Estimating Cumulative COVID-19 Infections by a Novel “Pandemic Rate Equation”
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
A fundamental problem dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic has been to estimate the rate of infection, since so many cases are asymptomatic and contagious just for a few weeks. For example, in the US, estimate the proportion P(t) = N/ 330 where N is the US total who have ever been infected (in millions)at time t (months, t = 0 being March 20). This is important for decisions on social restrictions, and allocation of medical resources, etc. However, the demand for extensive testing has not produced good estimates. In the US, the CDC has used the blood supply to sample for anti-bodies. Anti-bodies do not tell the whole picture, according to the Karolinska Instituet [2], many post infection cases show T-cell immunity, but no anti-bodies. We introduce a method based on a difference-differential equation (dde) for P(t) . We emphasize that this is just for the present, with no prediction on how the pandemic will evolve. The dde uses only x = x (s) , which is the number/million testing positive, and y = y (s) , the number/million who have been tested for all time 0 ≤ s ≤ t (months), with no assumptions on the dynamics of the pandemic. However, we need two parameters. First, ρ , the ratio of asymptomatic to symptomatic infected cases. Second, τ , the period of active infection when the virus can be detected. Both are random variables with distribution which can be estimated. For fixed ρ , we prove uniform bounds are best possible, with range depending on τ . One advantage of our theory is being able to estimate P for many regions and countries where x and y is the only information available.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.17.20176602: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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 …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.17.20176602: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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.
-
