Decline in mitigation readiness facilitated second waves of SARS-CoV-2

  1. Kai Wirtz

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Societal responses crucially shape the course of a pandemics but are difficult to predict. Mitigation dynamics is introduced here as an integral part of an epidemiological model, which is applied to the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Unperturbed simulations accurately reproduce diverse epidemic and social response trajectories from 2020 to 2021 reported from 11 European countries, Iran, and 8 US states. High regional variability in the severity and duration of the spring lockdown and in peak mortality rates of the first SARS-CoV-2 wave can be explained by differences in mitigation readiness H which is here mathematically defined as the value of human lives in relation to business-as-usual contact rates. H entails a suite of political, social, and psychological aspects of decision making. The simulations also suggest that a subsequent decrease in H much intensified the second wave and slowed down its decay. With less effective lockdowns, vaccination became the primary mitigation strategy in 2021. Retardation of vaccination relative to a 3-month scheme is projected to provoke an average toll of 1.5 deaths per million and delayed day. This toll particularly rises in regions with high numbers of old and still susceptible people, which is relevant for revising current policies of vaccine distribution.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.10.21251523: (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: 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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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 10.1101/2021.02.10.21251523 on medRxiv