Better Strategies for Containing COVID-19 Epidemics–A Study of 25 Countries via an Extended SEIR Model

  1. Jia Gu
  2. Han Yan
  3. Yaxuan Huang
  4. Yuru Zhu
  5. Haoxuan Sun
  6. Xinyu Zhang
  7. Yuqing Wang
  8. Yumou Qiu
  9. Song Xi Chen

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

We evaluate the effectiveness of COVID-19 control strategies of 25 countries which have endured more than four weeks of community infections. With an extended SEIR model that allows infections in both the exposed and infected states, the key epidemic parameters are estimated from each country’s data, which facilitate the evaluation and cross-country comparison. It is found quicker control measures significantly reduce the average reproduction numbers and shorten the time length to infection peaks. If the swift control measures of Korea and China were implemented, average reductions of 88% in the confirmed cases and 80% in deaths would had been attained for the other 23 countries from start to April 10. Effects of earlier or delayed interventions in the US and the UK are experimented which show at least 75% (29%) less infections and deaths can be attained for the US (the UK) under a Five-Day Earlier experiment. The impacts of two removal regimes (Korea and Italy) on the total infection and death tolls on the other countries are compared with the natural forecast ones, which suggest there are still ample opportunity for countries to reduce the final death numbers by improving the removal process.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.27.20081232: (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: Thank you for sharing your data.

    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 found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).

    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 10.1101/2020.04.27.20081232v1 on medRxiv