COVID-19: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple models

  1. Timoteo Carletti
  2. Duccio Fanelli
  3. Francesco Piazza

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

When the novel coronavirus disease SARS-CoV2 (COVID-19) was officially declared a pandemic by the WHO in March 2020, the scientific community had already braced up in the effort of making sense of the fast-growing wealth of data gathered by national authorities all over the world. However, despite the diversity of novel theoretical approaches and the comprehensiveness of many widely established models, the official figures that recount the course of the outbreak still sketch a largely elusive and intimidating picture. Here we show unambiguously that the dynamics of the COVID-19 outbreak belongs to the simple universality class of the SIR model and extensions thereof. Our analysis naturally leads us to establish that there exists a fundamental limitation to any theoretical approach, namely the unpredictable non-stationarity of the testing frames behind the reported figures. However, we show how such bias can be quantified self-consistently and employed to mine useful and accurate information from the data. In particular, we describe how the time evolution of the reporting rates controls the occurrence of the apparent epidemic peak, which typically follows the true one in countries that were not vigorous enough in their testing at the onset of the outbreak. The importance of testing early and resolutely appears as a natural corollary of our analysis, as countries that tested massively at the start clearly had their true peak earlier and less deaths overall.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.26.20110957: (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: 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 10.1101/2020.05.26.20110957v1 on medRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.1016/j.csfx.2020.100034