A crappy way to track Covid-19

Submitted by blue in dc on May 3rd, 2020 at 11:29 AM

Apparently U of M as at the forefront of a pretty shitty way to track covid-19.’

‘The world is eager to come out of lockdown. But if countries simply return to business as usual, new outbreaks of Covid-19 will follow. The only solution that public health experts see is to keep careful track of the coronavirus and clamp down on new flare-ups.

The trouble is that the most obvious way to monitor the virus — testing person by person — has already proved to be a huge, expensive challenge. Experts say we’re nowhere near the scale we need to get a good picture of the pandemic.

Now some scientists are looking for the virus not in our noses, blood or spit, but somewhere else: in our sewers.

“It’s the signature of a whole community,” said Krista Wigginton, an environmental engineer at the University of Michigan who has been finding the coronavirus in wastewater around the Bay Area in California.”

I’m sure someone on mgoblog will find a reason to dump on this idea, but I’d argue it is just another reason it is better to crap in a toilet rather than poop in a cooler.  I’m hoping this is something most of the mgoblog community could get behind.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/01/science/coronavirus-sewage-monitoring-lockdown.html?referringSource=articleShare

https://news.umich.edu/a-sewage-surveillance-effort-to-track-covid-19/

 

LV Sports Bettor

May 3rd, 2020 at 11:42 AM ^

Therein lies the biggest problem with all that's going on right now is the data sucks because things are being measured differently and impossible to understand where we're at with all this and what to do going forward

blue in dc

May 3rd, 2020 at 11:56 AM ^

You think more data is bad?    This seems to me to be a pretty hopeful idea.   One of the biggest challenges governors and others have had is that they have had to make hugely consequential decisions with limited data.   
 

Widespread testing and contact tracing seems many weeks or months away (if we ever can get there given logistical challenges, privacy concerns etc.).   Ideas like this could really help. Significantly less testing capacity would be needed, then you could better focus limited testing and contact tracing resources.   I also suspect you’d have more buy in to those more intrusive approaches if it was better focused in areas with a growing threat than in the much less targeted way we’d be doing otherwise.

BlueInVA95

May 3rd, 2020 at 1:40 PM ^

I generally agree that more data is helpful but it can depend on the quality of the data. Here in Virginia we have switched reporting from people infected to positive test results. So, if one person takes multiple tests and is positive 3 times, Virginia now counts that as 3 cases. This has resulted in a sudden spike of our confirmed cases. As such, the Governor has restarted the 14-day clock to ease restrictions since in pure numbers our number of cases did not continue to decrease. 

Using these new numbers to reflect if the virus is spreading seems misleading. It’s like saying that if one pregnant woman takes 3 pregnancy tests, you have three pregnancies. Sure, you may have 3 positive test results but it does not reflect what is really happening. And it would seem to hinder your ability to accurately plan a medical response. 

2manylincs

May 3rd, 2020 at 2:50 PM ^

What it was is essentially a one time data dump. And it actually lowered va confirmation numbers by over one pct.

I cant say that i agree with counting cases in this manner, but i understand why they have chosen to. Va has been hammered for low testing numbers while simultaneously asking for more test kits. By counting by test and not by individual tested the number does show a more accurate number of kits used and a more thorough account of strain on the states healthcare providers.

For example, a person who tests positive once, and clean twice is most likely not using healthcare resources any more, while someone who tests positive 3 times is still likely to be consuming health resources.

Pregnancy is a dishonest comparison because no matter how many times you test, you are still using the same amount of resources once you have tested positive. 

 

 

 

BlueInVA95

May 3rd, 2020 at 3:36 PM ^

I certainly understand your points about the number of positive results can represent ongoing use of medical resources - assuming, of course, that the number of real people infected is also taken into consideration when it comes to decisions about needs for hospital beds, respirators, etc. One would certainly expect this is the case. 
I don’t think any methodology is perfect at this point. But if the data dump from a switch in counting methodology was used as the determining factor for resetting the clock on the goal of 14-days with declining numbers, that seems like a faulty use of the data. Granted, I’m not privy to any information about how these decisions are made. But from the way this has been portrayed in the media, it gives the appearance that something doesn’t add up, other than to stop getting hammered for low testing numbers. 

Indy Pete - Go Blue

May 3rd, 2020 at 12:41 PM ^

Bearing down on controlling this virus has proven to be a real craps shoot. The brown-nosing politicians have got to get their heads out of their a$$e$ and stop all of this diarrhea of the mouth. Michigan is at the rear end of national per capita cases - time to pull the stool that is supporting this virus. Assessing this from the bottoms up seems like the only way to get out of the toilet on this one. 

xtramelanin

May 3rd, 2020 at 12:51 PM ^

it is a septic situation, no doubt about it. you literally have to pump out the data from all of the other things floating around. 

CFraser

May 3rd, 2020 at 12:56 PM ^

I could see it maybe but you’d have to standardize viral load per person as the denominator (virion per person excreted in feces). This would be extremely variable based on viral load and individual physiology. 

The data would be very unreliable but maybe useful in a meta analysis of many data sources. 

blue in dc

May 3rd, 2020 at 2:44 PM ^

The article seems to suggest that in at least some places they have found evidence of Covid before more conventional testing did.
 

“After the Netherlands saw its first confirmed case on Feb. 27, Dr. Medema and his colleagues went back out to run more tests. They found the virus in the sewers of cities like Amsterdam and Utrecht.

The researchers then went to remote towns without any known cases of Covid-19. They discovered the coronavirus up to six days before the first confirmed cases were found there.”

It also notes that this is not a new technology or idea, it’s been used to monitor 

“For decades, public health workers have looked in sewage for signs of viral outbreaks. The World Health Organization has monitored polio viruses this way, to assess how well its vaccination campaigns have worked.”

S5R48S10

May 3rd, 2020 at 7:51 PM ^

I do love a good poop joke, thank you, thank you!

 

I would like to throw a shout out to a sector of definitively essential workers who don't get enough credit.  Water resource professionals work every day to keep us healthy.  We would be in a really terrible spot if we didn't have dedicated people ensuring we had clean water and flushing toilets through this pandemic.  This job is so important, I know of some facility workers that have been quarantined at work, not with their families, because this work MUST be done.

Sparty Doesn't Know

May 3rd, 2020 at 8:00 PM ^

Political tide has turned.  It's time to make money until the hospitals overflow.  Wooo!!!

 

Edit:  Oh, and like the old saying goes:  the proof is in the pudding.  In this case, the very Ohio-scented Buckeye-brown crapioca pudding.

Panther72

May 3rd, 2020 at 8:19 PM ^

This sounds like a quick ligit way to estimate just how many  have contracted covid 19.  Makes sense to me. 

That said, there has been an overwhelming focus on one health problem that has pushed the leading causes of death to the background.  CDC May 1st report is showing 719,000 deaths in less than 90 days.  People I love are far more likely to die from several other causes. I support trying to solve the problem. I only hope to see this subject pushed back soon.  

blue in dc

May 3rd, 2020 at 10:15 PM ^

Apparently any day that Covid kills approximately 1800 people in the US, it is likely the leading cause of death in the US on that day.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-leading-cause-of-death.html

There have unfortunately been lots of days where the total exceeded 1800 deaths.

In Michigan, there are about 70 deaths a day from heart disease.   Any day the Covid death total exceeded that, it was likely the leading cause of death that day.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-leading-cause-of-death.html

But the good thing about ideas like monitoring waste water is that it would potentially allow for a much more targeted response meaning we would have a much better idea of where potential hotspots were going to occur and focus resources and more aggressive social distancing where it would have the biggest impact.

joegeo

May 4th, 2020 at 6:38 AM ^

If someone is destined to die from heart disease or cancer in the next three months, they most likely already know the clock is ticking. If not, and they are over 60, covid is the most likely cause of death for the coming months.

Anyhow, cancer treatments are still occurring and heart disease medications are still being distributed. It's not one at the expense of the other.