Immunity acquired by a minority active fraction of the population could explain COVID-19 spread in Greater Buenos Aires (June–November 2020)

  1. Gabriel Fabricius
  2. R. A. Borzi
  3. José Caminos
  4. Tomás S. Grigera

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had an uneven development in different countries. In Argentina, the pandemic began in March 2020 and, during the first 3 months, the vast majority of cases were concentrated in a densely populated region that includes the city of Buenos Aires (country capital) and the Greater Buenos Aires (GBA) area that surrounds it. This work focuses on the spread of COVID-19 between June and November 2020 in GBA. Within this period of time there was no vaccine, basically only the early wild strain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was present, and the official restriction and distancing measures in this region remained more or less constant. Under these particular conditions, the incidences show a sharp rise from June 2020 and begin to decrease towards the end of August until the end of November 2020. In this work we study, through mathematical modelling and available epidemiological information, the spread of COVID-19 in this region and period of time. We show that a coherent explanation of the evolution of incidences can be obtained assuming that only a minority fraction of the population got involved in the spread process, so that the incidences decreased as this group of people was becoming immune. The observed evolution of the incidences could then be a consequence at the population level of lasting immunity conferred by SARS-CoV-2.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1017/s0950268822000656
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.21.21267955: (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.
    • 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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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 10.1101/2021.12.21.21267955 on medRxiv