Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach [Note updates at the end]
Since the earliest days of the current pandemic, Italy has been the scary member of the family that you absolutely don’t want to emulate, the one cousin that gets into really bad trouble. The Italians have the highest rate of deaths from the COVID-19 coronavirus, and their numbers continue to climb. Here’s the situation today.

Figure 1. Deaths from the COVID-19 coronavirus expressed as deaths per ten million of the country population. Percentages of the total population are shown at the right in blue. All countries are aligned at the date of their first reported death. Most recent daily chart and charts of previous days are available by going here and scrolling down.
Italy, with over six thousand dead, is up well into the blue range. This is the range of annual deaths from the flu in the US. If the US coronavirus patients were dying at the same rate as in Italy, we’d have 38,000 coronavirus deaths by now in addition to the same number of flu deaths …
As a result, there has been much debate about why the Italian death rate is so high. People have suggested that it’s because they have one of the older populations in Europe. Others have noted that they often live in extended families. Some say it’s high numbers of smokers and polluted air. And some have pointed to their social habits that involve touching, kissing cheeks, personal contact during church rituals, and the like.
But we haven’t had good data to take a hard look at the question, or at least I hadn’t seen any.
In the comments to my post entitled END THE AMERICAN LOCKDOWN, wherein I passionately advocate just exactly that, I was given a link by a web friend, Mary Ballon, hat tip to her. It’s a report by a Swiss medical doctor about the COVID-19 deaths in Italy, well worth reading.
And in that document, there’s a further link to an Italian Government report. It’s in Italian of course, I have it on good authority that’s what they actually speak over there, who knew? They reported on the statistics of a large sample of the Italian deaths (355 out of 2003 total deaths at the time of the report). I got it, and the numbers are very revealing.
Let me start with the age distribution of the 2,003 Italians who had died at the time of the report. Figure 2 shows that it’s almost entirely old people.

Figure 2. Age of 2,003 Italians who had COVID-19 at the time of death.
Out of the 2,003 deaths, seventeen were people under fifty, and only 5 people under thirty died, while almost two hundred deaths were of people over 90. I’d read that the people dying in Italy were old, but I didn’t realize quite how old they actually are …
One thing I learned on this voyage was that the Italians distinguished between dying FROM the virus on the one hand, and dying WITH the virus on the other. Once I looked at the state of health of the Italian victims, however, I could see why they had to do that. Figure 3 shows the generous apportionment of serious diseases and conditions among the unfortunates.

Figure 3. Numbers of diseases in the sample of 355 Italians who had COVID-19 at the time of their death.
WOW! Yeah, they all had COVID-19. But three-quarters of them also had hypertension, a third had diabetes, a third had ischemic heart disease, a quarter of them had atrial fibrillation tossing clots into the bloodstream, and so on down the list.
As you can see from Figure 3, some people must have had more than one other disease besides COVID-19. Figure 4 shows the breakdown of the number of other diseases per patient.

Figure 4. Other diseases (comorbidities) of a sample of 355 of the 2,003 Italians who had COVID-19 at the time of their death.
For me, this was the most surprising finding of the entire study. Of all 355 people who died, only three did not have any of the diseases listed above. Three!
Looking at all of this as a whole picture, I had a curious thought about who they were representing. I thought … consider the characteristics of the people who died:
- More of the patients were over 90 than were under 60.
- The average age was 79 years.
- All but three of them had at least one other disease, so basically all of them were already sick.
- Three-quarters of them had two other diseases, and half of them had three or more other diseases. Half!
My thought was … that’s not a sample of the people in the street. That’s not a sample of an Italian family.
That’s a sample of a totally different population.
I was forced to a curious conclusion, both discouraging and encouraging. It is that most of these diseases were probably not community-acquired. Instead, I would hazard a guess that most of them go by the curious name of “nosocomial” infections, viz:
nos·o·co·mi·al
/ˌnōzōˈkōmēəl/
adjective MEDICINE
(of a disease) originating in a hospital.
Here’s what I suspect. I think that the COVID-19 disease got established in a couple of areas in Italy well before anyone even knew the disease was there, perhaps even before the Chinese recognized it as a novel disease.
And in some fashion, it got into the medical system. Doesn’t matter how. But once there, it was spread invisibly to other patients, in particular the oldest and weakest of the patients. It went from patient to patient, from patient to visitor and back again, and it was also spread by everyone in the hospital from administrators to doctors and nurses to janitors. In many, perhaps most cases, they didn’t even know they were sick, but they were indeed infectious.
And that’s why the pattern of the Italian deaths is so curious, and their number is so much larger than the rest of the world. It’s not a cross-section of the general population. It’s a cross-section of people who were already quite sick, sick enough that they were already visiting doctors and having procedures or being bedridden in hospitals. It was 85-year-olds with three diseases.
And it’s also why the death rate in Italy is so high—these people were already very ill. I can see why the Italians are distinguishing between dying FROM the virus and dying WITH the virus.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
As I said, this is both discouraging and encouraging. It’s discouraging because getting the virus out of a modern medical facility and a dispersed medical system isn’t easy. Italy has a big job ahead. And it’s discouraging because it means that the medical personnel who are so needed for the fight are getting the disease as well. Very likely they won’t die from it, but they will be hors de combat for three weeks or so. No bueno.
On the other hand, it is encouraging in a couple of aspects.
First, it lets us know what we need to do to prevent the Italian outcome. We have to, must, keep the virus out the medical system.
- We need to seriously quarantine the sufferers away from other sick people.
- We need to set up testing facilities at all medical centers and test the medical personnel daily.
- In areas with a number of COVID-19 infections, we need to set up separate field hospitals. There are a number of commercial versions of these that are expandable by adding modules, and are pathogen-tight, with airlocks at the doors, HEPA exhaust filters and negative air pressure maintained throughout. We know how to do this stuff, we’ve just got to do it.
- We need to test in-hospital patients at the time of their arrival and continue to test them at intervals during their stay.
- We’ll have to be very careful with visitors to patients in the hospitals
It’s a big job, and we absolutely have to do it.
Second, it cautions us to not claim that everyone who tests positively for COVID-19 after death actually died FROM the disease. They may very well have died WITH the disease.
Finally, the other reason it’s encouraging that Italy’s infection is likely nosocomial is that it removes Italy as the mysterious bogeyman of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, it points to just what we have to do.
IF (and it’s a big if) we take the proper precautions to protect our vulnerable medical system and personnel, I don’t think that the US will get as high a death rate as Italy has today.
Note that this makes me seriously question the idea of “flattening the curve” … if you let the virus into your hospitals and medical system you’re toast, no matter how flat the curve is.
So let’s end this crazy American lockdown, there’s a whole raft of work to be done shoring up our medical sector to withstand the coming wave, and it can’t be done at home with our heads in the sand, hundreds of thousands of people not working, jobs disappearing daily, and our economy in a shambles …
My very best regards to all, stay well in these parlous times,
w.
As Usual: I ask that when you comment, QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU’RE DISCUSSING. Knowing who and what you’re referring to avoids endless misunderstandings and arguments.
[UPDATE]: Just after publishing this, I was reading about loss of the senses of smell and taste being symptoms of coronavirus infection. In the article, I found this:
Hopkins says an Italian doctor shared that “he and many of his colleagues had lost their sense of smell while working in northern Italy dealing with COVID-19 patients.”
… “many of his colleagues”. Kinda support my theory of nosocomial infection in Italy.
[UPDATE 2]: In the news today, the headline Coronavirus: 4,824 Italian Health Workers Are Infected … one in ten of their coronavirus cases are health workers …
[UPDATE 3]: Here’s a graph showing just how different Italy is from the other countries with numbers of cases …

PS—Let me take this opportunity to provide a wider readership to a comment that my obstropulous (yes, it’s a real word) good friend Steve Mosher posted on my blog yesterday. He’s living in Korea and has been a close observer of just how they are succeeding in controlling the virus. He spells out the level and the details of what we have to do. His comment is below, my thanks to him.The key is changing the criteria for testing. Here [in Korea] we test and track.
An employee of a call center in Seoul, was infected.
Office had 207 people.
March 8th. he tested positive.
EVERY person in that office was tested. today 152 have tested positive, they tested floors above and below his floor. Today 3 more from the 11th floor were found and 1 contact.
They are now tracing the contact, and the contact’s contacts. All will be tested. The business was in a residential building. 553 of the people in that building were tested. floors 13-18
This little beastie lives on surfaces for up to 3 days. See that elevator button? the hand rail on the stairs? the bathroom door handle? the coffee cup that pretty girl behind the counter handed you? it’s there. Now in my building we have hand sanitizer by the elevator buttons. you get in the habit of not touching public pretty quickly. Trust me I am not a germ phobe, but the changes have been simple when they are reinforced.
Let me give you a little taste of the highly detailed info we get.
Info that is shared daily in one spot, I will include some of the earlier call center case snippits
“In Daegu, every person at high-risk facilities is being tested. 87 percent completed testing and 192 (0.8 percent) out of 25,493 were confirmed positive. From Daesil Covalescent Hospital in Dalseong-gun, 54 additional cases were confirmed, which brings the current total to 64. In-patients on 6th and 7th floors are under cohort-quarantine.”
“From Guro-gu call center in Seoul, 7 additional cases (11th floor = 2; contacts = 5) were confirmed. The current total is 146 confirmed cases since 8 March. (11th floor = 89; 10th floor = 1; 9th floor = 1; contacts = 54)”
“From Bundang Jesaeng Hospital in Gyeonggi Province, 4 additional cases were confirmed. The current total of 35 confirmed cases since 5 March (20 staff, 5 patients in inpatient care, 2 discharged patients, 4 guardians of patients, 4 contacts outside the hospital). The 144 staff members who were found to have visited the hospital’s Wing no. 81 (where many confirmed cases emerged) were tested, 3 of whom tested positive.”
“Five additional confirmed cases have been reported from the call center located in Guro-gu, Seoul, amounting to a current total of 129 confirmed cases from the call center since 8 March. As of now, 14 confirmed cases in Gyeonggi Province has been traced to have come in contact with a confirmed patient who is a worker at the 11th floor call center at a religious gathering. Further investigation and tracing are underway.”
Test, Trace, Test more.
A random test in Iceland found 1% infected. 50% asymptomatic.
If the US persists in only testing the symptomatic you won’t squash this bug.
Our cases are going up in Seoul. So we will have 15 days of voluntary social distancing.
go to work
stay away from crowds
wash your hands
wear a mask
don’t touch your face
<<<>>>
This is a test run to see if measures actually slow the spread of a weaponized virus.
And a cost-benefit analysis.
not to mention tallying up how much money killing off very old very sick people saves
<<<>>>
Pretty soon we will be 10 Trillion dollars in cost (lost wealth, cost of economic stimulus) versus (call me callous) on the high side 50,000 dead.
50,000 lives versus 10,000,000,000,000 dollars = $20 Million per life — lives don’t matter that much, regardless of color or uniform —
unless everyone on this board has a 20 Million Dollar life insurance policy, DON’T you dare take issue with my acerbic wit
This exercise in futility shows that — ABSENT LOCKING EVERYONE IN A BUBBLE, you cannot stop a virus that is even mildly contagious and has a moderately long incubation period
Mic Drops — horrible feedback
Furthermore,
It is shocking to see people who are so staunchly anti government involvement in Renewable Energy be so “FOR” government involvement in DESTROYING FREEDOM and Wealth.
Freedom of Travel –
Freedom of Assembly –
Freedom to Earn –
The governments of the world have ERASED Trillions of Dollars of WEALTH, and the US alone is going in the hole for 2.2 Trillion in spending and $4 Trillion in extra money supply via the fed.
When all is said and done probably 15 TRILLION or more will have been spent WITH NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT.
Yet if $15 Trillion was spent on SOLAR, WIND, GEOTHERMAL, and other technologies as well as DISTRIBUTED GENERATION INFRASTRUCTURE:
We would have a resilient, modern power and electricity architecture with multiple redundancies that would support future growth and expansion that FOSSIL and NUCLEAR cannot support, while at the same time being able to operate regardless of terrorism or natural disaster.
SHAME ON YOU
re: “Yet if $15 Trillion was spent on SOLAR, WIND, GEOTHERMAL, and other technologies as well as DISTRIBUTED GENERATION INFRASTRUCTURE:
We would have a resilient, modern power and electricity architecture with multiple redundancies”
———-
Doesn’t work that way with Wall Street “on paper” funny money.
Distributed generation will get here, but not with the ‘tech’ you have in mind; to take your course is to solve tomorrow’s problems with yesterday’s tech solutions. We have a system that works adequately today, without spending a ton of money that would surely become stranded assets were we to to take your prescribed course.
Not hardly. Even if batteries, or pumped storage, or something/anything existed to cover those periods when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow, well, let’s do a thought experiment.
What if you tried to take your house off the grid. You could purchase and install a gasoline or diesel generator that could meet your needs, and since it runs nearly 24/7, all you have to worry about is meeting your peak demand, that’s the size generator you buy. Now, all you clowns supporting solar keep telling me how solar $/kW is competitive with a coal-fired plant, so here’s your chance to prove it, supposing you instead buy solar panels that have that same nameplate capacity, and according to your claim, they’re the same cost.
But wait, solar panels only work for ~1/4 of the day. No problem, you say, that mythical battery will provide backup, so you buy enough batteries to give you 3/4 of a day of energy, you make
haypower while the sun shines, and stuff it into those batteries, and all is well… but wait. You only bought enough solar panels to meet your home’s peak demand, and suppose the peak demand occurs at the same time as peak solar, there’s nothing left over, you have to buy more panels, about 4 times more panels, since they only get 1/4 of a day to make power, to have enough energy made to stuff it into those batteries. But wait, stuffing power into a battery and getting it back out isn’t 100% efficient, I would venture only 80% efficient, so you have to buy another diesel generator’s worth of panels to make enough power to be wasted to the atmosphere.So you’re cooking along, off the grid, happy as a lark, and then you can’t see the sunrise one morning because there are too many clouds. Which means your solar panels don’t work, either. So you buy enough additional batteries to cover another day, and now you have more batteries to charge so you buy more solar panels, too. And you’re all happy until you get two days in a row of full coverage clouds! So now you buy enough batteries to get you through another day, and then you buy enough solar panels to charge those, too. And… And no matter how long of a period you design for, sooner or later a period will occur that exceeds those design specs, and you’re sitting there, surfing the web by candlelight. Now I don’t know what happens in your house, but when my wife can’t take a hot shower or a long hot bubble bath, I hear about it. Same if the house gets too warm, or too cold, and those two events aren’t too far apart, your system better be ready and able to wake up and take care of that out-of-bounds environment, or I hear about it. So after about 1 day (or less) of hearing about it, I buy and install that gasoline or diesel powered generator, or slink back to the power company and pay the exorbitant fee to restore my power connection. So why should I buy a power system 10 or 12 times over, and then buy that generator? Why not cut to the chase, and get just the generator? Or stay on the grid?
But despite my fairy tale above there still is no solution to what happens when the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine, and yes those 2 frequently happen concurrently. The amount of batteries needed to cover those periods push the already outrageous prices to install unreliables into stratospheric range, so I’m not gonna do it.
And just for good measure, those unreliables don’t do what you pushers are saying they do anyway. Over the life of the system, just as much CO₂ enters the atmosphere as would with a fossil fuel powered system. Not that I think they need to, I believe this world needs more atmospheric CO₂, not less.
BTW, I’m not in favor of shutting down the economy, either. I believe we have already entered the cure-is-worse-than-the-disease zone.
And all that is only for a house.
It sucks to lose power in a house, but it does not shut down an entire business or industry.
What about smelting, or any sort of manufacturing, or hospitals, or water treatment, or sewage treatment, or any of a thousand industries and critical infrastructure usages that we need to have power for, all the time, continuously?
In those instances, losing power is not inconvenient, it can be deadly and destructive.
In the case of some industries, losing power can bankrupt the company…say with a smelter that solidifies.
Of course, there is a solution that we can build starting today with none of these drawbacks…but for some strange reason, most warmistas are firmly against nuclear…and even hydro power.
Which are the only two non fossil sources of cheap reliable, and abundant power we have.
There are not enough batteries made on the planet in a year to power even one large city for even a day or two, even if the batteries could be drawn down fast enough to make it work for a short time.
It occurs to me that there is something going on here that surpasses the admittedly appealing simplicity of exponential mathematical models that can only soar to the moon. A similarly simplified positive feedback global thermal runaway would also have a familiar ring even if neither can have happened historically, inexplicably leaving us here to further converse. Like so much that is biological (and earthly in general), infection is a more complex interaction between an intrusive bio-agent and a host population than in all due candor we yet fully grasp, neither party of which is really static but exhibit potential for variation both in invasiveness and host susceptibility during the extended course of their encounters.
Any complete therapeutic sequestering the extremely ill along with their most invasive viral intruders serves to concentrate them out of otherwise continuing wider community action populated by mutated viral strains responsible for less severe or asymptomatic afflictions that become supernumerary there while contributing to the herd immunity that eventually suppresses that contagion. Note too the reports that only a small minority of assumed Italian coronavirus deaths have tested positive post mortem, so that worst case data may not be what we think it is and so becomes ‘garbage in’ to our handy math model. But certainly beyond social distancing and personal hygienic measures in the whole population, a most pertinent sequestering is the intentional isolation from exposure of the most susceptible high risk hosts who are burdened by other comorbidities, who plainly warrant similar protection during each yearly flu season. And should we identify effective antiviral agents or vaccines or even avoid some exacerbating pharmaceutical/chemical factor, the damage can be further blunted.
However hysteria is particularly unavailing, even if desperately sought after for targeted political effect. And of course no matter what be the proximate mortal attribution, in the end as ‘the bard’ reminds us: “live we how we can, yet die we must”. But meanwhile unsettled elitists on either coast eyeing their ascendant exponential curves can at least rest easy in this thought regarding the ultimate survival of the human race despite such an epidemic: somewhere in the vast stretches of the central continent in what they consider merely ‘fly over country’ reside isolated prepper deplorables who are perhaps most likely of all to survive, disembark their ark, and repopulate that republic they so ‘bitterly cling to’. So I suppose it can be said that ‘hope and change’ do still linger upon the horizon.
re: ” A similarly simplified positive feedback global thermal runaway would also have a familiar ring”
Don’t forget your physics; thermal emission proportional to T to the fourth power (T^4).
Stefan-Boltzmann law. Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.
Actually we’re mostly New Jersians, New York-ites and Californicators now in Colorado. I’m not so sure how prepped they are to do anything but speed and spend. God bless ’em!
I’ve added the following graph as an update at the end of the head post …
w.
That is not at all what the graph for cases in Florida looks like.
For Florida, the peak is in the center (ages 45-54), and appears normally distributed in a bell curve, with a slight preponderance in the upper age groups:
Click the Florida Counties tab in the center at bottom to see cases for the whole state by age group in a bar graph:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/96dd742462124fa0b38ddedb9b25e429
Here is the one I am referring to on my Twitter page:
https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1244366432462389250?s=20
Those are two different variables. I’m looking at the age distribution of the deaths, while your link looks at the age distribution of the cases.
Now, suppose you mostly tested young people … what would age distribution of the cases look like? Yes, it would indeed skew young.
This is why I’ve focused on deaths rather than cases … cases is a function of testing.
w.
OK, my bad. I was looking at the text in the little box, not the y-axis of the graph.
You do raise an interesting point…what is the age distribution of the people tested so far?
Does it match the distribution of the cases found?
I am not sure how they are deciding who gets tested.
Clearly who is tested, and the number of tests given, as well as how they are selected (or turned down for testing, for that matter) will all have a strong influence on the number of positive test found…assuming as most of us probably are that a large pool of people who have the virus have not been tested yet.
The number of cases may be far larger, maybe 10x, than those that have been found by testing, and IMO, surely is, since few seem to have any idea how they were infected. Not sure how other people feel about that likelihood though.
Hi Willis,
I sort of overall agree .. this damned illness started a long ago unknownly, creeping and spreading silenciously through the population and eventually deeply rooted in sanitary bodies like hospitals etc..
With a long incubation time .. and often in an asymptomatic way (or slighlty symptomatic, getting lots of cases misunderstood as flu clincial pictures..)
And yes, the young and “healthy” ones aren’t generally severely affected ..with some unavoidable exceptions due to the individual immunitary ultimate responce..
And, what’s more.. the test is not always truthful with this bloody bug..
I am sure it comes negative sometimes even if the person is infected.. I don’t know why.. probably the bug RNA is not always shown on our nasopharingx lining to be detected…
I am sure there are “window periods” in which you cannot pick it out..
That’s why i’ts wise to repeat the test.. in proper times according to the clinical evolution of the persons/patients tested and the jobs and tasks they are in charge to accomplish if they are judged virus “free” and allowed to keep working and have some social involvement!
And we well know there have been (and there still are!) persons clearly symptomatics (for example like some nurses of ours and even the chief of the Civil defence yesterday..) who in spite of suggestive symtoms have come negative to the tests.. that I know, one nurse of ours even 2 times negative!
I am strogly convinced this damned probably lab. modified virus is really different and unpredictable from the other ones that mankind has experienced up to now…
So yes.. the rules are: sanitysing and sanitysing.. keep attention to hygene and your distances… for many months but possibly allowing more “wise freedom” for the Citizens soon.. although it will never be completely easy to realize in a safe way due to the inevitable stupid ones taking risks..
One last word: I hope.. and I am almost sure that at the end of this first pandemia a LOT of persons will develop/build a “herd immunity” that will surely help us to keep on surviving with much less risks of relapse … UNLESS this bloody virus is designed to significantly CHANGE its molecular markers and so managing to broadly escape our already produced immunity response!
Kind Regards
Lady Reviewer MD
Italy
From Scott Adams: https://youtu.be/axDxEeanems
Not sure if what he’s saying is dangerous/deadly or helpful/hopeful.
I see things have gone downhill here with conspiracy theorists and global warming maniacs acoming out of the woods.
re: “with conspiracy theorists and global warming maniacs coming out of the woods.”
Normally the phrase is “coming out of the woodwork”, but ‘coming out of the woods’ works too. :^))
The ones who can’t see the trees , I guess.
“Benjamin Gompertz originally designed the function to detail his law of human mortality for the Royal Society in 1825. The law rests upon an a priori assumption that a person’s resistance to death decreases as his age increases.” His model is built on the assumption that “the rate of absolute mortality (decay) falls exponentially with current size”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gompertz_function
Since then the Gompertz model has been used for other things. Because it has the right shape for those things. But that does not mean it has the right shape for all things.
The Gompertz model has been developed further in several ways. review paper:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0178691
“The Gompertz model [1] is one of the most frequently used sigmoid models fitted to growth data and other data, perhaps only second to the logistic model (also called the Verhulst model) [2]. Researchers have fitted the Gompertz model to everything from plant growth, bird growth, fish growth, and growth of other animals, to tumour growth and bacterial growth [3–12], and the literature is enormous. The Gompertz is a special case of the four parameter Richards model, and thus belongs to the Richards family of three-parameter sigmoidal growth models, along with familiar models such as the negative exponential (including the Brody), the logistic, and the von Bertalanffy (or only Bertalanffy) [13][14]. ”
Note the word ‘fitting’. Fitting a curve to data is a common thing. But sometimes it is not appropriate.
In the covid case, we are fitting the early phase — we do not yet know what the final phase looks like.
Steven Mosher: “The problem with Gompertz and Farr’s law is they are non mechanistic. For a mechanistic model you want SIR compartmental models”
These models compartmentalize the population into Susceptible, Infected, and Removed (which includes both the recovered and dead) and then uses probability theory to study how the infection moves through the population. Steven linked to an excellent video about this, a recording of a prof teaching his class online and making it available on YouTube.
The course outline
http://www.leonidzhukov.net/hse/2020/networks/
Lecture 9 Compartmental epidemic models: SI, SIS, SIR.
Epidemics on Networks Part I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXkr0AsEh1w
Lecture 10 Spread of epidemics on network. SI, SIS, SIR network models.
Epidemics on Networks Part II https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVTDWQEXZj0
Both are mathematical. The first one you can watch and understand even without a math background.
The second one requires more math background, but it goes beyond the idealistic models of the first and gets into what our situation really is. Note the importance of airlines to the spread of the disease.
He includes graphic simulations in both which makes the concepts easy to understand.
BTW, there is also the SEIR model where some become immune. But he said then the math gets hard.
Note that the SIR models show that everybody will become infected if R0 is greater than one.
For the SIR Network models, that is more complicated. It depends on connectivity of the network.
I encourage everyone to look at those two videos.
Sorry, the E in the SEIR model is for Exposed where there is a time delay between exposure and infection. Scratch the word ‘immune’ word in that sentence above.
For an SEIR Epidemic Calculator, see
http://gabgoh.github.io/COVID/index.html
You can adjust the parameters to see what happens. In particular, drag the slider for the R parameter after the intervention day
MAYBE it’s just me, or maybe not … but it occurs to me that the word ‘model’ is a bit over-used in some of today’s present dialog.
A ‘model’ to me would imply that first principles from physics are involved, whereas WHAT is actually being described are simple mathematical formulas that have been found to closely mimic various performance ‘curves’ that are observed in nature, but, it’s not what nature does. Nature uses physics’ first principles. NOW add in human behavior, our ability functioning as a society, with researchers, scientists and engineers (able to create medical treatments et al) and all AND another ‘unknown’ (another variable or ‘millyun’) is added to the ‘protocol’ stack.
The model usually used to describe growth in these circumstances in ecology is the logistic function:
{\displaystyle {\frac {dP}{dt}}=rP\left(1-{\frac {P}{K}}\right),}
where P is the population, r describes the growth rate and K is the carrying capacity.
Starts of as an exponential in the early growth phase as we can see in the COVID-19 growth curves then it tails off as we can see in the Italy curve and ultimately flattens off as in the case of S Korea.
re: “The model usually used to describe growth in these …”
An equation, an expression, a mathematical formula describing an idealistic ‘growth’ curve; in my world: “not a model”.
In my world a ‘model’ would be comprised of the physical geometry of a structure (3D depiction in say AutoCad), included would be the composition material of said structure ‘element’ from which the electrical constants (first principle of physics) would be extracted before being fed into the ‘modeling engine’ which uses Maxwell’s Equations to ‘solve’ for the structure’s resonance and (electrical) radiation (emission) characteristics.
You (Phil) described a mathematical formula that simply describes ‘a curve’; little bearing on the first principle physics involved (which would be complicated for a virus, but not unsolvable today).
I didn’t see any ‘factors’ or terms which take into consideration ‘human’ action (intervention, like treatments, quarantines, etc.) either (of course not!) because you described a simple ‘curve’ which took into consideration ONLY growth of the contagion in a population. Not a very useful, realistic ‘model’ eh?
It’s happening here too. Jo Nova’s site is the same. Scepticism is no longer a word in the brave new world (order).
H.G.Wells The War of the Worlds radio broadcast . Anyone recall that?
Hang in there Willis. (As if you would not :-))
Very interesting article. Makes me think of the high numbers of deaths from individual old age homes, whether they be in Washington State or Madrid. In other words the institutions affected are these, as well as hospitals.
The CDC’s recommendations for Chloroquine use are here.
w.
Willis
I include a text file of University of Washington test results. They create an interesting graph I do not have the time to work out how to post here. I hope you can copy the data. I used their graphic as it contained the amount of samples tested each day.
http://depts.washington.edu/labmed/covid19/
The other data set I found for what appears to be considered an infection epicenter. Washington State Flu season report: Week 12 many people reporting for testing .
https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/5100/420-100-FluUpdate.pdf
Date Negative Inconclusive Positive Positive_tot Tests %Positive
02/03/20 30 0 1 1 31 3.2
03/03/20 4 0 2 3 6 33.3
04/03/20 202 4 7 10 213 3.3
05/03/20 125 3 0 10 128 0.0
06/03/20 187 2 16 26 205 7.8
07/03/20 220 4 14 40 238 5.9
08/03/20 466 15 79 119 560 14.1
09/03/20 380 5 40 159 425 9.4
10/03/20 721 4 46 205 771 6.0
11/03/20 1113 9 91 296 1213 7.5
12/03/20 1171 11 82 378 1264 6.5
13/03/20 1361 8 95 473 1464 6.5
14/03/20 1529 20 96 569 1645 5.8
15/03/20 1643 9 94 663 1746 5.4
16/03/20 1487 8 135 798 1630 8.3
17/03/20 2134 14 170 968 2318 7.3
18/03/20 2857 31 183 1151 3071 6.0
19/03/20 2072 26 138 1289 2236 6.2
20/03/20 2733 19 193 1482 2945 6.6
21/03/20 1440 14 114 1596 1568 7.3
22/03/20 942 8 94 1690 1044 9.0
23/03/20 987 7 152 1842 1146 13.3
24/03/20 1257 10 141 1983 1408 10.0
25/03/20 1755 19 192 2175 1966 9.8
26/03/20 2409 21 244 2419 2674 9.1
Good analysis Willis. The proof of any theory is if it accurately reflects the real world. This article is relevant. Cheers.
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/one-important-step-to-avoid-italys-fate/ar-BB11VbMF?ocid=spartanntp