A variety of models have been reported in the media and used by government leaders to support actions they have taken in their response to the pandemic. The models have offered widely differing projections for the ultimate number of infections and deaths from COVID-19 and have shown considerable internal vacillation as they have been updated in multiple iterations. While this has led to confusion and frustration on the part of both government leaders and the general populace, even to the point of dismissing some projections out of hand, the changing predictions and disagreement on outcomes between the models is a natural outgrowth of the limitations of the models themselves and of the insufficiency of the data inputs. There is no single or even group of statistics on COVID-19 to date that is completely accurate. Case counts are dependent upon testing and/or medical diagnoses. Neither can provide a true full count of total cases. There have not been and still are not enough tests to catch every case. Diagnoses in the absence of tests are necessarily speculative, leading to the potential for underreporting in some cases and overreporting in others. The same is true for deaths. Absent adequate tests or standardized diagnostic measures, an accurate death count is also not possible. Recent examples of testing on deaths from before the outbreaks had previously been acknowledged show that COVID- 19 was present in some areas long before the first publicly reported cases. Finally, the tests themselves have shown varying degrees of reliability and all have at least some potential for false results. In the absence of sufficient data on cases and deaths, death rates are even less accurate. Finally, there is at least some evidence of deliberate falsification of reporting at national levels in some countries for political purposes. Perhaps the single greatest problem with the available data is unavoidable: time, that is, the limited time since the pandemic began. Even something as virulent as COVID-19 takes time to spread, manifest and resolve. As it does and until it has, we will always be learning new things and findings surprises, both bad and good, that we could not possibly know until enough time had passed. Similarly, as mitigation efforts are being adjusted, we will not know the true impacts until more time has passed. The coronavirus is a particularly dangerous balance between infectiousness and lethality. If it were less infectious, we would not be facing the problems at present. If it were less, or ironically more lethal, if would also be less troubling, either passing unnoticed or killing off the infected before it can spread widely. It has proven to be maddeningly unpredictable as it has spread across the world. Based upon its genetic makeup and early transmission characteristics, it has been classified as an airborne upper respiratory disease. Yet it has manifested symptoms, some odd, some serious, far beyond the respiratory systems of some infected individuals, including attacks on other organs, blood clots, inflammatory syndromes, anosmia, happy hypoxia and other manifestations that do not fit the common patterns for respiratory infections. It has shown a strong tendency to most seriously afflict the aged and those with underlying health conditions. It has also shown far less virulence amongst children. However, it has demonstrated a disturbing ability to kill young adults and even some children who were otherwise perfectly healthy before contracting the virus. It has even infected pets and zoo animals.
∴ PROGNOSIS
24
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs