ABSTRACT
Limited and inconsistent testing and differences in age distribution, health care resources, social distancing, and policies have caused large variations in the extent and dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic across nations, complicating the estimation of prevalence, the infection fatality rate (IFR), and other factors important to care providers and policymakers. Using data for all 84 countries with reliable testing data (spanning 4.75 billion people) we develop a dynamic epidemiological model integrating data on cases, deaths, excess mortality and other factors to estimate how asymptomatic transmission, disease acuity, hospitalization, and behavioral and policy responses to risk condition prevalence and IFR across nations and over time. For these nations we estimate IFR averages 0.68% (0.64%-0.7%). Cases and deaths through June 18, 2020 are estimated to be 11.8 and 1.48 times official reports, respectively, at 88.5 (85-95.3) million and 600 (586-622) thousand. Prevalence and IFR vary substantially, e.g., Ecuador (18%; 0.61%), Chile (15.5%; 0.57%), Mexico (8.8%; 0.69%), Iran (7.9%; 0.44%), USA (5.3%; 0.99%), UK (5.2%; 1.59%), Iceland (1.65%, 0.56%), New Zealand (0.1%, 0.64%), but all nations remain well below the level needed for herd immunity. By alerting the public earlier and reducing contacts, extensive testing when the pandemic was declared could have averted 35.3 (32.7-42.7) million cases and 197 (171-232) thousand deaths. However, future outcomes are less dependent on testing and more contingent on the willingness of communities and governments to reduce transmission. Absent breakthroughs in treatment or vaccination and with mildly improved responses we project 249 (186-586) million cases and 1.75 (1.40-3.67) million deaths in the 84 countries by Spring 2021.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No funding was used to conduct this study.
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:
Not applicable
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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
Footnotes
Data, codes, and simulation models: https://github.com/tseyanglim/CovidGlobal
Declaration of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Funding: No funding was used to conduct this study.
↵1 In the equations below we use short-hands to simplify mathematical notations. The full model documentation uses full variable names. Table S1 provides the mapping between the short-hands and the full names, as well as the sources and equations for those variables and parameters discussed below.
↵2 https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2020/03/31/counting-deaths-involving-the-coronavirus-covid-19/
↵3 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/previous-testing-in-us.html
↵4 See e.g. https://www.wcvb.com/article/massachusetts-coronavirus-reporting-delay-due-to-quest-lab-it-glitch/32288903#
↵5 It may be argued that there are weekly cycles in large-scale human behaviour that may drive some true weekly cyclicality in the true rates of infection and death, and as such it may be wrong to consider such cycles to be artefacts of the data-generation process. However, we find this unlikely for a few reasons. First, weekly cycles in human interactions, largely driven by the work and school week and weekend, will have been significantly attenuated by widespread adoption of social distancing measures around the world. Second and more importantly, variation in incubation period and time before development of symptoms means that any true cyclicality in the timing of initial infection will be further attenuated in the timing of symptom development. By the same logic, wide variability in the delay from symptom development to death means there should be minimal cyclicality, if any, in the timing of deaths, meaning any such cycles visible in the data are due to measurement and reporting lags.
↵6 https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.interpolate.PchipInterpolator.html
↵7 Cleveland R.B., Cleveland W.S., McRae J.E., Terpenning I. (1990) STL: A seasonal-trend decomposition procedure based on Loess. J Off Stat 6: 3-73
↵8 https://www.statsmodels.org/stable/generated/statsmodels.tsa.seasonal.STL.html
Data Availability
All data, codes, and simulation models are publicly available.
