The misleading illusion of COVID-19 confirmed case data: alternative estimates and a monitoring tool

  1. Rogelio Macías-Ordóñez
  2. Damián Villaseñor-Amador

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Confirmed Case Data have been widely cited during the current COVID-19 pandemic as an estimate of the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, their central role in media, official reports and decision-making may be undeserved and misleading. Previously published Infection Fatality Rates were weighted by age structure in the 50 countries with more reported deaths to obtain country-specific rates. For each country, the number of infections up to the Infection Date (23 days ago = Incubation Period + Onset to Death period) and the present percentage of immune population were estimated using Infection Fatality Rate, the number of reported deaths (which is less prone to undersampling), and projecting back to Infection Date. We then estimated a Detection Index for each country as the percentage of estimated infections that confirmed cases represent. Assuming that detection remains constant after Infection Date, we estimated the number of deaths and the estimated percentage of the population of each country expected to be immune up to 23 days into the future. Estimated Infection Fatality Rates are higher in Europe. In most countries, confirmed cases currently represent less than 30% of estimated infections on Infection Date, and this value decreases with time. Countries with flat curves throughout the pandemic show the lowest immunity percentages and these values seem unlikely to change in the near future, suggesting that they remain vulnerable to new outbreaks. Estimates for some countries with low Infection Fatality Rates suggest a still steep increase in the number of casualties in the next three weeks. Countries that did not control initial outbreaks seem to have reached higher immunity percentages, although mostly still under 5%. We provide the code to monitor the trajectories of these estimates in 178 countries throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.20.20107516: (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 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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.20.20107516v1 on medRxiv