Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

FAQ: Counting tests, diagnoses & infections? #384

Open
rbelew opened this issue Apr 6, 2022 · 0 comments
Open

FAQ: Counting tests, diagnoses & infections? #384

rbelew opened this issue Apr 6, 2022 · 0 comments

Comments

@rbelew
Copy link
Contributor

rbelew commented Apr 6, 2022

This probably belongs in the "conceptual FAQ" list, but I'll start with making it an issue:

My reading of the Testing interventions tutorial made me believe that, if I set symp_prob=1.0, asymp_prob=1.0 I could model exhaustive testing of an entire population, thereby modeling the ideal case with new
diagnoses and new infections being the same. Guess I'm wrong about that.

I've put together a simple Covasim model and use it with a data set that looks like this:

	pop19 44780675
	startDate 2021-02-20
	endDate 2021-10-19
	ndays 242
	initCases 3064.4331360565866

(github doesn't support .py or .json attachments to issues I guess?! I've posted them under my repo.)

Using CovasimNAgents = 1e5 I get sim["pop_scale"]=447.80675,
resulting in a (scaled) number of initInfect=6.84.

I attach two plots simPlot and simPlot_fullTest, generated by
these testing intervention specs:

  • simPlot: tn_fixed = cv.test_num(daily_tests=runPars['ntst'], symp_test=runPars['sympOR'], start_day=abcObj.startDate)

  • simPlot_fullTest: tp = cv.test_prob(symp_prob=1.0, asymp_prob=1.0, start_day=abcObj.startDate)

They were run with these parameters:

runPars = {'beta': 0.02,
		   'mu': 0.11,
		   'ntst': 20000,
		   'sympOR': 250}

Only simPlot uses the ntst and sympOR parameters. It comes much closer to what I would have expected. A nearly constant number of new tests, new diagnoses and deaths doing a fair job of matching available data, and a reasonable estimate of R_0.

simPlot_fullTest seems to somehow infer that those ~7 initial infections with beta=0.02 don't infect anyone else, and the epidemic dies out. How does get caused by the intensive testing I intended with symp_prob=1.0, asymp_prob=1.0 ?!

A related question: In simPlot I don't see how/why Covasim is generating a max of ~1.5e7 infectious (people, not agents, right?), ~1.7e6 new infections and new recoveries, while being approx consistent with the ~2e5 new diagnoses and ~500 deaths observed in the data?

Regarding recoveries: standard compartmental models distinguish between Recovered and Dead states. How does Covasim's "recovered" state relate to R in SEIRD models?
simPlot
simPlot_fullTest

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant