Spatio-temporal spread of COVID-19: Comparison of the inhomogeneous SEPIR model and data from South Carolina
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
During the COVID-19 pandemic authorities have been striving to obtain reliable predictions for the spreading dynamics of the disease. We recently developed a multi-“sub-populations” (multi-compartments: susceptible, exposed, pre-symptomatic, infectious, recovered) model, that accounts for the spatial in-homogeneous spreading of the infection and shown, for a variety of examples, how the epidemic curves are highly sensitive to location of epicenters, non-uniform population density, and local restrictions. In the present work we test our model against real-life data from South Carolina during the period May 22 to July 22 (2020). During this period, minimal restrictions have been employed, which allowed us to assume that the local basic reproduction number is constant in time. We account for the non-uniform population density in South Carolina using data from NASA’s Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC), and predict the evolution of infection heat-maps during the studied period. Comparing the predicted heat-maps with those observed, we find high qualitative resemblance. Moreover, the Pearson’s correlation coefficient is relatively high thus validating our model against real-world data. We conclude that the model accounts for the major effects controlling spatial in-homogeneous spreading of the disease. Inclusion of additional sub-populations (compartments), in the spirit of several recently developed models for COVID-19, can be easily performed within our mathematical framework.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.15.21262074: (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: 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…
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.15.21262074: (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: 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.
-
