The IHME vs Me: Modeling USA CoVID-19 Spread, Early Data to the Fifth Wave

  1. Genghmun Eng

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

Epidemiologists have never had such high-quality real-time pandemic data. Modeling CoVID-19 pandemic data became a predictive tool in-stead of an afterwards analysis. How early CoVID-19 model predictions impacted US Government policies and practices is first reviewed here as an important part of the pandemic history. It spurred independent modeling efforts, such as this, to help develop a better understanding of CoVID-19 spread, and to provide a substitute for the IHME ( Institute for Health Metrics & Evaluation, U. Washington ) 4-month predictions for the expected pandemic evolution, which they had to revise every couple of weeks. Our alternative model, which was developed over the course of several earlier medrxiv.org preprints, is shown here to provide a good description for the entire USA CoVID-19 pandemic to date, covering: (1) the original CoVID-19 wave [3/21/20-6/07/20], (2) the Summer 2020 Resurgence [6/07/20-9/25/20], (3) the large Winter 2020 Resurgence [9/25/20-3/19/21], (4) a small Spring 2021 “ Fourth Wave ”, [3/19/21-6/07/21], and (5) the present-day Summer 2021 “ Fifth Wave ” [6/07/21-present], which the USA is now in the midst of. Our analysis of the initial “ Fifth Wave ” data shows that this wave presently has the capacity to infect virtually all susceptible non-vaccinated persons who practice NO Mask-Wearing and minimal Social Distancing .

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.16.21262150: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot 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.

    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 10.1101/2021.08.16.21262150 on medRxiv