Analytical solution of equivalent SEIR and agent-based model of COVID-19; showing the bounds of contact tracing

  1. Huseyin Tunc
  2. Fatma Zehra Sari
  3. Busra Nur Darendeli
  4. Ramin Nashebi
  5. Murat Sari
  6. Seyfullah Kotil

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

Mathematical models not only forecast the possible future but also is used to find hidden parameters of the COVID-19 pandemic. Numerical estimates can inform us of both goals. Still, the interdependencies of parameters stay obscure. Many numerical solutions have been proposed so far; however, the analytical relationship between the outbreak growth, decay and equilibrium are much less studied. In this study, we have employed both an equivalent agent-based model and a Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Recovered (SEIR)-like model to prove that the growth rate can be determined analytically in terms of other model parameters, including contact tracing rate. We identify the most sensitive parameters as undocumented transmission rate and documentation ratio. Unfortunately, these are the parameters we have the least knowledge. We derived an identity that predicts the effectiveness of contact tracing in a country from observable parameters. We underline an unavoidable dilemma: that even in the case of high contact tracing, we cannot bring the outbreak to stalemate without applying substantial quarantine; however, some countries are benefiting from contact tracing. Besides, we have shown that the seemingly same parameters of the SEIR models and agent-based models are not equivalent. We propose a correction to bridge both models.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.20.20212522: (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: Please consider improving the rainbow (“jet”) colormap(s) used on page 12. At least one figure is not accessible to readers with colorblindness and/or is not true to the data, i.e. not perceptually uniform.

    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 10.1101/2020.10.20.20212522 on medRxiv