Benchmarking the Covid-19 pandemic across countries and states in the USA under heterogeneous testing
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Scientists and policymakers need to compare the incidence of Covid-19 across territories or periods with various levels of testing. Benchmarking based on the increase in total cases or case fatality rates is one way of comparing the evolution of the pandemic across countries or territories and could inform policy decisions about strategies to control coronavirus transmission. However, comparing cases and fatality rates across regions is challenging due to heterogeneity in testing and health systems. We show two complementary ways of benchmarking across territories and in time. First, we used multivariate regressions to estimate the test-elasticity of Covid-19 case incidence. Cases grow less than proportionally with testing when assessing weekly changes or looking across states in the USA. They tend to be proportional or even more than proportional when comparing the month-to-month evolution of an average country in the pandemic. Our results were robust to various model specifications. Second, we decomposed the growth in cases into test growth and positive test ratio growth to intuitively visualize the components of case growth. We hope these results can help support evidence-based decisions by public officials and help the public discussion when comparing across territories and in time.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.01.20087882: (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: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
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…
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.01.20087882: (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: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
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.
-
