Yes, COVID Is Spreading Faster, But Not As Fast As You Think

Don’t be this guy.

by James A. Bacon

Once again Virginia is gripped by COVID-19 hysteria, this time whipped up by a surge in the number of confirmed cases. The situation needs to be taken seriously — people are getting sick, and people are dying — but the wide-eyed alarmism likely isn’t justified.

Let’s start by looking at the seven-day moving average of confirmed cases reported on the Virginia Department of Health dashboard, which is the basis for the panic.

Based on these numbers, the spread of COVID-19 appears to be terrifying. The seven-day moving average is approaching 5,000 new cases reported daily — roughly four times the rate of the spring and summer peaks.

But the question arises, are more people getting COVID-19, or have we just massively expanded the level of testing? Are we capturing cases that we missed back in the spring and summer?

To answer that question, let’s now look at VDH’s testing data. Lo and behold we see that Virginia’s testing capacity has increased markedly (if belatedly) since the beginning of the epidemic ten months ago.

Thus, part of the jump in confirmed cases probably can be attributed to the ramp-up in testing. But only part.

VDH publishes another chart, which shows the number of “positive” tests as a percentage of total testing encounters. A larger percentage of positive tests suggests that the virus is more prevalent in the population. The value of the percent-positive measure was limited in the early months when testing capacity was scarce and tests were given mainly to people whose symptoms were severe enough to warrant hospitalization — a highly unrepresentative sample. Now that everyone who wants a test can get one, one would hope, the indicator is much more useful.

This chart shows that the percentage of positive tests has spiked, which suggests that the virus is far more prevalent now.

But maybe not.

Yet another data series — the number of hospitalizations — suggests that the situation is not so dire. Yes, as can be seen in the graph below, we have hit a new high in hospitalizations, but it’s only slightly higher than the spring peak. Unlike the number of confirmed cases, the number of hospitalizations is not busting through the stratosphere. A genuine cause for concern, but not for panic.

Consistent with the hospitalization numbers shown above is the number of reported deaths, as seen here.

Yes, the number of COVID-related deaths has increased recently, reaching a seven-day moving average of almost 40 per day. But that’s slightly less than the spring peak. Of course, we have to consider the fact that COVID treatments have improved significantly in the past half year, so front-line hospital workers are saving lives that would have been lost six months ago. Even so, this data is hardly consistent with an epidemic raging out of control.

Which brings me to some data sleuthing that I would love to take credit for but is in fact is the handiwork of an individual who asks to remain anonymous on the grounds that, he says, “I’m not sure my employer would appreciate me criticizing the government.” I post his analysis here:

As I’m sure you’re aware, the Commonwealth of Virginia has reported an extremely large number of COVID cases over the last few days. I’ve been monitoring the Virginia COVID situation rather closely, and I’m quite certain something is skewing this data over the last four days. I’ve tried to find mention of these anomalies in the media, and I’m not surprised they have yet to report on this at all.

The Virginia Department of Health maintains several data sets pertaining to COVID, some of which are updated daily. The most viewed and downloaded of these reports cases by municipality and Health District. If you only look at this data set, you’d think we’re suffering from a massive surge of COVID infection all over the Commonwealth.

However, the VDH also reports the same data in a separate, and far less viewed, set called Cases By Age Group. This data set reports the cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in each Health District, broken down into ten-year age increments. Additionally, it also contains a small number of cases each day that have a “missing” birthdate, and thus cannot be categorized by age. To establish a baseline for you, during the first 13 days of January, the number of cases in the “missing” category averaged 17.46 statewide. The running total of cases in that category stood at 2,444 on the 13th.

On the 14th, VDH reported a total of 569 cases with a missing DOB. That was followed by 461 on the 15th, 2,302 on the 16th, and 6,441 on January 18

Of those 9,773 cases without DOBs over the last four days, 2 were reported as hospitalized. That works out to a hospitalization rate of 0.0205%. Even if all 9,773 of these reported cases were to somehow be children between the ages of 10-19, which is the age group with the lowest cumulative hospitalization rate in Virginia (0.47% over the course of the Pandemic, and 0.23% between Dec 1st and Jan 1st), the rate of hospitalization reported with these phantom 9,773 cases is completely and totally implausible.

Unless, of course, something else is going on here.

My best guess is that these test results have been generated by mail-in at home COVID tests which were run for 40 or so cycles, which will report just about any exposure to the COVID virus as a “positive” case, regardless of whether the tested individual is actually infected.

Bacon’s bottom line:

If my correspondent’s hypothesis is correct, the statistical spike in confirmed cases reflects in part an increase in the number of hyper-sensitive mail-COVID tests rather than a rocketship-to-Mars blast-off in the prevalence of the disease.

I invite Bacon’s Rebellion readers to dissect my correspondent’s reading of the data. Sadly, we are not seeing this level of inquiry either from state government or the media. We citizens need to do the heavy analytical lifting ourselves.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

33 responses to “Yes, COVID Is Spreading Faster, But Not As Fast As You Think”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar

    Testing does not create more cases , the cases are real and do exist but were not detected.

    The key issue is not whether a test is “sensitive” or not, but rather does it generate false positives at a higher rate than other tests.

    This seems like the “see no evil” school of thinking to me.

    It’s beyond me why we engage in these kinds of ruminations. There is no question that – across the country – we’re seeing increased cases – no matter what kind of tests.

    A new variant from the UK is part of it.

    Why do we do this? i.e. try dimish the issue especially when it seems to be related to the “hoax” narrative?

    We’ve got a pandemic. It’s highly contagious. People are sick of masks and social distancing and not being able to eat out or have the kids in school.

    Why is it so hard to believe that we’ve got increases in cases and heckfire, if this were really true why the stampede to get the shots?

    1. Translation of LarrySpeak: “I don’t like the implications of this analysis, therefore it is wrong.”

      None of what I have written, by the way, contradicts the need to continue wearing face masks, practicing social distancing, and rolling out the vaccination program.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        At least you got something outside of the canned response of “science”.

  2. LarrytheG Avatar

    The “analysis” is more of the same that we’ve had all along. It basically seeks to minimize the reality of COVID and when you add it to the other posts demanding that schools re-open, restaurants re-open, etc. it just makes no sense when the cruise ships are still shut down, the courts are hobbled, the GA is meeting virtually, DMV requires appointments…etc

    If one believes this “analysis” all these closures are not needed… but the reality is staring us in the face – “analysis” or not.

    That’s not “Larry Speak”, that’s more foolish denial of reality from the folks who have been peddling that stuff from the get go.

    1. Listen to yourself, Larry! You haven’t offered one substantive argument against the analysis. All you’re doing is providing a list of conclusions that no one else is drawing and then knocking them down.

      In LarryWorld, conclusions come first, facts and analysis second.

      But you believe in the science.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Look around you Jim. You’re calling every one else “Larry’s World”.

        You’re the one in denial.

        These “analyses” that you’re doing are not “science”. They
        are delusions by coming up with your own way of looking at the data.

        And you guys have been doing this from the get go.

        No one with half a brain believes it even if you claim it’s “science”, it’s not.

        It’s like the world changes as you guys stake out a position and just stick by it no matter what is happening in the real world.

        The virus is raging guy. Most folks KNOW IT and only the dumb ones are going to be convinced by your “analyses”.

        It must be in the genes of some Conservatives… they just can’t deal with the realities… I call this “Jims World”.

        1. Haha! You’re hilarious. Yet another comment that totally ignores the data and arguments in the post. Not. One. Word.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            No one with half-a-brain believes that bogus analysis! Ya’ll play data games but folks who know – know the realities.

            You call THIS “science”:

            ” Thus, part of the jump in confirmed cases probably can be attributed to the ramp-up in testing. But only part.”

            what “science” says this ” can probably be”?
            “The value of the percent-positive measure was limited in the early months when testing capacity was scarce and tests were given mainly to people whose symptoms were severe enough to warrant hospitalization — a highly unrepresentative sample.”

            Again, this is conjecture on your part, not “science”

            “Now that everyone who wants a test can get one, one would hope, the indicator is much more useful.
            This chart shows that the percentage of positive tests has spiked, which suggests that the virus is far more prevalent now.

            But maybe not.”

            “maybe not” – this is ‘science’?

            Finally: ” My best guess is that these test results have been generated by mail-in at home COVID tests which were run for 40 or so cycles, which will report just about any exposure to the COVID virus as a “positive” case, regardless of whether the tested individual is actually infected.”

            Your “best guess” is “science”?

            really.. you guys are a laugh a minute… and you then try to deflect your really BAD analysis by casting dispersions on others.

            Typical Conservative behavior these days.. make wild-ass claims then when questioned blame others and run.

            tsk tsk – ya’ll reall do need to re-think how you “think”… lots of questions all around these days…

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Never mind, you’d got “scienced”.

  3. David Bither Avatar
    David Bither

    COVID-19 “hysteria” is the operative term. Some of this over reaction is fueled by questionable testing methods. Even the CDC’s revised evaluation of the efficacy of the rapid antigen tests acknowledges that its results are inaccurate 20% of the time. Additionally, the more reliable PCR test produces not an insignificant number of false positives and false negatives results. If the suboptimum performance of the testing is not factored into the numbers, then their accuracy should be questioned.

    Additional questions arise with the “COVID death” numbers. This is reported as a discrete number with no delineation between those that have died directly due to a COVID infection and those that have died with some presence of the virus to include antibodies, but the cause of death is something other than COVID. Until the numbers include this distinction, they cannot be considered accurate in terms of the measuring the mortality of the virus.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      The only thing in the universe which is truly infinite is the human capacity for self delusion (proven yet again on and around Jan 6)……Things are much worse than they were, as had been predicted due to the widespread travel over the holidays and the impact of colder weather. I can recall scoffing at 400,000 deaths back in the summer, and we’re there — not as fast as once predicted, but we’re there.

      But on the question of what needs to be shut and what ought to be open, it seems fairly clear that most of the spread — even the Guv has said — is not in schools or workplaces but instead in normal human interactions. As in — holiday travel and family gatherings!

  4. LarrytheG Avatar

    Many folks, not all, KNOW the virus is raging and they KNOW that the behaviors we’ve argued about all along are relevant and they do act accordingly.

    Yet we still have folks doing “analysis” as if it’s really meaningful or to be interpreted as guidance for what to actually do.

    Most smart folks know that these “analyses” are for the less smart to fool themselves.

    It don’t matter about what test you used if the Doc says you got it and you need to be hospitalized and the reality is that conversation is happening quite a bit these days.

    People ARE DYING – and some are dying because they were deluded into conduct that made them vulnerable to infection. No good comes out of these so-called “analyses” except for perhaps the folks that are themselves deluded.

  5. UpAgnstTheWall Avatar
    UpAgnstTheWall

    Wait, I thought with Joe Biden as president the media was going to start ignoring COVID-19 not fanning the flames of hysteria! Did conservatives mislead me?!

    So absolute amounts are roughly six times what they were in the spring, raw testing has only doubled, case positivity is back to where it was in the spring, and hospitalizations and deaths are back to where they were in the spring despite a year’s worth of lessons learned in treatment best practices.

    Yeah, I’d say we’re in pretty bad shape, and the only people pushing back on that truth are the same people who were holding out hope for hydroxychloroquine to be proven effective as late as October. But the state needs to get its shit together with vaccine distribution and clarity – who can go when and where can they go is still almost entirely opaque.

    1. “Wait, I thought with Joe Biden as president the media was going to start ignoring COVID-19 not fanning the flames of hysteria! Did conservatives mislead me?!”

      COVID can still be blamed on Trump. Magnifying the epidemic now will make Biden’s victory over the virus all the greater.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Trump is the one who started saying more testing causes more cases…

        and then Conservatives got on that bus… and VOILA!

    2. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      …22 more hours, UATW….THEN he’s president. All will sunshine and hope in 22 hours….

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        Naw, UATW will continue to spot strawmen and factually inaccurate statements with the intent of being edgy and super woke.

        The post election blaming of Bush 43 will look tame compared to what we are about to see. Some of it real, but most of fantasy.

      2. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        Still not sure HCQ won’t emerge as having been successful. 🙂 (Just added that to irritate him/her/them.)

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          Which individual UATF or the “Science” guy?

          The fact of the matter is a therapeutic is whatever the physician doing the treating says elevates the patients symptoms to manageable state.

        2. UpAgnstTheWall Avatar
          UpAgnstTheWall

          All due respect to the tokamak, HCQ is the nuclear fusion of anti-virals…the applications are just five years down the line, it works great in the lab, and falls apart in situ.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “UpAgnstTheWall | January 19, 2021 at 3:04 pm | Reply
            All due respect to the tokamak, HCQ is the nuclear fusion of anti-virals…the applications are just five years down the line, it works great in the lab, and falls apart in situ/”

            Interesting, it appears you’re up against facts again. Malaria isn’t caused by a virus, its caused by a parasite. Therefore HCQ is an anti-parasite.

            Things you’d know if you’d bother to research your opinion for $800, Alex.

  6. Larry says: “No one with half-a-brain believes that bogus analysis!”

    Well, that’s quite the “scientific” critique!

    Look, Larry, “science” is not some magical word you invoke to miraculously reveal the truth. “Science” is shorthand for “the scientific method,” which is a way to approach understanding the world around us.

    With the scientific method, one surveys the data… as I have done above… and defines a question to be explained… as I have done… and formulates a falsifiable hypothesis… as I have done (or my correspondent has done)…. and subjects the data, analysis and hypothesis to critical review…. as I explicitly did by inviting readers to dissect my correspondent’s interpretation.

    Admittedly, I did not complete the loop and make a prediction based on my hypothesis. But my approach is far more in the spirit of the scientific method than yours, which is to infer conclusions that no one else has inferred, and criticize the conclusion on the grounds that you don’t like the conclusion.

    If you want to call the analysis “bogus,” then please explain how it is bogus. So far, your comment thread today has been so utterly convincing that it is not worth responding to…. other than to serve as a illustration of flailing and ineffective rhetoric.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Jim, that’s NOT the way that science works. You and whoever are using terms like “maybe” and “probable” , etc..

      that’s not how scienc works. Ya’ll are making up your own “science”!

      You can’t look at data and say “I think this is what it means”… or “I did not complete the loop”.

      ya’ll are hilarious..

      You’re basically doing seat-of-the-pants ad hoc, NON-scientific “analysis”.

      Anyone with half a brain KNOWs the virus is running rampant AND they KNOW to do the things that real science is telling them to do – masks, social distancing, etc, all those things that too many Conservatives are saying are bogus.

      1. 11-111
        00-010
        01-011
        10-110
        10-101
        00-010

        1. idiocracy Avatar

          It’s not Baudot, is it?

      2. With that said, you wrote: You can’t look at data and say “I think this is what it means”.

        Climate scientists analyze data and then form opinions as to what it means regarding climate change. And climate science is science, right?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Climate scientists don’t say “probably”, they show the data – and not just one yahoo.. but a shitload of them may agree and THEN you might put some stock in what “they think”.

          Jim just rolls his own stuff , makes fatuous claims and pronounces it “science”, shazaaam, but “probably” not “science”.

          No wonder he’s no fan of how science is really done by folks who
          are real scientists!

          And yes.. there seems to be a correlation between Climate skeptics and Covid skeptics…

          😉

      3. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        Larry, you think science is decided by a hand vote of those in the room, “consensus.” You’ve argued that for years, and it is plain silly and wrong.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          It’s MORE than just consensus. It’s a scientific process done by folks who have an education in the sciences and years doing that science.

          It’s NOT some “smart” guy with any kind of degree who has never actually worked in that specific field and has had other scientsts with degrees in the same field replicating his hypothesis.

          “consensus” means other credentialed scientists IN THE FIELD who have replicated another scientist hypothesis, CONFIRM it.

          When a scientists THINKs or says “maybe” or “probably” – that’s the beginning of a study to actuall provie it AND have other scientists agree with your methods and conclusions AFTER they too have gone through the process and replicated it.

          What Jim and other have done is POSTULATE something – without even proving it much less have other scientists examine it and try to replicated it.

          At some point some scientist will actually follow through with what Jim is claiming… and then provide his/her results and let other scientists see if they can replicate it and concur.

          That’s what is called CONSENUS. It’s NOT just agreeing with someone’s hypothesis.

  7. The Jan 19 dataset of cases by event date (i.e., onset date) shows
    since December 30, 4,287 cases were backfilled for dates between February and Dec 15 and added to the Dec 31 through current numbers. Almost 26,000 more were added for Dec 16-30. How does this not invalidate any rolling numbers and graphs?

    Even allowing for slow reporting for December numbers,
    I couldn’t find any explanation for where VDH is finding February through November numbers in January.

  8. I forgot to mention that between 12-7 and 12-30, VDH backfilled another 10,500 cases with onset dates of February 16 to November 15 that would all show up for the first time in December’s case count. No VDH explanation.

    And before that, there were four VDH statements on Oct 7, Nov 15, Nov 22, and Dec 5 about adding backlogged results. Those four sets add up to 10,401 more cases.

  9. So where are we left at? I just downloaded the cases by age group dataset. Took a copy of that, saved it, removed all but Jan. Saved that, then removed all but the missing birthdays. Saved that.
    Missing birthdays are 29974 for the first 13 days.
    14th – 3013, 15th – 3743, 16th – 5776, 17th – 12217, 18th – 15353, 19th – 15124, 20th 15341. That sort of massive increase in missing birthdays, is that from backlogged results (Carol) or from the at home tests?

    1. I compared the entries from an old age group dataset I had to today’s and the numbers for February through Aug 20 are identical for missing birthdates.

      Home tests were approved late in December. So it’s possible they account for the increased missing age entries in January.

      That wouldn’t affect the additional onset date entries because they happen in all months back to February, so we still don’t know where those were dug up.

Leave a Reply