Jeff Kaufman 🔸 comments on Sample Prevalence vs Global Prevalence

[Jeff Kaufman 🔸]

[I] am slightly confused what this post is trying to get out. I think your question is: will NYC hit 1% cumulative incidence after global 1% cumulative incidence?

That’s one of the main questions, yes.

The core idea is that our efficacy simulations are in terms of cumulative incidence in a monitored population, but what people generally care about is cumulative incidence in the global (or a specific country’s) population.

online tool

Thanks! The tool is neat, and it’s close to the approach I’d want to see.

I think this is almost never … would surprise me

I don’t see how you can say both that it will “almost never” be the case that NYC will “hit 1% cumulative incidence after global 1% cumulative incidence” but also that it would surprise you if you can get to where your monitored cities lead global prevalence?

[JoshuaBlake]

I don’t see how you can say both that it will “almost never” be the case that NYC will “hit 1% cumulative incidence after global 1% cumulative incidence” but also that it would surprise you if you can get to where your monitored cities lead global prevalence?

Sorry, this is poorly phrased by me. I meant that it would surprise me if there’s much benefit from adding a few additional cities.

[Jeff Kaufman 🔸]

Possibly! That would certainly be a convenient finding (from my perspective) if it did end up working out that way.