Replace obsolete "adjusted prevalence" equation

[Lucent]

After finding the origin of the equation used to show adjusted prevalence, I contacted its author, Youyang Gu and inquired if it was still applicable for modeling as I wanted to use it myself to combine test positivity with daily cases. His reply was "Hi, that equation is from 2020. I don't think it's relevant anymore, so I wouldn't use it. The true prevalence multiplier is much higher now due to the availability of at-home testing."

Frequently updated adjusted prevalence is a killer feature of microCOVID. I often use it to compare friends' county risk levels as they may be in parts of the country with significantly more positive tests but much lower test positivity. Much has been published of modeling true infections, but the formulas aren't simple or are calibrated to seroprevalence by state.

Would it be possible to find a better equation to add value to this feature?

[sameerjain0123]

+1. To put it more bluntly, the current tool seems like it is severely underestimating risk, and that could be dangerous if estimating COVID risk still matters.

Some ideas if it is too labor-intensive to update the actual code for the MicroCOVID tool (from my related issue requesting an update to reflect greater transmissibility (#1433 (comment)):

1. Write a note (e.g. in blog or whitepaper) on how you'd suggest adjusting for the latest variants (and ideally post a link to this in the updates section on the top right of the main page.
2. If that's still too labor-intensive, at least write a note to that effect telling users that the latest variants are way more transmissible and the current numbers are a vast underestimate.

If there's anything I can do to help with this as someone who doesn't code and has some but not particularly strong ability to read papers carefully (I could probably excerpt them usefully, but would not be able to analyze their methods in the way that say, Zvi has in their LessWrong posts), let me know! If throwing money at the problem would help, let me know that too and I am happy to contribute what I can and/or help raise it.

[apiology]

Thanks for the lead and the write-up, @Lucent!

I want to echo @sameerjain0123's comment here. See #1626 for a summary of the state of the project. I think the next step here is to work through the options and suggest a path to make this actionable. Please reach out if anyone reading this is interested in pursuing this and could use some help on the next step, as I agree this is a critical need.