Comparison of different exit scenarios from the lock-down for COVID-19 epidemic in the UK and assessing uncertainty of the predictions
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
We model further development of the COVID-19 epidemic in the UK given the current data and assuming different scenarios of handling the epidemic. In this research, we further extend the stochastic model suggested in [1] and incorporate in it all available to us knowledge about parameters characterising the behaviour of the virus and the illness induced by it. The models we use are flexible, comprehensive, fast to run and allow us to incorporate the following:
-
time-dependent strategies of handling the epidemic;
-
spatial heterogeneity of the population and heterogeneity of development of epidemic in different areas;
-
special characteristics of particular groups of people, especially people with specific medical pre-histories and elderly.
Standard epidemiological models such as SIR and many of its modifications are not flexible enough and hence are not precise enough in the studies that requires the use of the features above. Decision-makers get serious benefits from using better and more flexible models as they can avoid of nuanced lock-downs, better plan the exit strategy based on local population data, different stages of the epidemic in different areas, making specific recommendations to specific groups of people; all this resulting in a lesser impact on economy, improved forecasts of regional demand upon NHS allowing for intelligent resource allocation.
In this work, we investigate the sensitivity of the model to all its parameters while considering several realistic scenarios of what is likely to happen with the dynamics of the epidemic after the lock-down, which has started on March 23, is lifted.
The main findings from this research are the following
-
very little gain, in terms of the projected hospital bed occupancy and expected numbers of death, of continuing the lock-down beyond April 13, provided the isolation of older and vulnerable people continues and the public carries on some level of isolation in the next 2-3 months, see Section 3.1;
-
in agreement with [1], isolation of the group of vulnerable people during the next 2-3 months should be one of the main priorities, see Section 3.2;
-
it is of high importance that the whole population carries on some level of isolation in the next 2-3 months, see Section 3.5;
-
the timing of the current lock-down seems to be very sensible in areas like London where the epidemic has started to pick up by March 23; in such areas the second wave of epidemic is not expected, see figures in Sections 2.2 and 3;
-
the epidemic should almost completely finish in July, no global second wave should be expected, except areas where the first wave is almost absent, see Section 3.4.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.09.20059451: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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 …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.09.20059451: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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.
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.09.20059451: (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
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).
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 is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.09.20059451: (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
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).
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 is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, please follow this link.
-
