COVID-19 transmission dynamics underlying epidemic waves in Kenya

  1. Samuel P. C. Brand
  2. John Ojal
  3. Rabia Aziza
  4. Vincent Were
  5. Emelda A. Okiro
  6. Ivy K Kombe
  7. Caroline Mburu
  8. Morris Ogero
  9. Ambrose Agweyu
  10. George M. Warimwe
  11. James Nyagwange
  12. Henry Karanja
  13. John N. Gitonga
  14. Daisy Mugo
  15. Sophie Uyoga
  16. Ifedayo M. O. Adetifa
  17. J. Anthony G. Scott
  18. Edward Otieno
  19. Nickson Murunga
  20. Mark Otiende
  21. Lynette I. Ochola-Oyier
  22. Charles N. Agoti
  23. George Githinji
  24. Kadondi Kasera
  25. Patrick Amoth
  26. Mercy Mwangangi
  27. Rashid Aman
  28. Wangari Ng’ang’a
  29. Benjamin Tsofa
  30. Philip Bejon
  31. Matt. J. Keeling
  32. D. James Nokes
  33. Edwine Barasa

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

In June 2021, official records in Kenya showed fewer than 4000 confirmed deaths and 180,000 confirmed cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). These data tend to reflect the economically advantaged strata of society who can afford smartphones and have access to medical attention and tests. Brand et al . developed an epidemiological model to estimate the impact of the pandemic in Kenya, the population of which was split into two socioeconomic strata. The authors predicted that 75% of the Kenyan population (about 39 million people) had been exposed to the virus by June 2021. If a fourth wave of infection is observed in the future, it would likely be driven by a variant with enhanced transmissibility or natural immune escape. —CA

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1126/science.abk0414
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.17.21259100: (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: Thank you for sharing your code and data.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.06.17.21259100v1 on medRxiv