Generalized logistic growth modeling of the COVID-19 outbreak: comparing the dynamics in the 29 provinces in China and in the rest of the world

  1. Ke Wu
  2. Didier Darcet
  3. Qian Wang
  4. Didier Sornette

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Started in Wuhan, China, the COVID-19 has been spreading all over the world. We calibrate the logistic growth model, the generalized logistic growth model, the generalized Richards model and the generalized growth model to the reported number of infected cases for the whole of China, 29 provinces in China, and 33 countries and regions that have been or are undergoing major outbreaks. We dissect the development of the epidemics in China and the impact of the drastic control measures both at the aggregate level and within each province. We quantitatively document four phases of the outbreak in China with a detailed analysis on the heterogeneous situations across provinces. The extreme containment measures implemented by China were very effective with some instructive variations across provinces. Borrowing from the experience of China, we made scenario projections on the development of the outbreak in other countries. We identified that outbreaks in 14 countries (mostly in western Europe) have ended, while resurgences of cases have been identified in several among them. The modeling results clearly show longer after-peak trajectories in western countries, in contrast to most provinces in China where the after-peak trajectory is characterized by a much faster decay. We identified three groups of countries in different level of outbreak progress, and provide informative implications for the current global pandemic.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1007/s11071-020-05862-6
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.03.11.20034363: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.03.11.20034363 on medRxiv