By Dr. Diana Rangaves, Google Scholar, holds a Doctorate from the University of California. As a clinical pharmacist and writer, she has extensive experience and expertise in all levels of content creation, leadership, health, fintech, and business sectors.
A published author, she writes for numerous print and online outlets. Diana lives in California with her dogs and pasture pets, in their forever home.
The COVID-19 data projections and predictions have become potentially unreliable, given the nature of the pandemic and its behavioral data analysis being conducted daily. The United States emerged as the leading nation heavily impacted by the coronavirus in every dimension; cases, deaths, potential spreads, and daily infection rates were highly recorded. The data analysis was conducted on multiple instances for the projections provision purposes has ended in a slim predictable aspect of the data, mainly focusing on the economic classes and economic perspectives. There were diverse outcomes with multiple predictions focusing on the economic contexts of the viably reliable information. New York City has displayed a potentially difficult-to-manage situation until the information gathered was found to be economically dependable. With 11.6 million cases and over 0.25 million deaths, the country faces economic turmoil if the pandemic data, as analyzed by Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), is anything on which to rely.
The diverse outcomes and behavior can be singled out and handled independently to understand the contexts of the data as it is analyzed. Data analysis on covid-19 in covering New York City was preemptively targeting a projection model for defining the behavior of the information that is required. However, this data analysis did not handle the projection as a single unit but instead considered the specific variables making up the ladder. The diverse outcomes were heavily three attributed to the behavior of persons concerning the spread of the disease. Until mid-May and most Americans believed that the virus was more of a theory and never absolute. The number of death cases spiked, leading to a change of mentality that appropriately focuses on dealing with the condition. As listed in most government statistics and research, the common fact about coronavirus and research shows that the three primary spread methods were contacts and sharing a common space with infected people. As such, mitigative modalities assigned to the situation whereby the social physical distancing and use of masks were rapidly adopted, especially if one was inevitably going into public areas or engaging in businesses in such areas. The concept of culture and population density played a very integral role in the spread of the coronavirus.
References
Wu F, Zhao S, Yu B, et al. A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China. Nature 2020;579:265–9.
Raoult D, Zumla A, Locatelli F, et al. Coronavirus infections: epidemiological, clinical and immunological features and hypotheses. Cell Stress 2020.
Chen N, Zhou M, Dong X, et al. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study. Lancet 2020;395:507–13.
Dong Y, Mo X, Hu Y, et al. Epidemiological characteristics of 2143 pediatric patients with 2019 coronavirus disease in China. Pediatrics 2020; e20200702.