Friday, April 24, 2020

UW’s IHME model criticized and how it may change



How overly optimistic modeling distorted Trump team’s coronavirus response

By Adam Cancryn

3 hrs ago


As coronavirus cases climbed daily by the thousands and the nation entered its second month of an economic standstill, President Donald Trump latched onto a sign of hope: A pandemic model closely followed by political leaders and public health specialists projected the virus would kill as few as 60,000 Americans, a figure far below what officials previously feared.

The new April forecast signaled the worst would soon be over, with some states effectively ending their bout with coronavirus as early as the end of the month. According to the model’s bell-shaped curves, hospitalizations and deaths nationwide were set to drop off nearly as quickly as they rose.

Trump swiftly adopted the projection from the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation as his newest measure of success — while top administration health officials including infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci and coronavirus response coordinator Deborah Birx touted the lower figure as a clear indication the U.S. was winning its fight with the disease.

“It looks like we’ll be at about a 60,000 mark, which is 40,000 less than the lowest number thought of,” Trump said during a press briefing on Sunday, April 19, adding the next day that “the low number was supposed to be 100,000 people. We could end up at 50 to 60.”

That’s not going to happen. More than 50,000 Americans are dead from the coronavirus already, following several days where the nation’s death toll routinely topped 2,000. The U.S. is now expected to blow past the 60,000 mark around the beginning of May, earlier than the IHME model had projected and with less of the dramatic leveling-off that its forecast had initially baked in.

In retrospect, public health experts said, the sudden downward shift in IHME’s numbers that gave the Trump administration, governors and some health professionals the confidence to float reopening the country by summer was also a prime example of the model’s inherent limitations — and the risk of relying on any model to accurately predict how a virus that scientists are still scrambling to understand will behave in the real world.

“You can’t oversell the models, and you have to view them within the correct context,” said Jeffrey Shaman, the coauthor of Columbia University’s coronavirus model, who warned of the difficulty in making projections based “on a highly fluid situation for which the information is woefully incomplete.”

Deborah Birx, Donald Trump are posing for a picture: President Donald Trump listens as White House coronavirus response coordinator Deborah Birx delivers remarks at a coronavirus press briefing Saturday.© Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images President Donald Trump listens as White House coronavirus response coordinator Deborah Birx delivers remarks at a coronavirus press briefing Saturday.

That’s particularly the case with the IHME model, a projection that’s risen to prominence in recent weeks as the White House’s favored reference point. The model is not the type of fringe source that has sometimes captured Trump’s attention — rather, it’s an academically credible analysis funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Yet the administration’s reliance on its projections has nevertheless frustrated much of the public health community, which cautions that IHME has not hewed to traditional disease modeling procedures or incorporated crucial variables. The result is a rosier picture of the crisis than the one portrayed by much of the rest of the modeling world.

“The IHME model is an odd duck in the pool of mathematical models,” said Gregg Gonsalves, an epidemiologist at the Yale School of Medicine. “I fear the White House is looking for data that tells them a story they want to hear, and so they look to the model with the lowest projection of death.”

At the center of those concerns is a key element, the IHME model’s critics say. The projection makes no attempt to account for the virus’ defining characteristics, like how easily it spreads or how long someone can be infected before they show symptoms.

Instead, it relies on data from cities already hit by the coronavirus, including in Italy and China, and matches the U.S. to a similar curve. The result is a projection that’s easily digestible and more precise in its predictions than most infectious disease models, but far more volatile as the situation plays out on the ground.

The IHME has made frequent revisions to its model over the last month. Since April 9, for example, its forecast of the nation’s death toll had risen from around 61,000 to closer to 70,000, before adjusting back down to roughly 67,000 people.

Each of its projections also includes an upper and lower boundary, mapped out by a shaded area, which range from as few as 48,000 – a figure the U.S. has already surpassed – to as many as 123,000 deaths.

“It’s a statistical model fitting the curves of epidemics in China and other places to what they think might happen in the U.S.,” Gonsalves said, “and then constantly refitting based on new data.”

IHME Director Christopher Murray defended his team’s work as rigorous and among the best models available, arguing that the forecast simply seeks to achieve different goals than more traditional projections. The model was originally meant to help hospitals predict their supply needs, as providers across the world braced for a wave of coronavirus patients.

“We’re willing to make a forecast. Most academics want to hedge their bets and not be found to ever be wrong,” Murray said. “That’s not useful for a planner – you can’t go to a hospital and say you might need 1,000 ventilators, or you might need 5,000.”

He added that IHME’s model is far more optimistic than others in large part because it heavily accounted for the impact of social distancing – a decision Murray credited for helping pinpoint the pandemic’s national peak even as others warned of continued massive growth in cases.

“We’re orders of magnitude more optimistic – on the other hand we also called the peak correctly,” he said. “We believe in fitting models to data, and not making an assumption and then saying how my assumption would play out in a hypothetical world.”

That’s caught the attention of the two to four million people – among them numerous public-health officials and hospital administrators — who visit the site every day. It’s also won the trust of the Trump administration, which first contacted IHME in late March as it was scrambling to allocate limited supplies and head off an overrunning of the health system, and has continued to swap data and observations with the group ever since.

As IHME grew more confident in early April that the nation’s abrupt lockdown had begun to work, so did top public health officials.

Shortly after IHME debuted its 60,000-death forecast, Fauci on April 8 echoed the sentiment, saying the administration now believed the eventual toll would be "more like like 60,000 than the 100,000 to 200,000" deaths health officials previously estimated.

But the White House’s coronavirus task force has in recent conversations with the group focused on a new challenge: How to navigate a gradual reopening of the country, representing a new phase that will be far more difficult to model.




“That just opens up a whole new set of challenges,” Murray said, noting that Georgia – whose governor, Brian Kemp, has called for businesses to reopen far sooner than in other states — hasn’t even hit its coronavirus peak under the IHME model.

“If Georgia’s going to have a resurgence, what about the neighboring states?” Murray said.

Compounding those concerns is what he called a “disturbing” trend of slower drop-offs in new cases in some countries like Italy, a signal that the crisis could persist for longer than expected.

The IHME, he said, will update its estimates next week to reflect a gloomier future amid indications that states like Georgia will begin to reopen — and boost the odds of a prolonged pandemic.

“We had presumed, perhaps naively, that given the magnitude of the epidemic, most states would stick to their social distancing until the end of May,” Murray said. “That is not happening.”

Trump this week criticized Georgia for allowing some businesses to reopen, an abrupt turnaround after he’d expressed support for Kemp’s plan just 24 hours earlier.

The president’s focus on projections – and his insistence on seizing on the most optimistic forecasts – has worried political allies, who say it sets his administration up for failure when the projections turn out to be flawed or imprecise.

“Any actual measurement, if you want to use an exact number, is a mistake,” said former Trump campaign aide Sam Nunberg. “Any president going through something like this is in a no-win situation in terms of any metrics.”

In recent days, Fauci and Birx have avoided benchmarking where the country may end up and emphasized that social distancing may remain in place longer than many people realized. Privately, two people close to the administration’s response effort acknowledged that the death toll is likely to stretch into the 70,000 and perhaps 80,000 range – and that’s assuming there isn’t a second wave of outbreaks in the fall.

“The program is not one that is going to be turn the lights on in America, we’re finished,” Fauci said Wednesday, referring to the administration’s reopening strategy. “We’re not. We have to proceed in a very careful, measured way.”

Trump has sought to revise his own forecast as well.

Above is from:  http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/how-overly-optimistic-modeling-distorted-trump-teams-coronavirus-response/ar-BB13a8nn?ocid=UE13DHP

How bad is CORID-19 for nursing home patients?


Here is the story of a Massachusetts nursing home where nearly half of the patients have died.

The Boston Globe

49 residents of a Belmont nursing home have died of coronavirus

Jeremy C. Fox

3 hrs ago

Forty-nine residents of a Belmont nursing home have died of the novel coronavirus and dozens more are infected, the home’s administrator said Friday in an e-mail to families.

Another 67 residents and 73 employees at Belmont Manor have tested positive, though many have had no symptoms of the virus, Administrator Stewart Karger said.

“The loss this represents is nothing short of devastating,” Karger said in his e-mail. “Our collective hearts are broken for the families of these residents, each of whom was the center of someone’s world. Rest assured that our staff did their very best to provide them both care and comfort.”

Last week, the nursing home near the Beaver Brook Reservation said 30 residents had died of the virus at that point.

The 135-bed long-term care facility was near capacity when the virus struck, a spokeswoman said Friday, meaning roughly 80 to 90 percent of residents became infected.

The family-owned facility remains fully staffed, Karger said, and most of the employees who tested positive for the virus but lacked symptoms have waited out a 10-day period and returned to work.

Employees with symptoms are required to wait at least three days after their symptoms are gone and at least seven days after symptoms first appeared before they can return to work, he said.

Across the state and around the nation, nursing homes, rehabilitation centers, and other long-term care facilities have been hit especially hard by coronavirus. On Tuesday, the number of nursing home deaths from COVID-19 in Massachusetts surpassed 1,000.

Karger said staff members at the Belmont facility are carefully monitoring residents and addressing any virus symptoms quickly.

“We are seeing some encouraging signs of recovery among our symptomatic COVID-19 positive residents,” he said. “However, this is a disease that requires continued vigilance, particularly with older and more vulnerable populations; you have my pledge that we will continue to be focused on returning your residents to health.”

Above is from:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/49-residents-of-a-belmont-nursing-home-have-died-of-coronavirus/ar-BB13adTC

Illinois tests more than 10,000 for COVID-19 per day

Excerpt from Governor Pritzker Coronavirus Conference

Friday, Apr 24, 2020

* Gov. Pritzker with some good news for a change…

We had tested 5660 people in the preceding 24 hours on Wednesday. And yesterday, we surpassed 9000 tests. Today, we met our goal of 10,000 daily tests. In fact we surpassed it with 16,124.

* More interesting news…

The overall positive rate for today’s batch of tests is about 17%, which is well below our cumulative average of 21%.

It’s too early to say whether this is a result of expanded testing criteria, versus an indicator of flattening the curve, but it’s a positive sign nonetheless for everyone when more people are getting tested and there is a lower ratio of positives

Please pardon all transcription errors.

* Pritzker continued…

Surpassing 10,000 tests is a very important milestone, not only because it allows us to isolate more of those who are COVID positive so that they don’t spread the infection, but also because it moves us in the direction of expanding our surveillance for outbreaks.

More testing means we can potentially lower the infection rate. So we’re going to continue to push that number up. Our ability to test and get results quickly is key to our ability to map the presence of this virus, and to gradually reduce our mitigation measures and get more people back to work.

* Public testing sites…

We now have 112 public testing sites in every one of IDPH’s 11 regions, including eight sites in the Rockford region, eight sites in the Peoria region, four sites in the Springfield region, four in the Edwardsville region, 31 sites in the Marion region, eight sites in the Champaign region, 22 sites in the city of Chicago, nine sites in the southwest suburbs, three sites in the west suburbs, five sites in the northwest suburbs and 10 sites in the north suburbs.

Remember, those are only the sites that are available to the public and the tests at those locations are entirely free. Beyond those 112 locations, there are healthcare providers that conduct tests for their own existing patients, the full list of public testing sites with hours, testing parameters and contact information is available on our coronavirus website, coronavirus.illinois.gov.

* Antibody tests…

I also want to talk briefly today about antibody tests, which have been in the headlines recently and have created a lot of buzz. I want to make sure that people have the facts about whether and how these tests are useful.

In theory, these tests could be an effective tool. We’re craving answers in an uncertain time and antibody tests offer the potential for more security. But I’m afraid we’ve seen many of these tests promoted in a way that errs on the side of irresponsible.

To be clear, these tests are not quite where we need them to be to offer a true metric of immunity in Illinois. This is not an Illinois specific problem. As of today, there still are no antibody blood tests certifiably proven to accurately and consistently diagnose COVID-19 antibodies. There are several reasons for that.

First, no one yet knows the true sensitivity and specificity of these tests. That is how accurate or inaccurate they are. Obviously you want to test to be accurate and not offer many false positives or false negatives. That kind of accuracy is in part tied to how long it’s been since a person, potentially had the virus, since it takes, each of us time to produce antibodies, and it’s in part tied to the quality of the test.

Second, this is a novel virus, entirely new. So researchers don’t yet know the extent to which having COVID-19 antibodies equals, having immunity. That’s a question whose answers will only be revealed over weeks or months, and maybe even years, for example, is there a certain exposure level at which antibodies don’t protect you. Or, if you can become immune. How long would immunity last?

Third, it’s not yet confirmed that these tests are able to explicitly identify COVID-19 antibodies versus Corona viruses that cause things like the common cold. The test must, must definitively identify antibodies for COVID-19, and nothing else for them to be fully effective. […]

We’re monitoring those studies and we’re planning how we could deploy those tests when they’re ready. As soon as they prove themselves accurate and reliable, I will make it a priority to get them into our communities as widely as we can. What I won’t do is run full speed ahead with these tests before they’re proven. Because, among other things, we will be offering people a false sense of security. I’ve said since the beginning that here in Illinois, we will rely on factual data, and we will lead with the science. That, and the goodwill of the people of Illinois, will be what sees us through this pandemic.

Congresswomen asks Mercy to reconsider their decision to eliminate certain Medicaid patients


Bustos calls Mercyhealth’s decision to eliminate multiple Medicaid providers ‘unconscionable’

NEW

April 24, 20203:25 pmAndrew CarriganTOP STORIES

<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = "[default] http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" NS = "http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" />100

ROCKFORD (WREX) — An Illinois Congresswoman has weighed in on Mercyhealth's decision to eliminate multiple Medicaid providers.
Congresswoman Cheri Bustos (D) of the 17th District, has issued a statement on her disappointment in Mercyhealth's decision to eliminate multiple Medicaid providers.

Here's the congresswoman's statement:

"Mercyhealth's decision to refuse some Medicaid patients’ insurance would be deeply disappointing in the best of times, but in the midst of a pandemic it is unconscionable. CEO Javon Bea is putting profits over patients - plain and simple. While I support any hospital’s right to negotiate better reimbursement rates, threatening to not accept these Medicaid patients’ insurance during a national public health crisis – all to increase payment – is irresponsible and recklessly puts people at risk. Mercyhealth’s mission statement may claim their values are centered around healing, but today they are choosing harm. Our frontline health care workers, doctors and nurses are working tirelessly to help the sick and keep us all safe and healthy – and Mercyhealth’s CEO should learn from their example. I hope that he will reconsider this decision and choose to once again put patients first."

Bustos says Mercyhealth's decision will impact more than 66,000 people in the state.

by

Andrew Carrigan
Above is from:  https://wrex.com/2020/04/24/bustos-calls-mercyhealths-decision-to-eliminate-multiple-medicaid-providers-unconscionable/

“ Physician’s Immediate Care” offer some COVID-19 tests



Some individuals without COVID-19 symptoms can get tested in Rockford region


Physicians Immediate Care, with eight urgent care clinics in the Rockford region, uses the Abbott Laboratories ID NOW testing machine like the one shown above in this April 10 frame grab from video. It shows a lab technician dipping a sample into the testing machine at the Detroit Health Center in Detroit. [CARLOS OSORIO/THE ASSOCIATED PRESS]

By Georgette Braun
Rockford Register Star

Posted Apr 23, 2020 at 1:48 PMUpdated Apr 23, 2020 at 6:42 PM

ROCKFORD – You don’t have to have COVID-19 symptoms to be tested for the disease at one regional clinic system as long as you are a nursing home employee, a first responder or an at-risk senior citizen who has been exposed to the new coronavirus

Physicians Immediate Care, which has eight clinics in the region, also tests those who have COVID-19 symptoms.

Individuals over 65 who have conditions such as diabetes or heart disease, and who have had direct exposure to someone with COVID-19, may be tested even if they don’t show symptoms, said Todd Vang, the company’s chief operating officer. First responders include firefighters and police officers.

The Rosemont-based urgent care business has tested thousands of patients for the highly contagious respiratory disease since it began offering a rapid-response test a few weeks ago, Vang said.

About 20% tested positive for COVID-19, Vang said. Those who did were advised to self-isolate at home or, if their symptoms were severe, were referred to hospital emergency departments, he said.


Most insurance plans pay for the testing, and the business accepts some forms of Medicaid coverage used by those with lower incomes, Vang said. The self-pay cost is $165 for the office visit and $75 for the test.

Test availability is limited because of high demand.

Vang said Physicians Immediate Care also examines patients.

“What differentiates us is we want to give them a full exam; it’s not just you show up and get a test,” he said.

Here’s how it works at Physicians Immediate Care, which has locations in Rockford, Belvidere, Loves Park, Machesney Park, Freeport, Dixon and DeKalb:

No appointment is necessary. A patient walks into a vestibule at a clinic building, where the patient’s temperature and a brief medical history are taken. The patient returns to their car, and a staff person dressed in protective gear goes to the car and stands outside it to get more family history information. A blood pressure reading is taken, as well as another temperature reading. Both nostrils of the patient’s nose are swabbed. The swab is inserted into a machine and results are available in five to 15 minutes. Patients wait in their cars for the results. The clinic will call a patient to follow up in about three days, if the patient requests that.

Vang said Physicians Immediate Care hopes soon to offer COVID-19 tests in addition to the Abbott Laboratories rapid test it offers now. The clinic system also is checking into offering antibody testing, which could help determine whether a person has recovered from the disease and developed immunity as a result.

But he said there are few such government-approved antibody tests and the clinic system wants to “make sure they’re accurate. Hopefully, there will be improved accuracy.”

Georgette Braun: gbraun@rrstar.com; @GeorgetteBraun

Above is from:  https://www.rrstar.com/news/20200423/drive-through-testing-debuts-at-college-of-medicine-in-rockford

April 24: 39,658 COVID-19 cases in Illinois


In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Gov. JB Pritzker has ordered Illinois residents to stay at home. Executive Order No. 10 requires all residents to stay home, with exceptions for essential needs or business activities. Gatherings of 10 people or more are prohibited. The order extends through April 30, 2020.
COVID-19 Statistics
Positive (Confirmed)
39,658
Deaths
1,795
Total Tests Performed*
186,219
Total Cases
(39,658  4-24-2020)  (36,934 4-23-2020)  (35,108 4-22-2020)(33,059  4-21-2020)
(31,508  4-20-2020) (30,357 4-19-2020)  (29,160  4-18-2020)  (27,575  4-17-2020) (25,733  4-16-2020)  (24,593 4-15-2020)  (23,247 4-14-2020)  (22,025 4-13-2020)  (20,852 4-12-2020) (19,180 4-11-2020 ) (17,887 4-10-2020) (16,422 4-9-2020) (15,078 4-8-2020) (13,549 4-7-2020) (12,262 4-6-2020) (11,256 4-5-2020) (10,357 4/4/2020) (8,904-- 4/3/2020) (7,695-- 4/2/2020)   (6,980-- 4/1/2020) (5,994-- 3/31/2020)  (5,05--7 3/30/2020) (4,596-- 3/29/2020)


Deaths

(1,795  4-22-2020) (1,688  2-23-2020) (1,585 4-22-2020) (1,468  4-21-2020) (1,349 4-20-2020)(1,290 4-18-2020)  (1,259  4-18-2020) (1,134  4-17-2020) (1,072  4-16-2020) (948 4-15-2020)  (866 4-14-2020) (794 4-13-2020)  (720 4-12-2020) (677 4-11-2020)(596 4-10-2020) (528 4-9-2020) (462 4-8-2020) (380 4-7-2020)(307 4-6-2020) (274 4-5-2020) (243—4-4-2020) (210-- 4-3-2020) (157 4-2-2020)(141 4/1/2020) (99 3/31/2020) (73 3/30/2020)  (65 3/29/2020)
Total Persons Tested*
Persons tested over 10,000 for first time..
(186,219  4-24-2020)(173,316 4-23-2020) (164,346 4-22-2020)  (154,997  4-21-2020) (148,358 4-20-2020) (143,318 4-19-2020)  (137,404  4-18-2020) (130,163  4-17-2020)  (122,589  4-16-2020)  (116,929 4-15-2020) (110,616 4-14-2020)  (105,768 4-13-2020) (100,735 4-12-2020) (92,779 4-11-2020) (87,527 4-10-2020) (86,857 4-9-2020) (75,066 4-8-2020) (68,732 4-7-2020) (62,942 4-6-2020) (58,983 4-5-2020) (53,581—4-4-2020)  (48,048-- 4-3-2020) (43,653-- 4/2/2020) (40,384-- 4/1/2020) (35,225-- 3-31-2020) (30,446-- 3/30/2020)  (27,762-- 3/29/2020)

*Total number of people reported electronically for testing of COVID-19 at IDPH, commercial or hospital laboratories. Deaths are included in the number of positive cases
All numbers displayed are provisional and subject to change.

Information to be updated daily.

Above is from: http://www.dph.illinois.gov/covid19/covid19-statistics

*****************************************************************************************************************************

Home


PROJECTIONS from:  http://www.healthdata.org/research-article/forecasting-covid-19-impact-hospital-bed-days-icu-days-ventilator-days-and-deaths Now being updated three times per week.

Major Increase in Projected Deaths

Total COVID-19 deaths projected through August 4, 2020 in Illinois  (2093 4-21-2020) (2,259 4-15-2020) (1248 4-13-2020)

(777 4-10-2020)  (1,584  4-8-2020) (3,629 4-5-2020)(3,386 4-2-2020) (2,789 4-1-2020)  (2,326  3-31-2020)  (2,369 as of 3/30/2020)  (2,454 AS OF 3-26-2020)

COVID-19 deaths   Peak deaths  (95 deaths on 4-19-2020)               Previously (91 deaths on 4-12-2020)  (208 on 4-12-2020) (109 on 4-20-2020)

Illinois Population:  12.74 million        Projected deaths per million: 164,29

For a lengthier discussion of the projection model go to:  http://boonecountywatchdog.blogspot.com/2020/03/forecasting-covid-19-impact-on-hospital.html

***********************************************************************************************************************************





Above is from:  https://www.boonecountyil.org/sites/default/files/images/file/04-24-2020%20Eng.png

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************

This page summarizes the latest data for COVID-19 in McHenry County. This data is provisional and subject to change.

McHenry County

McHenry County Cases


467

Source: McHenry County Department of Health

McHenry County Deaths


28

Source: McHenry County Department of Health



Above is from:  https://mchenry-county-coronavirus-response-mchenrycountygis.hub.arcgis.com/

*************************************************************************************

Winnebago County

Confirmed Cases  271

14 Deaths

15 Recoveries



**********************************************************************************************************************************************

Cases in U.S.

Updated  April 24, 2020
U.S. At A Glance

As of April 23, 2020

Total Cases*

865,585

Total Deaths

48,816

This page will be updated daily. Numbers close out at 4 p.m. the day before reporting.

***On Saturday and Sunday, the numbers in COVID-19: U.S. at a Glance and the figure describing the cumulative total number of COVID-19 cases in the United States will be updated. These numbers are preliminary and have not been confirmed by state and territorial health departments. CDC will update weekend numbers the following Monday to reflect health department updates.***

CDC is responding to an outbreak of respiratory illness caused by a novel (new) coronavirus. The outbreak first started in Wuhan, China, but cases have been identified in a growing number of other locations internationally, including the United States. In addition to CDC, many public health laboratories are now testing for the virus that causes COVID-19.

COVID-19: U.S. at a Glance*†

  • Total cases  (865,585 4-24-2020)   (829,441   4-23-2020) (802,583  4-22-2020) (776,093 4-21-2020) (746,625 4-20-2020) (720,630 4-19-2020)  (661,712 4-17-2020)  (632,548 4-16-2020)  (605,390 4-15-2020) (579,005 4-14-2020)  (554,849 4-13-2020) (525,704 4-12-2020)  (492,416 4-11-2020)(459,165 4-10-2020) (427,460 4-9-2020) (395,011 4-8-2020)(374,329 4-7-2020) (330,891 4-6-2020) (304,826 4-5-2020) (277,205 4-4-2020) (239,279 4-3-2020) (213,144 4/2/2020)(186,101 4/1/2020) (163,539 3/31/2020) (140,904 3/30/2020)   (122,653  3-29-2020)
  • Total deaths:  (48,816  4-24-2020) (46,379 4-23-2020) (44,575 4-22-2020)  (41,759 4-21-2020) (39,083 4-20-2020)  (37,202 4-19-2020)  (33,049 4-17-2020)  (31,071 4-16-2020) (24,582 4-15-2020) (22,252 4-14-2020) (21,942 4-13-2020)  (20,486 4-12-2020)  (18,559 4-11-2020) (16,570 4-10-2020) (14,696 4-9-2020) (12,754 4-8-2020) (12,064 4-7-2020) (8,910 4-6-2020)(7,616 4-5-2020)  (6, 593 4-4-2020) (5,443 4-3-2020) (4,513 4-2-2020) (3,603 4-1-2020) (2,860 3/31/2020) (2,405 3/30/2020)   (2,112  3-29-2020)
  • Jurisdictions reporting cases: 55 (50 states, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Marianas, and US Virgin Islands)

* Data include both confirmed and presumptive positive cases of COVID-19 reported to CDC or tested at CDC since January 21, 2020, with the exception of testing results for persons repatriated to the United States from Wuhan, China and Japan. State and local public health departments are now testing and publicly reporting their cases. In the event of a discrepancy between CDC cases and cases reported by state and local public health officials, data reported by states should be considered the most up to date.

† Numbers updated Saturday and Sunday are not confirmed by state and territorial health departments. These numbers will be modified when numbers are updated on Monday.(

Cases of COVID-19 Reported in the US, by Source of Exposure*†

* Data include both confirmed and presumptive positive cases of COVID-19 reported to CDC or tested at CDC since January 21, 2020, with the exception of testing results for persons repatriated to the United States from Wuhan, China and Japan. State and local public health departments are now testing and publicly reporting their cases. In the event of a discrepancy between CDC cases and cases reported by state and local public health officials, data reported by states should be considered the most up to date.

† CDC is no longer reporting the number of persons under investigation (PUIs) that have been tested, as well as PUIs that have tested negative. Now that states are testing and reporting their own results, CDC’s numbers are not representative of all testing being done nationwide.

Above is from:  https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html

***************************************************************************************************************************************

Now being updated three times per week.

PROJECTIONS:   US COVID-19 Deaths thru 8-4-2020)  (65,976 4-21-2020)  (60,308 4-15-2020) (68,841 4-13-2020)  (61,543 4-10-2020) (60,415 4-8-2020) (81,766 4-5-2020) (93,531 4/3/2020) (93,765 4/1/2020)   (83.967 3/31/2020)    ( 82,141 3/30/2020);  Peak Daily    (2150 4-13-2020)

Older Peak Daily Deaths (2,212 on 4-12-2010)  (1,983 on 4-11-2020)  (2,644 on 4-16-2020)(3,130 on 4-16-2020) ( 2214 on 3/31/2020) (2,214 on 3/31/2 020) (2,271 3/30/2020)

US Population:  331 million    Projected deaths per million: 207.98

FROM:  http://www.healthdata.org/research-article/forecasting-covid-19-impact-hospital-bed-days-icu-days-ventilator-days-and-deaths Now being updated three times per week

*********************************************************************************************************************************************

COVID-19 Tracker   Great site to find specific county, state, country numbers is at:  https://bing.com/covid?form=msntrk  Site supplies case numbers, recovered cases and deaths by country and US state.

World population: 7.8  BILLION

Total confirmed cases

Updated 11 min ago

2,783,512

Active cases

1,822,285

+68,020

Recovered cases

765,914

+33,267

Fatal cases

195,313

+7,983