Abstract
The number of active cases in the UK Covid-19 epidemic, the case fatality rate, the susceptible proportion of the population, and how well the lockdown was maintained during April–May 2020 are unknown. These four have a relationship with the shape of the daily mortality curve once one considers the intervals from infection to death or recovery. Without an understanding of this relationship we cannot say that an earlier lockdown would have saved lives. Using a small stochastic model, the lockdown had to be weakened, in April and May, for simulated deaths to match ongoing actual daily deaths. Google mobility data was found to be consistent with the weakening required in the model with similar changes from baseline in time and magnitude. If in an earlier lockdown, mobility and interactions would have followed a similar course, then with a large epidemic curve an earlier lockdown might be associated with many more deaths than some currently believe. This was confirmed in the stochastic model and in two modified SIR models of epidemics of various sizes. The first SIR model had a fixed period to recovery and the second used random periods, both models had random periods to death. Weakening of the mitigations was required to tune the output in large but not in small epidemics. This gives weight to the epidemic having affected many more individuals than some reports currently suggest. In both one and two-week earlier lockdowns, total deaths were found to depend on the size of the epidemic and to vary from 2,000–49,000 deaths. There was a linear relationship between the peak proportion of the population infected and the reciprocal of the case fatality rate. This work questions the low prevalence of < 0.1%, reported by the Office for National Statistics in May and June 2020, since to accommodate a weakening lockdown, the shape of the daily mortality curve, and an acceptable case fatality rate a much larger epidemic curve is required.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Unfunded
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
No approval needed.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Paper in collection COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos