Sensitivity of UK Covid-19 deaths to the timing of suppression measures and their relaxation

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

In this paper I examine the sensitivity of total UK Covid-19 deaths and the demand for intensive care and ward beds, to the timing and duration of suppression periods during a 500 day period. This is achieved via a SEIR model. Using an expected latent period of 4.5 days and infectious period of 3.8 days, R_0 was first estimated as 3.18 using observed death rates under unmitigated spread and then under the effects of the total lockdown (R_0=0.60) of 23 March. The case fatality rate given infection is taken as 1%. Parameter values for mean length of stay and conditional probability of death for ICU and non-ICU hospital admissions are guided by Ferguson et al.(2020). Under unmitigated spread the model predicts around 600,000 deaths in the UK. Starting with one exposed person at time zero and a suppression consistent with an R_0 of 0.60 on day 72, the model predicts around 39,000 deaths for a first wave, but this reduces to around 11,000 if the intervention takes place one week earlier. If the initial suppression were in place until day 200 and then relaxed to an R_0 of 1.5 between days 200 and 300, to be followed by a return to an R_0 of 0.60, the model predicts around 43,000 deaths. This would increase to around 64,000 if the release from the first suppression takes place 20 days earlier. The results indicate the extreme sensitivity to timing and the consequences of even small delays to suppression and premature relaxation of such measures.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.09.20096859: (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: 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.