scholarly journals Analysis and Simulation of COVID-19

Author(s):  
Ritika Singh* ◽  
Nilansh Panchani ◽  
Aastha , Bhatnagar

India is facing a severe second wave of COVID-19 which is much worse than the first wave. It is spreading much faster. India has now surpassed U.S. in terms of daily COVID-19 cases. This paper aims to analyze the trend of COVID 19 and examine why second wave happened and why it is so bad by simulating a simple SEIR model. Which is a compartmental model based on 4 compartments Susceptible, Exposed, Infectious, Recovered.

Author(s):  
Lauren Zimmermann ◽  
Subarna Bhattacharya ◽  
Soumik Purkayastha ◽  
Ritoban Kundu ◽  
Ritwik Bhaduri ◽  
...  

AbstractIntroductionFervorous investigation and dialogue surrounding the true number of SARS-CoV-2 related deaths and implied infection fatality rates in India have been ongoing throughout the pandemic, and especially pronounced during the nation’s devastating second wave. We aim to synthesize the existing literature on the true SARS-CoV-2 excess deaths and infection fatality rates (IFR) in India, through a systematic search followed by viable meta-analysis. We then provide updated epidemiological model-based estimates of the wave 1, wave 2 and combined IFRs using an extension of the Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Removed (SEIR) model, using data from April 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021.MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, the databases PubMed, Embase, Global Index Medicus, as well as BioRxiv, MedRxiv, and SSRN for preprints (accessed through iSearch), were searched on July 3, 2021 (with results verified through August 15, 2021). Altogether using a two-step approach, 4,765 initial citations were screened resulting in 37 citations included in the narrative review and 19 studies with 41 datapoints included in the quantitative synthesis. Using a random effects model with DerSimonian-Laird estimation, we meta-analyze IFR1 which is defined as the ratio of the total number of observed reported deaths divided by the total number of estimated infections and IFR2 (which accounts for death underreporting in the numerator of IFR1). For the latter, we provide lower and upper bounds based on the available range of estimates of death undercounting, often arising from an excess death calculation. The primary focus is to estimate pooled nationwide estimates of IFRs with the secondary goal of estimating pooled regional and state-specific estimates for SARS-CoV-2 related IFRs in India. We also try to stratify our empirical results across the first and the second wave. In tandem, we present updated SEIR model estimates of IFRs for waves 1, 2, and combined across the waves with observed case and death count data from April 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021.ResultsFor India countrywide, underreporting factors (URF) for cases (sourced from serosurveys) range from 14.3-29.1 in the four nationwide serosurveys; URFs for deaths (sourced from excess deaths reports) range from 4.4-11.9 with cumulative excess deaths ranging from 1.79-4.9 million (as of June 2021). Nationwide pooled IFR1 and IFR2 estimates for India are 0.097% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.067 – 0.140) and 0.365% (95% CI: 0.264 – 0.504) to 0.485% (95% CI: 0.344 – 0.685), respectively, again noting that IFR2 changes as excess deaths estimates vary. Among the included studies in this meta-analysis, the IFR1 generally appear to decrease over time from the earliest study end date to the latest study end date (from 4 June 2020 to 6 July 2021, IFR1 changed from 0.199 to 0.055%), whereas a similar trend is not as readily evident for IFR2 due to the wide variation in excess death estimates (from 4 June 2020 to 6 July 2021, IFR2 ranged from (0.290-1.316) to (0.241-0.651) %).Nationwide SEIR model-based combined estimates for IFR1 and IFR2 are 0.101% (95% CI: 0.097 – 0.116) and 0.367% (95% CI: 0.358 – 0.383), respectively, which largely reconcile with the empirical findings and concur with the lower end of the excess death estimates. An advantage of such epidemiological models is the ability to produce daily estimates with updated data with the disadvantages being that these estimates are subject to numerous assumptions, arduousness of validation and not directly using the available excess death data. Whether one uses empirical data or model-based estimation, it is evident that IFR2 is at least 3.6 times more than IFR1.ConclusionWhen incorporating case and death underreporting, the meta-analyzed cumulative infection fatality rate in India varies from 0.36%-0.48%, with a case underreporting factor ranging from 25-30 and a death underreporting factor ranging from 4-12. This implies, by June 30, 2021, India may have seen nearly 900 million infections and 1.7-4.9 million deaths when the reported numbers stood at 30.4 million cases and 412 thousand deaths (covid19india.org) with an observed case fatality rate (CFR) of 1.35%. We reiterate the need for timely and disaggregated infection and fatality data to examine the burden of the virus by age and other demographics. Large degrees of nationwide and state-specific death undercounting reinforce the call to improve death reporting within India.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benn Sartorius ◽  
Andrew Lawson ◽  
Rachel L. Pullan

Abstract Background: COVID-19 caseloads in England appear have passed through a first peak, with evidence of an emerging second wave. To ensure continued response to the epidemic is most effective, it is imperative to better understand both retrospectively and prospectively the geographical evolution of COVID-19 caseloads and deaths, identify localised areas in space-time at significantly higher risk, quantify the impact of changes in localised population mobility (or movement) on caseloads, identify localised risk factors for increased mortality and project the likely course of the epidemic at small-area resolution in coming weeks.Methods: We applied a Bayesian space–time SEIR model to assess the spatiotemporal variability of COVID-19 caseloads (transmission) and deaths at small-area scale in England (Middle Layer Super Output Area [MSOA], 6791 units) and by week (using observed data from week 5 to 34), including key determinants, the modelled transmission dynamics and spatial-temporal random effects. We also estimate the number of cases and deaths at small-area resolution with uncertainty projected forward in time by MSOA (up to week 51 of 2020), the impact mobility reductions (and subsequent easing) have had on COVID-19 caseloads and quantify the impact of key socio-demographic risk factors on COVID-19 related mortality risk by MSOA.Results: Reductions in population mobility due the course of the first lockdown had a significant impact on the reduction of COVID-19 caseloads across England, however local authorities have had a varied rate of reduction in population movement which our model suggest has substantially impacted the geographic heterogeneity in caseloads at small-area scale. The steady gain in population mobility, observed from late April, appears to have contributed to a slowdown in caseload reductions towards late June and subsequent steady increase signalling the start of the second wave. MSOA with higher proportions of elderly (70+ years of age) and elderly living in deprivation, both with very distinct geographic distributions, have a significantly elevated COVID-19 mortality rates.Conclusions: While non-pharmaceutical interventions (that is, reductions in population mobility and social distancing) had a profound impact on the trajectory of the first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak in England, increased population mobility appears to have contributed to the current increase signalling the start of the second wave. A number of contiguous small-areas appear to be at a significant elevated risk of high COVID-19 transmission, many of which are also at increased risk for higher mortality rates. A geographically staggered re-introduction of intensified social distancing measures is advised and limited cross MSOA movement if the magnitude and geographic extent of the second wave is to be reduced.


Author(s):  
Maziar Nekovee

Prior to lockdown the spread of COVID-19 in UK is found to be exponential, with an exponent α=0.207 In case of COVID-19 this spreading patterns is quantitatively better described with mobility-driven SIR-SEIR model [2] rather than the homogenous mixing models Lockdown has dramatically slowed down the spread of COVID-19 in UK, and even more significantly has changed the growth in the total number of infected from exponential to quadratic. This significant change is due a transition from a mobility-driven epidemic spreading to a spatial epidemic which is dominated by slow growth of spatially isolated clusters of infected population. Our results strongly indicated that, to avoid a return to exponential growth of COVID-19 (also known as “second wave”) mobility restrictions should not be prematurely lifted. Instead mobility should be kept restricted while new measures, such as wearing mask and contact tracing, get implemented in order to allow a safe exit from lockdown.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Osmar Pinto Neto ◽  
José Clark Reis ◽  
Ana Carolina Brisola Brizzi ◽  
Gustavo José Zambrano ◽  
Joabe Marcos de Souza ◽  
...  

AbstractAn epidemiological compartmental model was used to simulate social distancing strategies to contain the COVID-19 pandemic and prevent a second wave in São Paulo, Brazil. Optimization using genetic algorithm was used to determine the optimal solutions. Our results suggest the best-case strategy for São Paulo is to maintain or increase the current magnitude of social distancing for at least 60 more days and increase the current levels of personal protection behaviors by a minimum of 10% (e.g., wearing facemasks, proper hand hygiene and avoid agglomeration). Followed by a long-term oscillatory level of social distancing with a stepping-down approach every 80 days over a period of two years with continued protective behavior.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoping Liu

The Susceptible-Infectious-Recovered (SIR) and SIR derived epidemic models have been commonly used to analyze the spread of infectious diseases. The underlying assumption in these models, such as Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered (SEIR) model, is that the change in variables E, I or R at time t is dependent on a fraction of E and I at time t. This means that after exposed on a day, this individual may become contagious or even recover on the same day. However, the real situation is different: an exposed individual will become infectious after a latent period (l) and then recover after an infectious period (i). In this study, we proposed a new SEIR model based on the latent period-infectious period chronological order (Liu X., Results Phys. 2021; 20:103712). An analytical solution to equations of this new SEIR model was derived. From this new SEIR model, we obtained a propagated curve of infectious cases under conditions l>i. Similar propagated epidemic curves were reported in literature. However, the conventional SEIR model failed to simulate the propagated epidemic curves under the same conditions. For l<i, the new SEIR models generated bell-shaped curves for infectious cases, and the curve is near symmetrical to the vertical line passing the curve peak. This characteristic can be found in many epidemic curves of daily COVID-19 cases reported from different countries. However, the curve generated from the conventional SEIR model is a right-skewed bell-shaped curve. An example for applying the analytical solution of the new SEIR model equations to simulate the reported daily COVID-19 cases was also given in this paper.


2021 ◽  
pp. 232102222110543
Author(s):  
Lauren Zimmermann ◽  
Subarna Bhattacharya ◽  
Soumik Purkayastha ◽  
Ritoban Kundu ◽  
Ritwik Bhaduri ◽  
...  

Introduction: Fervourous investigation and dialogue surrounding the true number of SARS-CoV-2-related deaths and implied infection fatality rates in India have been ongoing throughout the pandemic, and especially pronounced during the nation’s devastating second wave. We aim to synthesize the existing literature on the true SARS-CoV-2 excess deaths and infection fatality rates (IFR) in India through a systematic search followed by viable meta-analysis. We then provide updated epidemiological model-based estimates of the wave 1, wave 2 and combined IFRs using an extension of the Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Removed (SEIR) model, using data from 1 April 2020 to 30 June 2021. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, the databases PubMed, Embase, Global Index Medicus, as well as BioRxiv, MedRxiv and SSRN for preprints (accessed through iSearch), were searched on 3 July 2021 (with results verified through 15 August 2021). Altogether, using a two-step approach, 4,765 initial citations were screened, resulting in 37 citations included in the narrative review and 19 studies with 41datapoints included in the quantitative synthesis. Using a random effects model with DerSimonian-Laird estimation, we meta-analysed IFR1, which is defined as the ratio of the total number of observed reported deaths divided by the total number of estimated infections, and IFR2 (which accounts for death underreporting in the numerator of IFR1). For the latter, we provided lower and upper bounds based on the available range of estimates of death undercounting, often arising from an excess death calculation. The primary focus is to estimate pooled nationwide estimates of IFRs with the secondary goal of estimating pooled regional and state-specific estimates for SARS-CoV-2-related IFRs in India. We also tried to stratify our empirical results across the first and second waves. In tandem, we presented updated SEIR model estimates of IFRs for waves 1, 2, and combined across the waves with observed case and death count data from 1 April 2020 to 30 June 2021. Results: For India, countrywide, the underreporting factors (URF) for cases (sourced from serosurveys) range from 14.3 to 29.1 in the four nationwide serosurveys; URFs for deaths (sourced from excess deaths reports) range from 4.4 to 11.9 with cumulative excess deaths ranging from 1.79 to 4.9 million (as of June 2021). Nationwide pooled IFR1 and IFR2 estimates for India are 0.097% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.067–0.140) and 0.365% (95% CI: 0.264–0.504) to 0.485% (95% CI: 0.344–0.685), respectively, again noting that IFR2 changes as excess deaths estimates vary. Among the included studies in this meta-analysis, IFR1 generally appears to decrease over time from the earliest study end date to the latest study end date (from 4 June 2020 to 6 July 2021, IFR1 changed from 0.199 to 0.055%), whereas a similar trend is not as readily evident for IFR2 due to the wide variation in excess death estimates (from 4 June 2020 to 6 July 2021, IFR2 ranged from (0.290–1.316) to (0.241–0.651)%). Nationwide SEIR model-based combined estimates for IFR1 and IFR2 are 0.101% (95% CI: 0.097–0.116) and 0.367% (95% CI: 0.358–0.383), respectively, which largely reconcile with the empirical findings and concur with the lower end of the excess death estimates. An advantage of such epidemiological models is the ability to produce daily estimates with updated data, with the disadvantage being that these estimates are subject to numerous assumptions, arduousness of validation and not directly using the available excess death data. Whether one uses empirical data or model-based estimation, it is evident that IFR2 is at least 3.6 times more than IFR1. Conclusion: When incorporating case and death underreporting, the meta-analysed cumulative infection fatality rate in India varied from 0.36 to 0.48%, with a case underreporting factor ranging from 25 to 30 and a death underreporting factor ranging from 4 to 12. This implies, by 30 June 2021, India may have seen nearly 900 million infections and 1.7–4.9 million deaths when the reported numbers stood at 30.4 million cases and 412 thousand deaths (Coronavirus in India) with an observed case fatality rate (CFR) of 1.35%. We reiterate the need for timely and disaggregated infection and fatality data to examine the burden of the virus by age and other demographics. Large degrees of nationwide and state-specific death undercounting reinforce the call to improve death reporting within India. JEL Classifications: I15, I18


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhamad Khairul Bahri

AbstractThe SEIR model of COVID-19 is developed to investigate the roles of physical distancing, lockdowns and asymptomatic cases in Italy. In doing so, two types of policies including behavioral measures and lockdown measures are embedded in the model. Compared with existing models, the model successfully reproduces similar multiple observed outputs such as infected and recovered patients in Italy by July 2020. This study concludes that the first policy is important once the number of infected cases is relatively low. However, once the number of infected cases is very high so the society cannot identify infected and disinfected people, the second policy must be applied soon. It is thus this study suggests that relaxed lockdowns lead to the second wave of the COVID-19 around the world. It is hoped that the model can enhance our understanding on the roles of behavioral measures, lockdowns, and undocumented cases, so-called asymptomatic cases, on the COVID-19 flow.


Author(s):  
Francisco de Castro

AbstractThe first wave of the coronavirus pandemic is waning in many countries. Some of them are starting to lift the confinement measures adopted to control it, but there is considerable uncertainty about if it is too soon and it may cause a second wave of the epidemic. To explore this issue, I fitted a SEIR model with time-dependent transmission and mortality rates to data from Spain and Germany as contrasting case studies. The model reached an excellent fit to the data. I then simulated the post-confinement epidemic under several scenarios. The model shows that (in the absence of a vaccine) a second wave is likely inevitable and will arrive soon, and that a strategy of adaptive confinement may be effective to control it. The model also shows that just a few days delay in starting the confinement may have caused and excess of thousands of deaths in Spain.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document