Comparative analysis of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in South Korea, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the USA and the New-York state

  1. Luis Alvarez

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

We use an exponential growth model to analyze the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in South Korea, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the USA and the New-York state. This model uses the number of officially reported patients tested positive and deaths to estimate an infected hindcast of the cumulative number of patients who later tested positive or who later die. For each region, an epidemic timeline is established, obtaining a precise knowledge of the chronology of the main epidemiological events during the full course of the first wave. It includes, in particular, the time that the virus has been in free circulation before the impact of the social distancing measures were observable. The results of the study suggest that among the analyzed regions, only South Korea and Germany possessed, at the beginning of the epidemic, a testing capacity that allowed to correctly follow the evolution of the epidemic. Anticipation in taking measures in these two countries caused the virus to spend less time in free circulation than in the rest of the regions. The analysis of the growth rates in the different regions suggests that the exponential growth rate of the cumulative number of infected, when the virus is in free circulation, is around 0.250737. In addition, we also study the ability of the model to properly forecast the epidemic spread at the beginning of the epidemic outbreak when very little data and information about the coronavirus were available. In the case of France, we obtain a reasonable estimate of the peak of the new cases of patients tested positive 9 days in advance and only 7 days after the implementation of a strict lockdown.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.20.20235689: (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 10.1101/2020.11.20.20235689v1 on medRxiv