data utilization

The top five cities for the infected cases are Jacksonville, Miami, Phoenix, San Diego and Houston. These cities were ranging from mid to high altitudes of 200 or more cases. Jacksonville started as the largest displaying 399 infected cases, while the other cities were on an incline for their cases making Houston the moderate case of 272. The following top cities for the infected cases, have shown and proven studies to be a remarkable increase in some more than most areas.

After reviewing through the findings there were a plethora of cities with infected cases. Below you will find the populations (cities) infected and the amount of cases identified:

Jacksonville: 322 Miami: 299 Phoenix: 289 Austin: 28 Houston: 272

San Diego: 258 New Orleans: 248 Mesa: 231 Atlanta: 220 Long Beach: 215

Los Angeles: 201 New York: 189 Fresno: 187 Las Vegas: 146 Tulsa: 127

San Jose: 109 Fort Worth: 98 San Antonio: 95 Oakland: 84 Dallas: 83

Wichita: 83 San Francisco: 76 Seattle: 65 Washington D.C: 61 Albuquerque: 51

Sacramento: 51 Kansas City: 38 Detroit: 35 Memphis: 31 Denver: 30

El Paso: 29 Boston: 28 Baltimore: 26 Nashville: 23 Charlotte: 19

Portland: 18 Louisville: 17 Chicago: 14 Columbus: 14 Milwaukee: 12

Oklahoma City: 11 Arlington: 11 Minneapolis: 9 Raleigh: 8 Indianapolis: 7

Philadelphia: 5 Colorado Springs: 5 Virginia Beach: 4 Omaha: 3

In the effort in moving resources and prevention efforts for a dangerous virus, our organization needs to determine the population likelihood of having this virus. Epidemiologists, healthcare providers and Governmental agencies used prevalence numbers to answer the following question “What are the number of people that already have the disease?” The total number of persona infected with a dangerous virus is 4,852. If these numbers were a sample population of 100,000, then the prevalence of a dangerous virus is 0.049 or 4.9%.

Figure 1 City Data Population Infected with Dangerous Virus

In accordance to the findings as presented in the bar graph there the highest number of cases occurred in Jacksonville with 322 cases followed by cases that occurred in Miami (299) then Phoenix (289). The lowest number of cases was recorded in Omaha, Virginia beach and Colorado Springs and Philadelphia with values determined to be at 3, 4, 5 and 7 respectively. This therefore shows the prevalence of the cases in the respective cities. Cities that had a high prevalence in regards to the occurrence of these cases depict poor or ineffective method of eradicating or reducing their occurrence (Fraser et al, 2009). The extent of risk can also be measured merely by looking at the number of cases that occur in the cities in the bid reduce their prevalence and employ the recommended resources or interventions that are required. In essence, areas with high prevalence require more of the needed interventions and resources compared to those with low prevalence (Lloyd-Smith et al, 2005).

Conclusion

The margin of disease outbreak can be measured by the extent and number of reported cases of the affected individuals (Hufnagel et al, 2004).When the number of cases of the affected population is high, it is implied that the location in picture is greatly affected and is the most risky compared to other areas and more resources are required to alleviate the risk. Vice versa is true.

References

Fraser, C., Donnelly, C. A., Cauchemez, S., Hanage, W. P., Van Kerkhove, M. D., Hollingsworth, T. D., & Jombart, T. (2009). Pandemic potential of a strain of influenza A (H1N1): early findings. science, 324(5934), 1557-1561.

Hufnagel, L., Brockmann, D., & Geisel, T. (2004). Forecast and control of epidemics in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(42), 15124-15129.

Lloyd-Smith, J. O., Schreiber, S. J., Kopp, P. E., & Getz, W. M. (2005). Superspreading and the effect of individual variation on disease emergence. Nature, 438(7066), 355-359.