You are the owner of this article.
spotlight

Dashboard data shows virus still spreading in every state

  • 19
  • 5 min to read
Headshot Stuart Kauffman

Stuart Kauffman

As states across the nation turn their attention to reopening their economies, a key fact seems to get lost: None of them has actually stopped the spread of the novel coronavirus.

A new COVID-19 dashboard launched Sunday by The New Mexican shows all 50 states have a positive rolling growth rate in the number of new cases, meaning the disease is still spreading everywhere. And as the nation moves closer to reopening its economy, the rate of spread will become even more vital to track, says a respected local scholar.

The newspaper has created the graphic in collaboration with Stuart Kauffman, an emeritus professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of Pennsylvania who was a MacArthur Fellow and lives in Santa Fe. The data can be viewed for any state in the U.S. and is divided by county.

“We have not stopped the virus in any state after four to six weeks of shutdown,” said Kauffman, who was the first senior professor at the Santa Fe Institute and worked as a consultant for Los Alamos National Laboratory.

As the U.S. moves into a new phase of the pandemic — lifting public health orders while trying to temper a potential corresponding spike in COVID-19 cases — the dashboard can indicate whether the virus is being kept at bay or accelerating as the economy reopens, Kauffman said. 

More than half the states across the nation already have taken a patchwork of measures to start opening up their respective economies. New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has instituted very limited steps so far, but the state could enter into a new phase as soon as this week that would allow the partial reopening of “nonessential” businesses, such as restaurants.

Since the novel coronavirus outbreak began, policymakers all over the world have publicized a graph encouraging people to “flatten the curve,” so health care systems can handle an influx of patients caused by the disease. The graph, a version of which first appeared in a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study, has circulated widely on social media and become emblematic of the world’s response to the pandemic. 

But that graph and many of the daily COVID-19 case tallies reported by governments and the media focus on the total number of new cases per day. According to Kauffman and fellow scientists, it’s the change in the rate of growth of the disease that is a more appropriate indicator of whether the economy can be reopened safely.

The growth rate graph can be read in the following way: If the percentage increase for COVID-19 cases for a given jurisdiction remains at the same or higher positive number over time — say, 20 percent per day — that means that area is experiencing “exponential growth" of 20 percent a day. That's akin to money in the bank that accumulates with compound interest. As it applies to COVID-19, it's something policymakers want to minimize as they reopen their economies. 

If the percentage decreases over time — 20 percent, then 15 percent, then 10, etc. — the rate of growth is slowing. That's known as a "logistic curve." To stop the spread of the disease, the rate must fall to zero.

Dashboard developed by Santa Fe New Mexican and Stuart Kauffman.

Currently, all 50 states have rates above zero.

In the coming weeks, the dashboard could potentially show spikes in the growth rates for states that have recently announced plans to reopen, suggesting the lessened social-distancing measures are leading to more disease, Kauffman said.

“Try your experiment. You’ll see the effects about a week later,” said Kauffman, who has published some 400 scientific articles and has been cited over 50,000 times. “If it’s getting worse, go back to clamping down. If it hasn’t changed much, open up a bit more.” 

Lujan Grisham’s office, the state Department of Health and the Department of Human Services did not respond to an interview request for this article. 

The data from the dashboard shows states’ growth rates have slowed dramatically from their initial growth rate of about 20 percent a day since the start of social distancing in mid- to late March, a convincing indication that social distancing has worked, Kauffman said. 

New Mexico’s growth rate was 23.5 percent on March 24, the day Lujan Grisham first put the state’s stay-at-home order into effect, and it had slowed to 4.2 percent by Friday.

“You see in front of you, it really works,” Kauffman said of social distancing. “We’ve got proof.”

But countries and states are in danger of reigniting the quick spread of the virus if social-distancing practices are weakened as economies open up, Kauffman said.




A March study by researchers at the University of Sydney, including complex systems professor Mikhail Prokopenko, found the novel coronavirus could be brought under control within four months if all of the population followed social-distancing guidelines 80 percent of the time. 

Below that threshold, he said, social distancing does not work.


Video by Stuart Kuffman, Richard Startzman and Lynn Startzman

There also are wide variations in the state-by-state growth rates. For instance, Minnesota’s growth rate has been accelerating and was at 8.4 percent a day as of Friday. That’s a big contrast to Hawaii, where the growth rate has slowed to just 0.2 percent, according to the data. But Kauffman said that in both states, the disease can be considered to be growing exponentially.

New Mexico’s rate was the 12th-highest in the nation as of Friday — greater than neighboring Arizona (4.1 percent), Texas (3.3 percent), Oklahoma (2.4 percent) and Colorado (2.6 percent).

One reason is likely the rampant spread in San Juan and McKinley counties, which include parts of the Navajo Nation and had rates of 6.5 percent and 4.6 percent on Friday, respectively. The statewide rate drops to 3 percent when excluding those counties. Santa Fe County's growth rate was just 1.4 percent. 

However, it’s important to note that the growth rate data in the dashboard does not factor in the total number of COVID-19 tests performed per day in each state and county — data that is not readily available.

Not including that information can skew state-to-state or county-to-county comparisons because jurisdictions have varying testing capacities, said Dr. Jason Mitchell, the chief medical officer for Presbyterian Healthcare Services who is involved in New Mexico’s epidemiological modeling efforts.

For instance, if a jurisdiction has 20 positive cases, that's a 20 percent positive rate if it tested 100 people. But it's only a 2 percent positive rate if the jurisdiction tested 1,000 people. 

Yet Mitchell said Presbyterian and the state do use rolling growth rates as part of the epidemiological modeling efforts that make projections about future case numbers and help officials make decisions about reopening the economy.

They also estimate the effective rate of transmission of COVID-19, a number known as “Rt” and similar to “R0,” or “R-naught.” If that number is above one, the disease continues to spread, while it is considered to be receding if the number drops below that level.

According to the modeling numbers released by the state last week, that transmission rate is highest in the northwestern part of the state, at 1.31, and lowest in the northeast, at 1.12.

The percentage of people who are testing positive also is much higher in the northwest part of the state — 15 percent of people who get a coronavirus test in McKinley County end up having the virus, while that number is between 1.5 percent and 4 percent in almost every other part of the state, Mitchell said.

Mitchell echoed the data showing the disease continues to spread across the U.S. and said he was “concerned” that states were opening up.

“It's a fallacy that we're over the hump,” Mitchell said. “It's almost impossible to completely stop the spread.”

The strategy in New Mexico, then, is to reduce the transmission rate to the lowest number possible and carry out widespread testing and contact tracing to stop the spread as much as possible, he said. 

Kathryn Hanley, a biology professor at New Mexico State University who specializes in virus evolutionary ecology, said using the total number of cases is still useful, for example, when determining how many hospital beds health care providers may need.

But using a rolling average of the percentage change in new cases is effective because it can smooth out spikes in cases that can occur in one day because of clusters in reporting, she said.

The growth rate also helps officials determine whether certain policies cause greater spread. And that’s almost certainly going to happen once public health restrictions are significantly lifted, she said.

“Nobody tries to hide the fact that you’re trading off the economy and public health here,” Hanley said. “The more people move around, the more new cases there will be.”

Show what you're thinking about this story

You must be logged in to react.
Click any reaction to login.
6
2
3
0
1

Reporter

Jens Gould covers politics for the Santa Fe New Mexican. He was a correspondent for Bloomberg News in Mexico City, a regular contributor for TIME in California, and produced the video series Bravery Tapes.

Recommended for you

(19) comments

Jason Cocca

Well, yeah. It’s going to keep spreading in every state. It was never going to be realistic to reduce the number of cases in the US to zero. It was always about flattening to curve to keep the healthcare system from being overwhelmed, which was accomplished (at least so far). Also important to compare apples to apples. The US is not a small or geographically isolated island where lockdown measures could actually reduce cases to near zero (think: South Korea and New Zealand...and before you even say it, there is no travel between North/South Korea— they are effectively an island). We are also not an authoritarian regime capable of literally locking people in their houses/apartments (China).

Stats that are far more relevant are hospitalizations vs. deaths vs. medical capacity. The number of cases should always be weighed against the number of tests administered. Naturally, as more tests are administered, the number of positives will continue to increase until there is a vaccine.

New Mexico was already one of the poorest states in the country, so the real question is how long can we continue to keep things shut down for a virus that hasn’t had a massive impact on the state in terms of deaths and hospitalizations. This is a morose reality, but it needs to be discussed because healthy, working age people are losing their livelihoods.

Maxwell Vertical

Cumulative total COVID-19 cases is quickly becoming meaningless because many cases have recovered. A statistic that can only go up is useless.

David Martinez

I believe that tracking new cases per day is the best way to track whether or not the curve is flattening:

https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/1593771/?utm_source=showcase&utm_campaign=visualisation/1593771

Dr. Michael Johnson

"The growth rate graph can be read in the following way: If the percentage increase for COVID-19 cases for a given jurisdiction remains at the same or higher positive number over time — say, 20 percent per day — that means that area is experiencing “exponential growth" of 20 percent a day." No, wrong, any scientist knows that exponential growth is defined as growth whose rate becomes ever more rapid in proportion to the growing total number or size. You can only see this when you graph the data on a logarithmic scale, where the Y axis is logarithmic and the X axis is linear. There you will see a line with a slope, these data show a flattening over time on a logarithmic scale, in other words, not exponential anymore. Your graph in this dashboard is not that and just shows linear growth, and in NM today that is about 2%, and it has declined steadily over time, hardly "exponential". You need a better science advisor.

Paul Chadwick

[huh]

I do believe that Dr. Michael Johnson's statement here is incorrect. Exponential growth does occur if the percentage increase per day (or any period) is positive and remains at the same or higher (or lower for that matter) positive number over time. Linear growth (in contrast to exponential) would occur if the actual NUMBER of cases, not the PERCENT increase, remains the same positive number over time. Any mathematicians here want to weigh in on that?

Dr. Michael Johnson

Graph the data on a logarithmic scale, if it is exponential, there will be a straight line with a positive slope, if it is linear, it will show as a straight line with no slope. Basic mathematics...................https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_scale

Dr. Michael Johnson

Go to this site, scroll toward the bottom where the graphs of cases and deaths are, see the tab to switch to logarithmic scale, then you will see the difference between exponential and linear growth........https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Chris Mechels

Kauffman is a great guy, and a fine scientist, but commenting outside his area of expertise, so beware of that. Much better to question LANL's Betty Korber, as its her area. Always beware of scientists who reach outside their field.

As for the NM model, as the piece notes, the current numbers are dominated by the Tribal Areas and Nursing Homes, both of which the Dept of Health got to late, and is now trying to address. Until they quiet down, our statewide rate means little.

The other issue is "where" the testing is done, as 3,000 tests in the tribal areas is very different that 3,000 tests in ABQ. How is the testing allocated?? No answers. So, the Governor, and Dept of Health, can get whatever numbers they "need" because they determine the testing patterns. We would all benefit from more transparency, but this administration isn't transparent.

Let's hope we get some straight answers from the Corrections Dept testing, as that bunch is extremely secretive. Again, those who assign the testing control the numbers. Those, like the Governor, who talk about being "data driven", aren't, and never have been. Their numbers will ALWAYS have a political component. She's NOT a scientist, she's an attorney and politician, who told us NOT to wear masks for some two months.

The Republicans, as outsiders, are worth listening to, because their arguments are sound. They should not be ignored, or insulted, as they have been.

Dr. Michael Johnson

You should be aware that Dr. Korber's recent non peer-reviewed speculation about this virus mutating into a super virus to kill us all was bogus, and debunked by published peer-reviewed research from Oxford.......she is working in a nuclear weapons lab, not a virology and infectious disease medical group, like the ones who debunked her wild speculations.....https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/no-evidence-of-coronavirus-mutating-into-more-dangerous-strains/

Paul Chadwick

[huh]

Additional misinformation. The LANL does include a biological research group. It is not 100% a nuclear weapons lab. See here:

https://www.lanl.gov/org/ddste/aldsc/theoretical/theoretical-biology-biophysics/index.php

Dr. Michael Johnson

So does the CDC and NIH have nuclear weapons programs too????[beam]

Janet Eduardo

Uh, it was the Republicans that told us not to wear masks for 2 months, because the virus was going to "disappear". Surely you can remember that far back.

christopher quintana

Well there you go. We can be in control of this pandemic and not lag behind and bumble our way through, as humankind, or fight with each other and maybe then work together after 50 million casualties.

Barry Rabkin

Wow ! You mean that COVID-19 is NOT like the seasonal flu? Who knew? Oh wait, every intelligent person knew. My bad...

The 'instant gratification' gene that cascades through US society is going to kill more people. We need to slow down the already slow steps that States are taking to open up their economies. Until an effective treatment or vaccine is found, we must be extremely careful about opening the economy of each State.

Wishing the virus away or thinking it is just like the seasonal flu is neither a treatment or a vaccine. It is deadly ignorance.

Dr. Michael Johnson

No, it is not like the seasonal flu, yet. But the premise that you can actually "stop the spread" and thus have zero new cases is totally irrational, and unscientific. That cannot be any goal, as it is impossible. The previous coronavirus pandemics that have ravaged the world, Hong Kong (1968), H1N1 (2009), etc. are all still around and thus by this ridiculous premise, still "spreading", even after a vaccine and herd immunity to a certain extent, and they still kill people by the tens of thousands every year. This article is grossly misleading about the basic premises of coronaviruses, they never "stop spreading" or go away.

Janet Eduardo

And yet it worked in New Zealand. Go figure.

Dr. Michael Johnson

The data show New Zealand has had 2 deaths in the last week, and 16 new cases, by this definition of zero, it is still spreading.

James Morris

Great article. Thought provoking and well put together. But where’s the dashboard? The link takes one to the usual state reported map.

James Morris

Dashboard now appeared. It’s great.

Welcome to the discussion.

Thank you for joining the conversation on Santafenewmexican.com. Please familiarize yourself with the community guidelines. Avoid personal attacks: Lively, vigorous conversation is welcomed and encouraged, insults, name-calling and other personal attacks are not. No commercial peddling: Promotions of commercial goods and services are inappropriate to the purposes of this forum and can be removed. Respect copyrights: Post citations to sources appropriate to support your arguments, but refrain from posting entire copyrighted pieces. Be yourself: Accounts suspected of using fake identities can be removed from the forum.

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.

Topics

Breaking News

Special Offers & Promotions