Could Deficiencies in South African Data Be the Explanation for Its Early SARS-CoV-2 Peak?
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic peaked very early in comparison to the thresholds predicted by an analysis of prior lockdown regimes. The most convenient explanation is that some, external factor changed the value of the basic reproduction number, r 0 ; and there certainly are arguments for this. Other factors could, nonetheless, have played a role. This research attempts to reconcile the observed peak with the thresholds predicted by lockdown regimes similar to the one in force at the time. It contemplates the effect of two, different, hypothetical errors in the data: The first is that the true level of infection has been underestimated by a multiplicative factor, while the second is that of an imperceptible, pre-existing, immune fraction of the population. While it is shown that it certainly is possible to manufacture the perception of an early peak as extreme as the one observed, solely by way of these two phenomena, the values need to be fairly high. The phenomena would not, by any measure, be insignificant. It also remains an inescapable fact that the early peak in infections coincided with a fairly profound change in r 0 ; in all the contemplated scenarios of data-deficiency.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.31.20185108: (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 10.1101/2020.08.31.20185108: (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.
-
-