#COVID19 in Punjab. Are we seeing effects of widespread circulation of the more lethal "U.K. variant" (B.1.1.7) in Punjab? (thehindu.com/news/national/…).

Yes, I think so. Apparently this variant could be ~64% more deadly (medicalnewstoday.com/articles/covid…).

#thread (1/6)
Fatalities in Punjab seem to lag cases by about 17 days - that's something of an educated guess since there's a lot of noise in the data. Here's the 17-day delayed CFR in Punjab since the start of the year. It is an astonishing picture. What does it show? (2/6) Image
Through January the delayed CFR hovered between 2 and 3. Since late April it's hovered around 5. A *very clear* change. This could be the effect of increased circulation of the more lethal variant. An alternative explanation also needs to be looked at... (3/6)
As infections started to surge, we expect testing to struggle to keep up, so a smaller % of infections get detected. This could drive up CFR. Punjab's test positivity has been rising since mid-Feb. I don't think this explains the changes in fatality rate. (4/6) Image
Both graphs together:
1) CFR had reached a high point by early March; but 17 days earlier test positivity had hardly changed - there was not yet any clear sign of weakening detection.
2) CFR has been steady through March although TPR has continued to rise.
(5/6) Image
In summary: it seems possible the more transmissible and more deadly UK variant (B.1.1.7) was becoming increasingly prevalent in Punjab through late Jan and Feb. This seems to have resulted in an increase in fatality rate through Feb. It has stabilised in March. (6/6)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Murad Banaji

Murad Banaji Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @muradbanaji

28 Mar
Mumbai #COVID19 update. There has been a sharp rise in testing in Mumbai over the last 4 days. This has stabilised test positivity (weekly averages), but not yet brought it down. About half of the tests are now rapid tests, up from ~30% earlier. (1/6) ImageImage
Cases and deaths. Cases are doubling roughly every week at the moment (partly, perhaps, about the rise in testing). In the last two weeks deaths have also been rising - doubling roughly every two weeks (the relatively low numbers mean there's a lot of uncertainty). (2/6) Image
In the past week, the slum epidemic seems to be growing faster - estimated case doubling times have been lower in the slums. This is a worrying trend - we've seen before how a nonslum surge sparks a faster slum surge. (These are estimates based on examining ward-wise data.) (3/6) Image
Read 6 tweets
22 Mar
Data from Mumbai's latest COVID-19 wave is suggesting that reinfections are important and/or a more transmissible variant is circulating. Here's why. (A slightly technical thread, assumptions and possible objections at the end.) (1/n)
First, the argument in brief: current spread is just too fast. The speed is at odds with levels of prior infection in the city and what we know about R0 - the basic reproduction number in the city - based on the earliest availale data.
The current doubling time for daily cases (weekly average) is ~8 days. With TPR also rising sharply, the true doubling time for infections may be shorter. With standard assumptions, we get R = ~1.57. Estimated cases from slums and nonslums give roughly the same R value in both.
Read 16 tweets
15 Mar
(1/4) Brief 🧵on Mumbai's all cause mortality and COVID-19 infection fatality rate (IFR). 2020 data shows a huge 24% rise in mortality over the previous 5 year average. That's about 22K extra deaths in 2020. Of these about 11K were recorded COVID deaths.
portal.mcgm.gov.in/irj/portal/ano…
(2/4) We don't know exactly how many 2020 excess deaths were COVID deaths. These could range from the official 11K up to more than 22K, since there's evidence some kinds of mortality fell in 2020. Let's say COVID deaths in 2020 were between 11K and 24K.
(3/4) We don't know exactly how many infections occurred in 2020, but based on seroprevalence data and modelling, somewhere between 6.5M to 9M infections occurred in the city. That's between 50% and 70% of the population (~12.9M), if we assume reinfections were rare.
Read 4 tweets
23 Feb
This thread is troubling. Yes, India's data is interesting - let's acknowledge the complexities and uncertainties, but based on evidence and without wild claims. #thread
First of all, the premise of the thread - comparing recorded cases and deaths across countries is meaningless without acknowledging differences in surveillance. There's enough seroprevalence data to go beyond "cases"...
From the latest Indian survey, about 3.5% of infections have been detected (science.thewire.in/health/third-n…).

In the US, it's over 20% (cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspecti…).

So an India-US comparison of cases per million is highly misleading.
Read 20 tweets
6 Feb
For this piece, I tried to gather together some thoughts about the serosurvey data coming out of India. There is a great deal of this data, and the messages are important but not always clear. Longish #thread. 1/n
scroll.in/article/986097…
First, to see the bogus narratives you can construct when you ignore serosurvey data, you just have to look at Chapter 1 of the recent "Economic Survey". (This thread took just one example, but there are many.)
Key message from the serosurveys? Extremely variable surveillance of infections *and probably deaths*. In some places, a decent proportion of infections are picked up; in others a tiny fraction. Some areas have seen a huge number of infections, but almost no recorded deaths.
Read 16 tweets
5 Feb
My piece in The Wire on the third national serosurvey. The headline (~21% prevalence) is probably not a major underestimate. Apparently the antibody test used was less vulnerable to missing old infections than the one used in the second serosurvey. 1/6
science.thewire.in/health/third-n…
The increase in prevalence from 2nd to 3rd survey is roughly consistent with the increase in cases over this period.

The breakdown of prevalence suggests that disease was moving towards rural areas even as daily cases peaked and declined nationally (September). 2/6
Weaker rural surveillance of infections and deaths could explain a moderate drop in detection, and a more noticeable drop in the naive infection fatality rate (recorded deaths over estimated infections) between 2nd and 3rd national serosurveys. 3/6
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!