Monitoring the propagation of COVID-19-pandemic first waves

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

A phenomenological approach is proposed to monitor the propagation of the COVID-19-pandemic first waves. A large set of data collected at a worldwide scale during the first months of 2020 is compiled into series of semi-logarithmic plots, for a selection of thirty-two countries from the five continents. Three regimes are identified in the propagation of an epidemic wave: a pre-epidemic regime 1, an exponential-growth regime 2, and a resorption regime 3. A two-parameters scaling of the first-wave death variation reported in China is used to fit those reported in other countries. Comparison is made between the propagation of the pandemic in different countries, which are classified in four groups, from group A where the pandemic first waves were contained efficiently, to group D where the pandemic first waves widely spread. Group A is mainly composed of Asian countries, where fast and efficient measures have been applied. Group D is composed of Western-Europe countries and the United States of America, where late decisions and confused political communication (pandemic seriousness, protection masks, herd immunity etc.) led to significant death tolls. The threat of large resurging epidemic waves after a hasty lockdown lift is discussed, in particular for the countries from group D, where the number of contagious people remained high in the beginning of May 2020. The situation is opposite in Asian countries from group A, where the number of contagious people was successfully maintained to a low level. In particular, the results obtained by Hong Kong and South Korea are highlighted, and the measures taken there are presented as virtuous examples that other countries may follow.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.09.20096768: (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: Please consider improving the rainbow (“jet”) colormap(s) used on pages 11, 14, 24, 30 and 31. At least one figure is not accessible to readers with colorblindness and/or is not true to the data, i.e. not perceptually uniform.


    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.