Abstract This project is funded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) through their NSF RAPID program under the title “Modeling Corona Spread Using Big Data Analytics.” The project is a joint effort between the Department of Computer & Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at FAU and a research group from LexisNexis Risk Solutions. The novel coronavirus Covid-19 originated in China in early December 2019 and has rapidly spread to many countries around the globe, with the number of confirmed cases increasing every day. Covid-19 is officially a pandemic. It is a novel infection with serious clinical manifestations, including death, and it has reached at least 124 countries and territories. Although the ultimate course and impact of Covid-19 are uncertain, it is not merely possible but likely that the disease will produce enough severe illness to overwhelm the worldwide health care infrastructure. Emerging viral pandemics can place extraordinary and sustained demands on public health and health systems and on providers of essential community services. Modeling the Covid-19 pandemic spread is challenging. But there are data that can be used to project resource demands. Estimates of the reproductive number (R) of SARS-CoV-2 show that at the beginning of the epidemic, each infected person spreads the virus to at least two others, on average (Emanuel et al. in N Engl J Med. 2020, Livingston and Bucher in JAMA 323(14):1335, 2020). A conservatively low estimate is that 5 % of the population could become infected within 3 months. Preliminary data from China and Italy regarding the distribution of case severity and fatality vary widely (Wu and McGoogan in JAMA 323(13):1239–42, 2020). A recent large-scale analysis from China suggests that 80 % of those infected either are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms; a finding that implies that demand for advanced medical services might apply to only 20 % of the total infected. Of patients infected with Covid-19, about 15 % have severe illness and 5 % have critical illness (Emanuel et al. in N Engl J Med. 2020). Overall, mortality ranges from 0.25 % to as high as 3.0 % (Emanuel et al. in N Engl J Med. 2020, Wilson et al. in Emerg Infect Dis 26(6):1339, 2020). Case fatality rates are much higher for vulnerable populations, such as persons over the age of 80 years (> 14 %) and those with coexisting conditions (10 % for those with cardiovascular disease and 7 % for those with diabetes) (Emanuel et al. in N Engl J Med. 2020). Overall, Covid-19 is substantially deadlier than seasonal influenza, which has a mortality of roughly 0.1 %. Public health efforts depend heavily on predicting how diseases such as those caused by Covid-19 spread across the globe. During the early days of a new outbreak, when reliable data are still scarce, researchers turn to mathematical models that can predict where people who could be infected are going and how likely they are to bring the disease with them. These computational methods use known statistical equations that calculate the probability of individuals transmitting the illness. Modern computational power allows these models to quickly incorporate multiple inputs, such as a given disease’s ability to pass from person to person and the movement patterns of potentially infected people traveling by air and land. This process sometimes involves making assumptions about unknown factors, such as an individual’s exact travel pattern. By plugging in different possible versions of each input, however, researchers can update the models as new information becomes available and compare their results to observed patterns for the illness. In this paper we describe the development a model of Corona spread by using innovative big data analytics techniques and tools. We leveraged our experience from research in modeling Ebola spread (Shaw et al. Modeling Ebola Spread and Using HPCC/KEL System. In: Big Data Technologies and Applications 2016 (pp. 347-385). Springer, Cham) to successfully model Corona spread, we will obtain new results, and help in reducing the number of Corona patients. We closely collaborated with LexisNexis, which is a leading US data analytics company and a member of our NSF I/UCRC for Advanced Knowledge Enablement. The lack of a comprehensive view and informative analysis of the status of the pandemic can also cause panic and instability within society. Our work proposes the HPCC Systems Covid-19 tracker, which provides a multi-level view of the pandemic with the informative virus spreading indicators in a timely manner. The system embeds a classical epidemiological model known as SIR and spreading indicators based on causal model. The data solution of the tracker is built on top of the Big Data processing platform HPCC Systems, from ingesting and tracking of various data sources to fast delivery of the data to the public. The HPCC Systems Covid-19 tracker presents the Covid-19 data on a daily, weekly, and cumulative basis up to global-level and down to the county-level. It also provides statistical analysis for each level such as new cases per 100,000 population. The primary analysis such as Contagion Risk and Infection State is based on causal model with a seven-day sliding window. Our work has been released as a publicly available website to the world and attracted a great volume of traffic. The project is open-sourced and available on GitHub. The system was developed on the LexisNexis HPCC Systems, which is briefly described in the paper.
more »
« less
Health Information Sourcing and Health Knowledge Quality: Repeated Cross-sectional Survey
Background People’s health-related knowledge influences health outcomes, as this knowledge may influence whether individuals follow advice from their doctors or public health agencies. Yet, little attention has been paid to where people obtain health information and how these information sources relate to the quality of knowledge. Objective We aim to discover what information sources people use to learn about health conditions, how these sources relate to the quality of their health knowledge, and how both the number of information sources and health knowledge change over time. Methods We surveyed 200 different individuals at 12 time points from March through September 2020. At each time point, we elicited participants’ knowledge about causes, risk factors, and preventative interventions for 8 viral (Ebola, common cold, COVID-19, Zika) and nonviral (food allergies, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis [ALS], strep throat, stroke) illnesses. Participants were further asked how they learned about each illness and to rate how much they trust various sources of health information. Results We found that participants used different information sources to obtain health information about common illnesses (food allergies, strep throat, stroke) compared to emerging illnesses (Ebola, common cold, COVID-19, Zika). Participants relied mainly on news media, government agencies, and social media for information about emerging illnesses, while learning about common illnesses from family, friends, and medical professionals. Participants relied on social media for information about COVID-19, with their knowledge accuracy of COVID-19 declining over the course of the pandemic. The number of information sources participants used was positively correlated with health knowledge quality, though there was no relationship with the specific source types consulted. Conclusions Building on prior work on health information seeking and factors affecting health knowledge, we now find that people systematically consult different types of information sources by illness type and that the number of information sources people use affects the quality of individuals’ health knowledge. Interventions to disseminate health information may need to be targeted to where individuals are likely to seek out information, and these information sources differ systematically by illness type.
more »
« less
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10383301
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- JMIR Formative Research
- Volume:
- 6
- Issue:
- 9
- ISSN:
- 2561-326X
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- e39274
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Disease transmission is a fruitful domain in which to examine how scientific and folk theories interrelate, given laypeople’s access to multiple sources of information to explain events of personal significance. The current paper reports an in-depth survey of U.S. adults’ ( N = 238) causal reasoning about two viral illnesses: a novel, deadly disease that has massively disrupted everyone’s lives (COVID-19), and a familiar, innocuous disease that has essentially no serious consequences (the common cold). Participants received a series of closed-ended and open-ended questions probing their reasoning about disease transmission, with a focus on causal mechanisms underlying disease contraction, transmission, treatment, and prevention; non-visible (internal) biological processes; and ontological frameworks regarding what kinds of entities viruses are. We also assessed participants’ attitudes, such as their trust in scientific experts and willingness to be vaccinated. Results indicated complexity in people’s reasoning, consistent with the co-existence of multiple explanatory frameworks. An understanding of viral transmission and viral replication existed alongside folk theories, placeholder beliefs, and lack of differentiation between viral and non-viral disease. For example, roughly 40% of participants who explained illness in terms of the transmission of viruses also endorsed a non-viral folk theory, such as exposure to cold weather or special foods as curative. Additionally, participants made use of competing modes of construal (biological, mechanical, and psychological) when explaining how viruses operate, such as framing the immune system response (biological) as cells trying to fight off the virus (psychological). Indeed, participants who displayed greater knowledge about viral transmission were significantly more likely to anthropomorphize bodily processes. Although comparisons of COVID-19 and the common cold revealed relatively few differences, the latter, more familiar disease elicited consistently lower levels of accuracy and greater reliance on folk theories. Moreover, for COVID-19 in particular, accuracy positively correlated with attitudes (trusting medical scientists and taking the disease more seriously), self-protective behaviors (such as social distancing and mask-wearing), and willingness to be vaccinated. For both diseases, self-assessed knowledge about the disease negatively predicted accuracy. The results are discussed in relation to challenges for formal models of explanatory reasoning.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Background There are still many unanswered questions about the novel coronavirus; however, a largely underutilized source of knowledge is the millions of people who have recovered after contracting the virus. This includes a majority of undocumented cases of COVID-19, which were classified as mild or moderate and received little to no clinical care during the course of illness. Objective This study aims to document and glean insights from the experiences of individuals with a first-hand experience in dealing with COVID-19, especially the so-called mild-to-moderate cases that self-resolved while in isolation. Methods This web-based survey study called C19 Insider Scoop recruited adult participants aged 18 years or older who reside in the United States and had tested positive for COVID-19 or antibodies. Participants were recruited through various methods, including online support groups for COVID-19 survivors, advertisement in local news outlets, as well as through professional and other networks. The main outcomes measured in this study included knowledge of contraction or transmission of the virus, symptoms, and personal experiences on the road to recovery. Results A total of 72 participants (female, n=53; male, n=19; age range: 18-73 years; mean age: 41 [SD 14] years) from 22 US states were enrolled in this study. The top known source of how people contracted SARS-CoV-2, the virus known to cause COVID-19, was through a family or household member (26/72, 35%). This was followed by essential workers contracting the virus through the workplace (13/72, 18%). Participants reported up to 27 less-documented symptoms that they experienced during their illness, such as brain or memory fog, palpitations, ear pain or discomfort, and neurological problems. In addition, 47 of 72 (65%) participants reported that their symptoms lasted longer than the commonly cited 2-week period even for mild cases of COVID-19. The mean recovery time of the study participants was 4.5 weeks, and exactly one-half of participants (50%) still experienced lingering symptoms of COVID-19 after an average of 65 days following illness onset. Additionally, 37 (51%) participants reported that they experienced stigma associated with contracting COVID-19. Conclusions This study presents preliminary findings suggesting that emphasis on family or household spread of COVID-19 may be lacking and that there is a general underestimation of the recovery time even for mild cases of illness with the virus. Although a larger study is needed to validate these results, it is important to note that as more people experience COVID-19, insights from COVID-19 survivors can enable a more informed public, pave the way for others who may be affected by the virus, and guide further research.more » « less
-
Guidi, Barbara (Ed.)The COVID-19 pandemic brought widespread attention to an “infodemic” of potential health misinformation. This claim has not been assessed based on evidence. We evaluated if health misinformation became more common during the pandemic. We gathered about 325 million posts sharing URLs from Twitter and Facebook during the beginning of the pandemic (March 8-May 1, 2020) compared to the same period in 2019. We relied on source credibility as an accepted proxy for misinformation across this database. Human annotators also coded a subsample of 3000 posts with URLs for misinformation. Posts about COVID-19 were 0.37 times as likely to link to “not credible” sources and 1.13 times more likely to link to “more credible” sources than prior to the pandemic. Posts linking to “not credible” sources were 3.67 times more likely to include misinformation compared to posts from “more credible” sources. Thus, during the earliest stages of the pandemic, when claims of an infodemic emerged, social media contained proportionally less misinformation than expected based on the prior year. Our results suggest that widespread health misinformation is not unique to COVID-19. Rather, it is a systemic feature of online health communication that can adversely impact public health behaviors and must therefore be addressed.more » « less
-
COVID-19 resulted in health and logistical challenges for many sectors of the American economy, including the trucking industry. This study examined how the pandemic impacted the trucking industry, focused on the pandemic’s impacts on company operations, health, and stress of trucking industry employees. Data were collected from three sources: surveys, focus groups, and social media posts. Individuals at multiple organizational levels of trucking companies (i.e., supervisors, upper-level management, and drivers) completed an online survey and participated in online focus groups. Data from focus groups were coded using a thematic analysis approach. Publicly available social media posts from Twitter were analyzed using a sentiment analysis framework to assess changes in public sentiment about the trucking industry pre- and during-COVID-19. Two themes emerged from the focus groups: (1) trucking company business strategies and adaptations and (2) truck driver experiences and workplace safety. Participants reported supply chain disruptions and new consumer buying trends as having larger industry-wide impacts. Company adaptability emerged due to freight variability, leading organizations to pivot business models and create solutions to reduce operational costs. Companies responded to COVID-19 by accommodating employees’ concerns and implementing safety measures. Truck drivers noted an increase in positive public perception of truck drivers, but job quality factors worsened due to closed amenities and decreased social interaction. Social media sentiment analysis also illustrated an increase in positive public sentiment towards the trucking industry during COVID-19. The pandemic resulted in multi-level economic, health, and social impacts on the trucking industry, which included economic impacts on companies and economic, social and health impacts on employees within the industry levels. Further research can expand on this study to provide an understanding of the long-term impacts of the pandemic on the trucking industry companies within the industry and segments of the trucking industry workforce.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.2196/39274
