Modeling the dynamics of COVID19 spread during and after social distancing: interpreting prolonged infection plateaus

  1. Natalia L. Komarova
  2. Dominik Wodarz

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Non-pharmaceutical intervention measures, such as social distancing, have so far been the only means to slow the spread of COVID19. In the United States, strict social distancing has resulted in different types infection dynamics. In some states, such as New York, extensive infection spread was followed by a pronounced decline of infection levels. In other states, such as California, less infection spread occurred before strict social distancing, and a different pattern was observed. Instead of a pronounced infection decline, a long-lasting plateau is evident, characterized by similar daily new infection levels. While these plateau dynamics cannot be readily reproduced with standard SIR infection models, we show that network models, in which individuals and their social contacts are explicitly tracked, can reproduce the plateau if network connections are cut due to social distancing measures. The reason is that in networks characterized by a 2D spatial structure, infection tends to spread quadratically with time, but as edges are randomly removed, the infection spreads along nearly one-dimensional infection “corridors”, resulting in plateau dynamics. Interestingly, the plateau dynamics are predicted to eventually transition into an infection decline phase without any further increase in social distancing measures. Additionally, the models suggest that a potential second wave becomes significantly less pronounced if social distancing is only relaxed once the dynamics have transitioned to the decline phase. The network models analyzed here allow us to interpret and reconcile different infection dynamics during social distancing observed in various US states.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.13.20130625: (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 10.1101/2020.06.13.20130625 on medRxiv