Subnational analysis of the COVID-19 epidemic in Brazil

  1. Thomas A Mellan
  2. Henrique H Hoeltgebaum
  3. Swapnil Mishra
  4. Charlie Whittaker
  5. Ricardo P Schnekenberg
  6. Axel Gandy
  7. H Juliette T Unwin
  8. Michaela A C Vollmer
  9. Helen Coupland
  10. Iwona Hawryluk
  11. Nuno Rodrigues Faria
  12. Juan Vesga
  13. Harrison Zhu
  14. Michael Hutchinson
  15. Oliver Ratmann
  16. Mélodie Monod
  17. Kylie E C Ainslie
  18. Marc Baguelin
  19. Sangeeta Bhatia
  20. Adhiratha Boonyasiri
  21. Nicholas Brazeau
  22. Giovanni Charles
  23. Zulma Cucunuba
  24. Gina Cuomo-Dannenburg
  25. Amy Dighe
  26. Jeff Eaton
  27. Sabine L van Elsland
  28. Katy A M Gaythorpe
  29. Will Green
  30. Edward Knock
  31. Daniel Laydon
  32. John A Lees
  33. Andria Mousa
  34. Gemma Nedjati-Gilani
  35. Pierre Nouvellet
  36. Kris V Parag
  37. Hayley A Thompson
  38. Robert Verity
  39. Caroline E Walters
  40. Haowei Wang
  41. Yuanrong Wang
  42. Oliver J Watson
  43. Lilith Whittles
  44. Xiaoyue Xi
  45. Ilaria Dorigatti
  46. Patrick Walker
  47. Azra C Ghani
  48. Steven Riley
  49. Neil M Ferguson
  50. Christl A Donnelly
  51. Seth Flaxman
  52. Samir Bhatt

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

1

Brazil is currently reporting the second highest number of COVID-19 deaths in the world. Here we characterise the initial dynamics of COVID-19 across the country and assess the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) that were implemented using a semi-mechanistic Bayesian hierarchical modelling approach. Our results highlight the significant impact these NPIs had across states, reducing an average R t > 3 to an average of 1.5 by 9-May-2020, but that these interventions failed to reduce R t < 1, congruent with the worsening epidemic Brazil has experienced since. We identify extensive heterogeneity in the epidemic trajectory across Brazil, with the estimated number of days to reach 0.1% of the state population infected since the first nationally recorded case ranging from 20 days in São Paulo compared to 60 days in Goiás, underscoring the importance of sub-national analyses in understanding asynchronous state-level epidemics underlying the national spread and burden of COVID-19.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.09.20096701v2 on medRxiv
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.09.20096701: (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 code and 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 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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.09.20096701v1 on medRxiv