PCR test positive rate revealing the real infection epidemic status examined in the COVID-19 epidemic in Tokyo, Japan
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
In order to come up with effective infectious disease countermeasures, we need a method to evaluate the effectiveness of the countermeasures. As the most reliable epidemic diagnosis, we propose the PCR test positive rate. Examining the COVID-19 epidemic in Tokyo shows that the positive rate follows the epidemic accurately, without being affected by medical institution closures or the psychology of people. By comparing with the change of the positive rate, we argue that the psychology of people was the cause of the observed asymmetry and shallow valleys in the number of confirmed cases. We discuss that the positive rate as large as 1-5% in the valleys of the epidemic implies that many people are already infected and immune. The observed fact that the positive rate followed the number of positives accurately and the value lower than those reported in the test-negative design studies of influenza are attributable to the government’s policy of finding as many patients as possible. We mention three possibilities as the causes of the repeated COVID-19 epidemic in Japan.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.09.15.21263609: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis 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:…
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.09.15.21263609: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis 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: Please consider improving the rainbow (“jet”) colormap(s) used on page 5. 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.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-
