Six scenarios of non-medical interventions in the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic

  1. Peter Kempf

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

We investigate six scenarios spanning main parts of the decision space of non-medical interventions against the CoV-2 epidemic in Germany. Based on the notion of interventions-lifting we classify and evaluate the scenarios by five attributes (indicators): amount of interventions-lifting, death numbers, Public Health Care capacity, population immunity, peak dates of infections. For quantitative reasoning we use a simulated modified SEIR-model calibrated with actual data. We identify margins for intervention-liftings wrt. 13.05.2020 and discuss the relation to the effective reproduction number with a 6d-generation time. We show that, in order to constrain death numbers comparable to a strong Influenza epidemic, there is only a small corridor of 16% of possible liftings, with an additional 4% margin contributed by automated contact tracing. We show also that there is a much broader corridor of 50%+18%, though not overloading critical Public Health Care capacity, implying high death numbers.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.25.20112532: (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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.25.20112532v1 on medRxiv