Individual quarantine versus active monitoring of contacts for the mitigation of COVID-19: a modelling study
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.03.05.20031088: (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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Additional limitations of the model include the focus on early epidemic growth in the absence of depletion of susceptibles, the assumption of consistent R0 across scenarios with different serial intervals. By assuming relative infectiousness follows a triangular distribution, we may underestimate the impact of contact-tracing interventions if relative infectiousness increases exponentially towards the end of disease instead, or …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.03.05.20031088: (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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Additional limitations of the model include the focus on early epidemic growth in the absence of depletion of susceptibles, the assumption of consistent R0 across scenarios with different serial intervals. By assuming relative infectiousness follows a triangular distribution, we may underestimate the impact of contact-tracing interventions if relative infectiousness increases exponentially towards the end of disease instead, or overestimate the impact of relative infectious decreases exponentially after the earliest stages; however, our estimate of peak infectiousness at 38% of the duration of infectiousness suggests peak infectivity at neither end of the duration of infectiousness. By assuming the duration of infectiousness follows a uniform distribution, we may exclude long-duration shedders, which can lead to either an underestimation of the effect size, if a larger fraction of an individual’s infections happen long after isolation, or an overestimation of the effect size, if the right tail is long enough such that individuals are released from interventions and able to spark a second outbreak. In addition, our choice to consider shifts of the latent period relative to the infectious period implicitly assumes a similar shape to the underlying distributions, albeit with different means. As the amount of presymptomatic transmission will depend not only on the average timing of latent period relative to the incubation period, but also on the standard deviation of these distri...
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: Please consider improving the rainbow (“jet”) colormap(s) used on pages 24 and 23. At least one figure is not accessible to readers with colorblindness and/or is not true to the data, i.e. not perceptually uniform.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
-
-