Retrospective study of the first wave of COVID-19 in Spain: analysis of counterfactual scenarios
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
One of the most important questions on the COVID-19 pandemic is ascertaining the correct timing to introduce non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), based mainly on mobility restrictions, to control the rising of the daily incidence in a specific territory. Here, we make a retrospective analysis of the first wave of the epidemic in Spain and provide a set of useful insights to optimize actions in the near future. We have reconstructed the exposure times, from infection to detectability, to correctly estimate the reproduction number R t . This enables us to analyze counterfactual scenarios to understand the impact of earlier or later responses, decoupling containment measures from natural immunity. Our results quantify the differences in the number of fatalities for earlier and later responses to the epidemic in Spain.
“We propose a backward analysis of pandemic incidence in a region to determine the correct timing of authorities’ non-pharmaceutical interventions to fight COVID-19”
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.16.21251832: (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 10.1101/2021.02.16.21251832: (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.
- Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.
-
