Community Memory of COVID-19 Infections Post Lockdown as a Surrogate for Incubation Time
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
If the knowledge of the incubation time is helpful in designing non-pharmaceutical interventions such as quarantine measures, can one use the number of cases arising after a lockdown to check ( a ) if our assumptions of the incubation time were correct and ( b ) if the quarantine measures were as successful as they could theoretically be. These are the two questions we raise by studying the number of new cases arising after lockdowns in a few European countries. The analysis which purely relies on the publicly available data of the numbers of new infections, rather than extensive contact tracing of individual patients, suggests a “memory” of the infections in the community with a median of 13.3 days. This distribution of the memory of infections which may even be considered as a surrogate of the incubation time in a perfect lockdown, suggests that even a perfect quarantine of 30 days is only 90% complete.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.15.20067058: (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 10.1101/2020.04.15.20067058: (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.
-
