Skip to content

Coronavirus Growth in Western Countries: July 19 Update

Published on 17 Comments on Coronavirus Growth in Western Countries: July 19 Update

Here’s the officially reported coronavirus death toll through July 19. The raw data from Johns Hopkins is here.

17 thoughts on “Coronavirus Growth in Western Countries: July 19 Update”

  3. golack

    The case numbers being reported by the CDC dropped off over the weekend. The numbers reported by WorldoMeter (and CovidActNow?) didn't--those values were consistent with previous weekend's values. That issue is on top of the sporadic reporting we're seeing, so data is a it noisy. So far, no state is reporting 10,000 new cases/day, or 100 deaths/day--I hope that holds. However, caseloads are still bad, over 25 new case/day/100K, in four states (AR, MO, FL, LA)--and those numbers still climbing. However, infection rates might be leveling off in those places--which is a start. Of course infection rates of 1.4 and above does indicate exponential growth (FL, KS, AL,GA, LA). Metro areas (CovidActNow) are showing some high values too. Killeen, TX just had a jump in cases--not sure if that is real or a reporting artifact.

    1. rational thought

      Golack,

      Any infection rate, or R, that stays above 1.0 is exponential growth . And R that stays at exactly 1.01 is still causing exponential growth. And any R less than 1.0 is an exponential decrease. The R is basically showing the rate of increase so is always by its nature showing the increase in exponential terms

      If you had a straight line increase with number of addtl cases increasing an equal amount each day, then the R would be decreasing.

      I think it was clear that we had immunity high enough to have an R below 1.0 pretty much everywhere a few months ago when dealing with alpha. So, what you would expect as delta appears is, at first, an R rising as you would still have an R below 1.0 for the majority of alpha cases and an R above 1.0 for the delta minority. As delta becomes a higher share of the total, the combined R gets closer and closer to the R for delta.

      And throughout this, both the alpha and delta R should be slowly decreasing as immunity from infections and vaccine increases and delta picks off the easiest to infect.

      Once delta is very dominant, then the decrease from immunity should start to outweigh the remaining switch from alpha to delta and the total R should start dropping. So then less than exponential growth.

      I would guess that places where R is topping off and starting to go down are where delta has just about finished taking over and kicking out alpha as much as it can. And places with an increasing R should indicate that delta is still not yet done displacing alpha.

      Of course with a lot of noise from changes in underlying conditions ( weather, restrictions), reporting distortions and random chance.

      Note if a new virus hits a virgin population ( and not displacing a less transmissible strain) you would tend to not have any period of increasing R. It would start high and decline from there.

      Any period of an increasing R, even with low cases and even if still negative, can be worrisome as it indicates a worse strain is starting to establish itself.

      Back months ago, when cases were still low and still dropping, but at a lower and lower rate ( i.e. R still below 1.0 but increasing) consensus was this is just because of reopening and no issue as long as R still below 1.0. But I was worried that what was really happening was delta or some other worse strain starting to hit.

      And I think in hindsight I was right.

      And funny thing back then was that, with a logical analysis, those who thought that restrictions work well had reason to not be worried. But those who thought restrictions are ineffective had reason to worry a lot. But of course vice versa because both sides seem to think more with ideological bias.

      1. golack

        You're right, I was going with the CovidActNow description. Of course the difference is in doubling times, whether you are looking at doubling in 2-3 months vs weeks vs. days. In the former cases, with R ca. 1.01, people can implement restrictions to lower R as cases rise, realizing it will take week(s) before the new restrictions have an effect without caseloads being drastically higher. In the latter case, R ca. 1.4, caseloads could be 10x higher before new restrictions have an effect.

        1. rational thought

          If the R without restrictions was 1.01, I would think restrictions make more sense to me even if only marginally effective because then you can get below 1 and can actually beat the virus without having to get to herd immunity. If R is 1.4, and you are not just buying time for vaccination, I just do not see the point of restrictions as I see no evidence that they can reduce R from 1.4 to below 1.0.

          If all you are dragging with restrictions is dragging out the infections and still going to need here immunity anyway , and around same number infected in the end, that is a lot of pain for nothing.

          This time last year, I thought many on both sides were being illogical, hypocritical or both. Republicans were mainly saying that trump will get us the vaccine by end of year and we should open up and stop restrictions - the vaccine will save us. While many Democrats were saying no way will we get a vaccine that soon - it will take a few years- and we need to keep tough restrictions.

          But anticipating that you could get a vaccine soon is exactly why you would want restrictions and there is little point if it takes years.

  4. cld

    from,

    https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-07/acop-cnf071921.php

    Having sickle cell disease quadruples risk for COVID-19-related hospitalization and doubles risk for COVID-19-related death

    Free full text: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M21-1375

    A large cohort study found that having sickle cell disease quadrupled a person's risk for COVID-19-related hospitalization and more than doubled the risk for COVID-19-related death. Having sickle cell trait was also associated with increased risks for both outcomes, albeit to a lesser extent. The findings are published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

    . . . .

    2. rational thought

      That would explain some of the greater African American case rates by a more direct genetic difference ( as I do not think anyone other than Africans get sickle cell as far as I know) rather than a more social link or maybe weak genetic link ( i.e. African Americans have more hypertension than whites but white have it too and unsure how much of the difference is lifestyle vs. Genetics).

      But it is a reason why they should be even more willing to get vaccinated

      Is there a test that can show if an individual has the genetic risk of sickle cell? If you can know you are at risk of it, and it increases risk of covid death that much, and still refuse vaccination, just never going to convince.

      1. cld

        I think 23andMe shows whether you have the variant for sickle cell, and if they can do it I'm sure the average doctor can. Don't know about the other consumer dna tests.

        My impression is the lower level of infection among those who actually have sickle cell vs those who carry the trait was implying those who already have it are being more cautious about their health and getting the vaccine, but, for some reason, they're not telling others about it.

    1. golack

      Good news--but take it with a grain of salt. Hydroxyquinone did have good results in the lab, but not in humans. Why? Lab tests were done on monkey cells. The drugs in this study target the virus, so that should be less of an issue--however, this work has to be peer reviewed and published. And then clinical trials need to be done. The drugs may be approved already, but we do not know when to give the treatment, the dosage needed to effectively treat the virus, nor even the best way to administer it.
      They've done a great job at finding viral targets and screening for drugs that can attack/bind to those targets. But that's just the end of the beginning.

      1. jakejjj

        I'll make sure to tell my friend whose life was saved by HCQ in March '20 that the "progressives" prefer that he'd have died. Maybe because my friend is Latino, and you Anglo racists hate us.

Comments are closed.