County of Sussex Reports Low COVID Rate of Transmission

(Newton, NJ) Officials with the County of Sussex countered erroneous data released in a NJ.com news
story on Wednesday, that claimed Sussex County has the highest rate of COVID-19 transmission
statewide.

Sussex County, according to data tracked by epidemiologists at both its Division of Health and New
Jersey’s Department of Health, agreed at the time of the article on Sept. 2 the county had a rate
of transmission of 0.95, meaning 100 individuals could infect 95 people, a figure less than the
state average reported the same day of 0.96.

The most current figure as of Sept. 4 shows Sussex County as having the third lowest COVID count in
the state, according to COVIDActNow.org, with 2.2 cases per 100,000; and the infection rate at
0.92.

The article’s author Payton Guion asserted in his story, “Now for the first time: See rate of
coronavirus spread in N.J. counties and who’s above, below 1.0,” Sussex County had the highest rate
of transmission as of Tuesday at 1.39; or the potential for 100 people to infect 139.

“We don’t know how they (NJ.com) calculated it,” Dr. Lama Chaddad, MD, MPH, Public Health
Epidemiologist for Sussex County’s Division of Health, said Thursday. “The State’s Department of
Health also has no idea how it was calculated.”

Chaddad described the county in a “green” status, meaning having low COVID-19 activity levels, a
figure reconfirmed in a report released on Thursday by New Jersey’s Department of Health,
Communicable Disease Service showing Sussex County – and the majority of the state – are in that
green category.

Chaddad said Sussex County’s daily case counts average at zero to three of the approximately
144,000 Sussex County residents, with the low positive case counts each day typically in the single
digits. Recent fluctuations have occurred showing increased levels, she said, with some employees
within Sussex County’s long-term-care facilities who are testing positive for COVID during weekly,
routine testing. On one given day, there were 12 total cases within the county’s daily count, with
six of those attributed to the long-term care facilities. Additionally, college students with
permanent addresses in Sussex County who have tested positive while away at college out-of-state,
have also been factored in, she said. Chaddad said she has been working diligently with the New
Jersey Department of Health to clear up these discrepancies and re-allocate these cases to the
appropriate counties and states of origin.

“This report is extremely misleading,” said Freeholder Herbert Yardley about the
NJ.com article. “Why would someone release these statistics when it contradicts what’s on the
state’s own website? We are one of four counties in the State which didn’t get any direct CARES Act
funding from Congress and Governor Phil Murphy withheld his discretionary CARES funding for
months; and refused to respond to our requests about it. The newspaper never asked the Governor why we weren’t getting funding and now they come out with this report,
which is inaccurate.”

“It is inconceivable to me that a news outlet would be so irresponsible as to print
something so completely contradictory to the facts,” Freeholder Joshua Hertzberg said. “As we are
working hard to get our county back up on its feet, having them slander Sussex County, hurting our
businesses and totally discounting all of the hard work done here to make us one of the safest
places in the State, if not the country, as it pertains to COVID. They must be using the same
backwards math the CDC was using and I hope to see them follow the CDC’s lead and correct their
false reporting.”

Chaddad received a response to an inquiry she sent to New Jersey’s Department of Health’s
Communicable Disease Service Medical Director, Dr. Edward Lifshitz, MD, FACP, who said that the
Department of Health does not publish the COVID-19 rate of transmission by county, because of
discrepancies that can occur with counties that have lower case rates and populations.
“Rt (rate of transmission) can fluctuate rapidly and this single number becomes a less reliable
indicator (particularly on a daily basis) as to the situation on the ground,” Lifshitz wrote. “Also
remember – Rt is related to change in case counts. If one county saw no growth in cases but had a
high sustained number, it would show a Rt of one. Another county with the same population might
have a quarter of the number of cases, but if this number was growing, the Rt would be greater than
one. Thus, counties with low case rates will tend to see greater fluctuations (given vagaries of
testing/reporting and randomness involved with dealing with smaller numbers) than counties/areas
with higher case rates.”

Lifshitz clarified New Jersey’s Department of Health could not comment on NJ.com’s methodology for
obtaining its Rt calculations; and the Communicable Disease Service does not calculate the Rt value
for New Jersey’s Department of Health.

Guion, however, did respond to an inquiry from the County of Sussex, about the rate of transmission
claim made in his article and said he conferred with NJ.com’s News App Developer,
Arjun Kakkar on the topic. Kakkar has listed his qualifications on LinkedIn as having a background
in “Math, Visualization and Data Storytelling.”

“Since Sussex’s COVID case counts are relatively low, a minor increase in cases affects Sussex more
so than other counties with higher case counts, meaning its Rt will be higher,” Guion wrote. “Ocean
County (ranked as having second highest Rt in Guion’s article), for example, has many more new
cases than Sussex, but since it has higher case counts, its Rt is not as high. We will continue
doing our best to contextualize these numbers.”

“While I fully believe this News App Developer is quite experienced in ‘data storytelling’ with
this Sussex County Rt fairytale, it’s the math background I question,” said Freeholder Deputy
Director Dawn Fantasia. “If this flawed data is what Governor Murphy is relying on to make life and
death decisions for our students, our most fragile elderly, and our shuttered businesses, I’m not
at all surprised. This isn’t the first time health professionals at the county and state levels
have questioned Murphy’s brand of ‘science.’”

###