The impact of social distancing and epicenter lockdown on the COVID-19 epidemic in mainland China: A data-driven SEIQR model study

  1. Yuzhen Zhang
  2. Bin Jiang
  3. Jiamin Yuan
  4. Yanyun Tao

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which originated in Wuhan, China, constitutes a public health emergency of international concern with a very high risk of spread and impact at the global level. We developed data-driven susceptible-exposed-infectious-quarantine-recovered (SEIQR) models to simulate the epidemic with the interventions of social distancing and epicenter lockdown. Population migration data combined with officially reported data were used to estimate model parameters, and then calculated the daily exported infected individuals by estimating the daily infected ratio and daily susceptible population size. As of Jan 01, 2020, the estimated initial number of latently infected individuals was 380.1 (95%-CI: 379.8∼381.0). With 30 days of substantial social distancing, the reproductive number in Wuhan and Hubei was reduced from 2.2 (95%-CI: 1.4∼3.9) to 1.58 (95%-CI: 1.34∼2.07), and in other provinces from 2.56 (95%-CI: 2.43∼2.63) to 1.65 (95%-CI: 1.56∼1.76). We found that earlier intervention of social distancing could significantly limit the epidemic in mainland China. The number of infections could be reduced up to 98.9%, and the number of deaths could be reduced by up to 99.3% as of Feb 23, 2020. However, earlier epicenter lockdown would partially neutralize this favorable effect. Because it would cause in situ deteriorating, which overwhelms the improvement out of the epicenter. To minimize the epidemic size and death, stepwise implementation of social distancing in the epicenter city first, then in the province, and later the whole nation without the epicenter lockdown would be practical and cost-effective.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.03.04.20031187: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    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.
    • 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.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.03.04.20031187v1 on medRxiv