Real-time nowcasting and forecasting of COVID-19 dynamics in England: the first wave
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
England has been heavily affected by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, with severe ‘lockdown’ mitigation measures now gradually being lifted. The real-time pandemic monitoring presented here has contributed to the evidence informing this pandemic management throughout the first wave. Estimates on the 10 May showed lockdown had reduced transmission by 75%, the reproduction number falling from 2.6 to 0.61. This regionally varying impact was largest in London with a reduction of 81% (95% credible interval: 77–84%). Reproduction numbers have since then slowly increased, and on 19 June the probability of the epidemic growing was greater than 5% in two regions, South West and London. By this date, an estimated 8% of the population had been infected, with a higher proportion in London (17%). The infection-to-fatality ratio is 1.1% (0.9–1.4%) overall but 17% (14–22%) among the over-75s. This ongoing work continues to be key to quantifying any widespread resurgence, should accrued immunity and effective contact tracing be insufficient to preclude a second wave.
This article is part of the theme issue ‘Modelling that shaped the early COVID-19 pandemic response in the UK’.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.24.20180737: (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
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources In that case we used the retail and recreation mobility data provided by Google, because this data was assumed to best represent the general adherence level in the UK. Googlesuggested: (Google, RRID:SCR_017097)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 …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.24.20180737: (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
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources In that case we used the retail and recreation mobility data provided by Google, because this data was assumed to best represent the general adherence level in the UK. Googlesuggested: (Google, RRID:SCR_017097)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.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.
-
