever closer to accurately forecasting its timing, peak, and short-term intensity. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determines which model did the best; for 2018-2019, it was one from Los Alamos.

Los Alamos also nailed the course of the 2003 outbreak of SARS in Toronto, including when it would peak. “And it was spot on in the number of people who would be infected,” said Del Valle: just under 400 in that city, of a global total of about 8,000.

The Covid-19 outbreak in China is quickly spreading worldwide, sparking quick calculations on how deadly this new disease is. One measure is called a case fatality rate. While the formula is simple, it’s difficult to get a precise answer.HYACINTH EMPINADO/STAT

The computers that run disease models grind through calculations that reflect researchers’ best estimates of factors that two Scottish researchers identified a century ago as shaping the course of an outbreak: how many people are susceptible, how many are infectious, and how many are recovered (or dead) and presumably immune.

That sounds simple, but errors in any of those estimates can send a model wildly off course. In the autumn of 2014, modelers at CDC projected that the Ebola outbreak in West Africa could reach 550,000 to 1.4 million cases in Liberia and Sierra Leone by late January if nothing changed. As it happened, heroic efforts to isolate patients, trace contacts, and stop unsafe burial practices kept the number of cases to 28,600 (and 11,325 deaths).

To calculate how people move from “susceptible” to “infectious” to “recovered,” modelers write equations that include such factors as the number of secondary infections each infected person typically causes and how long it takes from when one person gets sick to when the people she infects does. “These two numbers define the growth rate of an epidemic,” Vespignani said.

The first number is called the basic reproduction number. Written R0 (“R naught”), it varies by virus; a strain that spreads more easily through the air, as by aerosols rather than heavier droplets released when an infected person sneezes or coughs, has a higher R0. It has been a central focus of infectious disease experts in the current outbreak because a value above 1 portends sustained transmission. When the R0 of Covid-19 was estimated several weeks ago to be above 2, social media exploded with “pandemic is coming!” hysteria.

But while important, worshipping at the shrine of R0 “belies the complexity that two different pathogens can exhibit, even when they have the same R0,” the Canadian-U.S. team argues in a paper posted to the preprint site medRxiv. Said senior author Antoine Allard of Laval University in Quebec, “the relation between R0, the risk of an epidemic, and its potential size becomes less straightforward, and sometimes counterintuitive in more realistic models.”

To make models more realistic, he and his colleagues argue, they should abandon the simplistic assumption that everyone has the same likelihood of getting sick from Covid-19 after coming in contact with someone already infected. For SARS, for instance, that likelihood clearly varied.

“Bodies may react differently to an infection, which in turn can facilitate or inhibit the transmission of the pathogen to others,” Allard said.

“The behavioral component is also very important. Can you afford to stay at home a few days or do you go to work even if you are sick? How many people do you meet every day? Do you live alone? Do you commute by car or public transportation?”

When people’s chances of becoming infected vary, an outbreak is more likely to be eventually contained (by tracing contacts and isolating cases); it might reach a cumulative 550,000 cases in Wuhan, Allard and his colleagues concluded. If everyone has the same chance, as with flu (absent vaccination), the probability of containment is significantly lower and could reach 4.4 million there.

Or as the researchers warn, “the outbreak almost certainly cannot be contained and we must prepare for a pandemic ….”

Modelers are also incorporating the time between when one person becomes ill and someone she infects does. If every case infects two people and that takes two days, then the epidemic doubles every two days. If every case infects two people and they get sick four days after the first, then the epidemic doubles every four days.

This “serial time” is related to how quickly a virus multiplies, and it can have a big effect. For a study published this month in Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers at the University of Toronto created an interactive tool that instantly updates projections based on different values of R0 and serial interval.

Using an R0 of 2.3 and serial interval of seven days, they project 300,000 cases by next week. If the serial interval is even one day less, the number of cases blasts past 1.5 million by then. But if the countermeasures that China introduced in January, including isolating patients, encouraging people to wear face masks, and of course quarantining Wuhan, reduce the effective reproduction number, as has almost certainly happened, those astronomical numbers would plummet: to 100,000 and 350,000 cases, respectively.

Just as public health officials care how long someone can be infected without showing symptoms (so they know how long to monitor people), so do modelers. “When people are exposed but not infected, they tend to travel and can’t be detected,” Vespignani said. “The more realistic you want your model to be, the more you should incorporate” the exposed-but-not-ill population. This “E” has lately become a fourth category in disease models, joining susceptible, infectious, and recovered.

At Los Alamos, Del Valle and her colleagues are using alternatives to the century-old susceptible/infectious/recovered models in hopes of getting a more realistic picture of an outbreak’s likely course. A bedrock assumption of the traditional models is “homogeneous mixing,” Del Valle said, meaning everyone has an equal chance of encountering anyone. That isn’t what happens in the real world, where people are more likely to encounter others of similar income, education, age, and even religion (church pews can get crowded).

“Ideally, you’d break the population into many groups” and estimate the likelihood of each one’s members interacting with each other and with every kind of outsider, Del Valle said.

“Your model would become more accurate.”

Called “agent-based models,” they simulate hypothetical individuals, sometimes tens of millions of them, as they go about their day. That requires knowing things like how many people commute from where to where for work or school, how they travel, where and how often they shop, whether it’s customary to visit the sick, and other key details. Computers then simulate everyone’s movements and interactions, for instance by starting with one infected person leaving home in the morning, chatting with other parents at school drop-off, continuing to work on a bus, standing 2 feet from customers and colleagues, and visiting a pharmacy for her migraine prescription.

The models keep track of people second by second, said Los Alamos computer scientist Geoff Fairchild, “and let you assess the impact of different decisions, like closing schools during flu season.” (Some research shows that can dampen an outbreak.) Although “agent-based models can simulate reality better,” he said, they are less widely used because they require enormous computing power. Even on the Los Alamos supercomputer, a single run of a complicated model can take days or even weeks — not counting the weeks of work modelers spend writing equations to feed the computer.

The Los Alamos researchers are still wrestling with their Covid-19 model, which is showing – incorrectly – the outbreak “exploding quite quickly in China,” Del Valle said. It is overestimating how many susceptible people become infected, probably because it’s not accurately accounting for social isolation and other countermeasures. Those seem to have reduced R0 toward the lower range of 2-to-5 that most modelers are using, she said.

In the current outbreak, researchers are building models not only to peek into the future but also to reality-check the present. Working backwards from confirmed infections in countries other than mainland China, researchers at Imperial College London who advise the World Health Organization estimated that Wuhan had 1,000 to 9,700 symptomatic cases as of Jan. 18. Three days later, all of mainland China had officially reported 440 cases, supporting the concerns of global health officials that China was undercounting.

In a more recent model run, Jonathan Read of England’s University of Lancaster and his colleagues estimated “that only about 1 in 20 infections were being detected” in late January, Read said: There were probably 11,090 to 33,490 infections in Wuhan as of Jan. 22, when China reported 547 cases.

“It highlights how difficult it is to track down and identify this virus,” Read said, especially with residents of quarantined Wuhan being turned away from overwhelmed hospitals and clinics without being tested for the virus. Using a similar approach, modelers led by Dr. Wai-Kit Ming of Jinan University in Guangzhou estimated that through Jan. 31, China probably had 88,000 cases, not the 11,200 reported.

Read’s group is updating its model to estimate the fraction of true cases in February; China’s cumulative cases topped 60,000 on Thursday.

For modelers, a huge undercount can corrupt the data they base their equations on. But even with that disadvantage the Covid-19 models “are doing quite well, despite a lot of complicated dynamics on the ground,” said Los Alamos’s Fairchild. While it’s not clear yet if they’ve nailed the true numbers of cases, they are correctly projecting the outbreak’s basic shape: increasing exponentially, the number of cases growing more quickly the more cases there are.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
21 Comments
nkit
nkit
February 17, 2020 4:04 pm
mark
mark
  nkit
February 17, 2020 7:46 pm

I would never kick my wife…he could have just shoved her out…

niebo
niebo
  mark
February 17, 2020 11:43 pm

LOL . . . and you would immediately understand the wrath of “Red”!

mark
mark
  niebo
February 18, 2020 12:12 am

niebo,

I can take her in a fair fight!

(Problem is she doesn’t fight fair).

card802
card802
February 17, 2020 4:53 pm

Let’s hope these guys are as bad as climate change forcasters.

Mygirl...maybe
Mygirl...maybe
  card802
February 17, 2020 5:42 pm

That was real helpful….not. They (scientists)are using numbers that are obviously flawed and skewed to make things look better than they are. Watch actions, not words or numbers. The Chicoms are going way, way over the top for a disease that isn’t killing as many as is claimed.

TampaRed
TampaRed
  Mygirl...maybe
February 17, 2020 8:01 pm

mygirl,
my thoughts exactly–govts don’t quarantine people the way the chicoms have 4 relatively trivial illnesses–
the chicom govt is either massively suppressing the #s or it at least has the potential to devastate their country–ditto 4 japan–
why not us ?

Fleabaggs
Fleabaggs
  TampaRed
February 17, 2020 9:49 pm

More conformation it’s gene specific. Very interesting young scientist.
http://www.bitchute.com/video/54M3MeRVqqk/

Iska Waran
Iska Waran
February 17, 2020 5:57 pm

Discussion of possible differences in risk between different racial groups is seemingly being suppressed. If you google something like “white people not dying of Covid19” you’ll get Reddit discussions that have been removed. Search engines are probably also suppressing stuff. Duck Duck Go may not “track you” but I think they use Google’s search function. The theory of “disparate impact” of Covid19 may be bullshit, but in any case, it’s not tolerable. Still haven’t heard the name of the American who died in Wuhan.

Mygirl...maybe
Mygirl...maybe
  Iska Waran
February 17, 2020 9:03 pm

The white people haven’t had the exposure that the chinese have had…with the government importing the sick and contagious and dropping them off near large metropolitan areas it’s only a matter of time…..

Iska Waran
Iska Waran
  Mygirl...maybe
February 17, 2020 9:24 pm

That absolutely could be correct, but if the theories of asymptomatic infection are correct, and it started spreading in mid-late December, with a high R naught factor and so much international travel, one would expect it to have broken out elsewhere about 7-10 days ago. It seems agreed upon that the virus attacks via ACE2 receptor cells. The initial article that posited much higher levels of ACE2 receptors among Asians (which was written to try to explain SARS concentration in Asia) had very thin data. Lately I’ve seen references to the “1000 Genomes Project” and this graphic, although I certainly can’t vouch for it.
comment image

AC
AC
February 17, 2020 9:32 pm

I wonder if the currently reported Chinese case numbers are from two weeks ago. Their numbers come very close to some of the models, if you presume the current Chinese numbers are actually about two weeks old.

Though 4.4 million dead is an extremely low estimate. About 131 million dead in China – if the Chinese data is accurate (but 2 weeks old), and nothing changes. I’m guessing deaths peak by mid to late May if their containment measures are ineffective, or mid to late July if they manage to reduce the effective R-0 by half.

yahsure
yahsure
February 17, 2020 10:44 pm

Move along, Its nothing to be worried about. Were from the Gov. trust us.

niebo
niebo
February 17, 2020 11:45 pm

Still having “issues” nailing down the incubation period:

Reluctant Warrior
Reluctant Warrior
February 18, 2020 7:46 am

Silly stuff really. This faux pandemic is meant to achieve multiple objectives not the least of which is to scare the piss out of us and make us a more pliable population. Don’t buy the Armageddon sky is falling theme. It is all nonsense.

Da Perfessor
Da Perfessor
February 18, 2020 10:00 am

Data “ex Asia”:

2/1/2020 43 cases, 0 deaths

2/8/2020 71 cases, 0 deaths

2/15/2020 83 cases, 1 death (the death was an elderly Chinese tourist)

At the current moment, 3 days later, and cases are at 85.

Sure, there are cultural and environmental factors in play but genetics has to be playing a major part here. Which flies in the face of the PC proposition of race being a social construct.

More than 2 weeks to get a doubling in cases highly suggests a nothingburger for those of us outside Asia, of non-Asian extraction, and enjoying clean air and water.

We may get a lot dead in the next few months but it won’t be from coronavirus, it will be from disruption of supply chains for pharmaceuticals (first), then lack of materials for our manufacturing base – so, loss of jobs (second) and follow-on civil unrest from likely financial crash and soaring inflation at the consumer level.

Da P.

overthecliff
overthecliff
February 19, 2020 3:36 pm

I’ll believe it when I see it. Trust in Government, UN and media leads me to not believe the hype. Maybe I’m wrong but we’ll see in six months or so.