A Metapopulation Network Model for the Spreading of SARS-CoV-2: Case Study for Ireland ⋆

  1. Rory Humphries
  2. Mary Spillane
  3. Kieran Mulchrone
  4. Sebastian Wieczorek
  5. Micheal O’Riordain
  6. Philipp Hövel

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

We present preliminary results on an all-Ireland network modelling approach to simulate the spreading the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome CoronaVirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), commonly known as the coronavirus . In the model, nodes correspond to locations or communities that are connected by links indicating travel and commuting between different locations. While this proposed modelling framework can be applied on all levels of spatial granularity and different countries, we consider Ireland as a case study. The network comprises 3440 electoral divisions (EDs) of the Republic of Ireland and 890 superoutput areas (SOAs) for Northern Ireland, which corresponds to local administrative units below the NUTS 3 regions. The local dynamics within each node follows a phenomenological SIRX compartmental model including classes of Susceptibles, Infected, Recovered and Quarantined (X) inspired from Science 368 , 742 (2020). For better comparison to empirical data, we extended that model by a class of Deaths. We consider various scenarios including the 5-phase roadmap for Ireland. In addition, as proof of concept, we investigate the effect of dynamic interventions that aim to keep the number of infected below a given threshold. This is achieved by dynamically adjusting containment measures on a national scale, which could also be implemented at a regional (county) or local (ED/SOA) level. We find that – in principle – dynamic interventions are capable to limit the impact of future waves of outbreaks, but on the downside, in the absence of a vaccine, such a strategy can last several years until herd immunity is reached.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.26.20140590v4 on medRxiv
  2. Version published to 10.1016/j.idm.2021.01.004
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.26.20140590v3 on medRxiv
  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.26.20140590v2 on medRxiv
  5. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.26.20140590: (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: Thank you for sharing your code.

    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.

  6. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.26.20140590v1 on medRxiv