Estimating the global spread of COVID-19

INTRODUCTON

Effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic requires an understanding of its global magnitude and risks. Yet more than 15 weeks after WHO declared a global pandemic, we do not know the true number of cases nor the infection fatality rate. The data we do have are highly variable; as of late June, 2020, countries have reported cumulative cases ranging between 0.18 and 2850 per 100,000 and deaths to cases (approximate case fatality rates: CFR) ranging between 0 and 24%. We do not fully know what explains such large variance. Establishing such basic measures has partly been slowed by a large asymptomatic fraction (1) and similarity of COVID-19 symptoms with other common illnesses (2). Moreover, official case and fatality data are generated through testing. Dramatic variation in testing rates across countries (3), differences in attribution of deaths to COVID-19, and significant false negative rates (4-6) complicate assessment of the true magnitude of the pandemic from official data. The inference problem also requires disentangling other explanatory mechanisms: A) Differences in population density, lifestyle, and interaction patterns create variations in reproduction number. B) Risk perception, behavioral change and policy responses alter transmission rates endogenously. C) Testing is prioritized based on symptoms and risk factors, so detection rates depend on both testing rates and current prevalence. D) Limited hospital capacity is allocated based on symptoms, influencing fatality rates. E) Weather may have a role in transmission (7) while age, socio-economic status, and pre-existing conditions impact severity (8, 9), with the poor and minorities suffering disproportionately (10).

Prior research has addressed different parts of this puzzle, including estimating the infection fatality rate (IFR) in well-controlled settings (11) or using statistical extrapolation (12), assessing the asymptomatic fraction in smaller populations or through random testing (13, 14), and estimating prevalence using random antibody testing in highly affected cities and regions (15). Yet we lack a global view of the pandemic that is both consistent with these more focused findings and simultaneously explains the large variance in official cases and fatality across different countries.

In this paper we build and estimate a multi-country model of the COVID-19 pandemic at global scale. Our model captures transmission dynamics for the disease, as well as how, at the country level, transmission rates vary in response to risk perception and weather, testing rates condition infection and death data, and fatality rates depend on demographics and hospitalization. Estimating this model using data from every country with more than 1000 cases for which testing data is available, we infer some of the key characteristics of COVID-19 pandemic globally and inform how alternative control policies may have played out across the globe.

METHODS

RESULTS

The model is fitted against data for infections and deaths across 84 countries. We also report goodness-of-fit statistics for cumulative cases and deaths. Figure 1-A provides comparisons for a sample of larger countries; see S4 for the full sample. Global mean absolute errors (normalized by mean) are 2.2% (9.4% for median across countries, Med) and 8.4% (Med: 10.2%) for cumulative infections and deaths, respectively. R-square values exceed 0.9 for 56% of 336 country-specific cumulative and incidence time series. Our projections are also consistent with excess mortality data, where available (see appendix S4). Main findings include estimated parameters of COVID-19 epidemics across countries, as well as trajectories of key measures. For estimated parameters we report a) the mean of most likely values across countries (Mean); b) the standard deviation of those values (Std), which quantifies variability of the underlying concept across countries; and c) the mean of country-level interquartile ranges (MIQR), which captures the inherent uncertainty in parameter estimates for each country.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Simulated trajectories of epidemic in countries with more than 60 million population and 40,000 confirmed cases. A) Comparison of model (solid) with data (dashed or dotted) for daily new confirmed cases (blue; left axis in thousands) and daily new confirmed deaths (red, right axis in thousands). B) Estimated actuals (with 95% CI in dotted lines) for cumulative cases (blue; left axis in millions) and cumulative deaths (red; right axis in thousands).

The model brings together infection, testing, risk perception, behavioral and policy responses, hospitalization, and fatality using data from across the globe. Here we focus on three main results.

First, the magnitude of epidemic is widely under-reported with much variation globally. We estimate the asymptomatic fraction to be 55% (Mean; Std: 0.6%; MIQR: 3.7%). Combined with a sensitivity of 70% (4, 5) for PCR tests, the fraction of infections that could potentially be identified without mass testing is limited to 32%. Most countries do not reach this upper bound, however, and testing is the binding constraint. Figure 2-A reports the ratio of estimated to reported infections and deaths, ranging between 2.4 and 157 for infections and 0.65 to 27 for deaths. In our sample of 84 countries (total population of 4.675 billion), we estimate total infections at 88.5 (85-95.3, 95% Credible Interval (CI)) million and 600 (CI: 586-622) thousands by June 18 2020, 11.8 and 1.48 times larger than reported numbers respectively. Under-counting has been larger earlier in the epidemic. For example, USA faced peak infection rate (of 395 thousands per day) when detection rate was less than 10% of daily new cases. The most affected countries (based on percent infected) to date include Ecuador (18%), Peru (16.6%), Chile (15.5%), Mexico (8.8%), Iran (7.9%), Qatar (7.3%), Spain (7.1%), USA (5.3%), UK (5.2%), and Netherlands (4.8%) (See Figure 1-B). Despite the order-of-magnitude under-reporting of cases, however, herd immunity due to infection remains far from reach (Figure 2-B). The closest a country has come to herd immunity is Chile, which at its peak infection rate was 194 (CI: 150-213) days away from infection of 80% of its total population.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Country level estimates. A) Ratio of estimated to reported cases (blue circles; left log scale) and deaths (red squares; right log scale). B) Time to 80% cumulative infection based on current infection rates (blue circles) and peak infection rates to-date (red squares) in days (log scale). C) Estimated infection fatality rates in percentages. D) End of winter 2021 projections for cumulative cases (blue circle; left log scale) and deaths (red square, right log scale) as fraction of population. Assumes baseline estimated response functions and test rates moving to 20% of the range between current levels and 0.1% population per day.

Second, we quantify both significant heterogeneity, and notable consistency, across countries in terms of basic parameters of the epidemic. The estimated initial reproduction number RE ranges between 1.24 (Indonesia) and 10.28 (Iran), with the median of 4.5 (Iceland) (R_E estimates include significant uncertainty; See Figure S6 for details). Even absent endogenous reductions in contact due to realized risk, these initial rates may be higher than longer-term levels for most countries because of early exposures happening in denser social networks. Cross-country variations also reflect differences in population density, cultural practices, hygiene, as well as the timing of infection and thus early preparedness. We find support for the impact of weather on reproduction number, with the multiplier (R_W) developed by Xu and colleagues (7) explaining transmission rates closely (R_W^0.76). We estimate the global infection fatality rate (IFR) to have been 0.68% (CI: 0.64%-0.70%), with a wide range (Figure 2-C) between 0.14% (CI: 0.12-0.16; Qatar) and 2.08% (CI: 1.73-2.28; Italy). The variations in IFR are primarily due to demographics with elderly having much higher risks (9). Hospital availability and treatment effectiveness provide a second mechanism affecting fatality rates. We find that hospitalization can bring down risk of death to 39.5% (Std: 17.8%; MIQR: 7.9%) of baseline. The model explains much variability in IFR with minimum country-level variability in basic fatality parameters. Nevertheless, the quality of fit deteriorates in a handful of countries. For example, a ratio of simulated to reported deaths below one in a handful of countries signals that the model expected fewer deaths than observed. Notably, we find it hard to reconcile, using only the model’s mechanisms, the low fatality rates in Qatar, Singapore, and Thailand relative to infection statistics, and high fatality rates in Belgium and France.

Third, testing regulates transmission dynamics though a few mechanisms. By providing early warning, testing sets in motion the behavioral and policy responses essential to reducing transmission rate and controlling the epidemic. The exponential nature of contagion amplifies small early differences, such that a few days’ difference in response time can lead to large differences in peak infection and final epidemic size. Behavioral and policy responses to changes in infection risk are adopted rapidly, on average reducing effective contact (and thus transmission) rates in 13.5 (std: 7.1; MIQR: 3.8) days. Those responses are relaxed when risks attenuate, though down-regulating risk perception is slower (mean: 70.0; std: 31.2; MIQR: 49.2 days). Given limited data on rebounds in infections to date, how quickly perceived risk is downgraded is a major source of uncertainty in projecting the future of the pandemic. We also find that those with a positive test reduce their infectious contacts to a fraction of the original level (Mean: 11.8% of original contact rate; Std: 2.3%; MIQR: 11.0%). These reductions are especially important because asymptomatic individuals are estimated to be less infectious than symptomatic ones (Mean: 28%; Std: 0.68%; MIQR: 2.4%). Finally, by regulating infection rates through the previous two channels, testing also ‘flattens the curve’, allowing a larger fraction of those in need of medical care to be hospitalized. Together, these mechanisms create an early race between testing and the spread of infection (Figure 3). When infection is ahead, detection is compromised (moving up into the darker shades in figure), responses lag further, and exponential infection growth can overwhelm hospital capacity. High early test capacity and its rapid expansion (moving to the right in the figure), brings the epidemic to light, activates policy responses, and allow for control.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Detection rates as a function of testing and infection rates (underlying colormap). Overlay plots: historical trajectories of 6 countries (selected for variance in testing and size of population and infection) showing (estimated) actual daily infections and daily tests performed (averaged over 15 day moving window for smoothness). Markers are one week apart, signaling the transition speed across different regions of input space.

Figure 4 (Panels A and B) shows one alternative testing scenario and counter-factual trajectories of pandemic to date. In this scenario, all countries shift their testing rates from baseline to 0.1% of population per day (a rate currently achieved by multiple countries, e.g. USA, Australia, in Figure 3). The shift happens on March 11, 2020 (the date COVID-19 was officially designated as a pandemic). Such enhanced testing would have reduced total cases from 88.5 millions to 53.2 (CI: 50.5-59.6) millions. Corresponding reduction in deaths would have been from 600k to 403k(CI: 377k-438k).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4.

Counter-factual (A and B) and future (C and D) projections with 95% CI. A and B) Global estimated (solid lines) cumulative cases (A; blue) and deaths (B; red) compared with counterfactual (dashed line) where testing rates shift (with a month-long time constant) towards 0.1%/day starting March 11, 2020. C and D) Global projections for cumulative cases (C; blue) and deaths (D; red) until 3/20/2021 under current test rates (solid) line and alternative policy of shifting test rates towards 0.1%/day starting July 1st 2020 (dashed line).

By making additional assumptions on future testing and responses, the model can inform future trajectories. We explore a few projections out to spring 2021 that exclude vaccine and treatment availability. Figure 4 (panels C and D) shows projections under three scenarios: I) using the current country-specific testing rates and response functions moving forward; II) if enhanced testing (of 0.1% per day) is adopted on July 1^st 2020p; and III) if sensitivity of contact rate to perceived risk is set to 8 (approx. 70^th percentile of estimated value across countries), leaving testing at current levels. Contrary to the impacts of early differences in testing (Figure 4-A), the reductions in future cases from additional testing (II) are rather modest (from 1.55 in I to 1.37 billions in II), because recognition of epidemic is no longer the bottleneck to response. Both these scenarios project a very large burden of new cases in the fall 2020, with hundreds of millions of cases concentrated in a few countries estimated to have insufficient responses given perceived risks (primarily India, but also Bangladesh, Pakistan, and USA). In contrast, changes in response policies would make a major difference. Scenario III brings down future cases sharply, to as low as 153 (CI: 147-170) millions (cumulatively) by the end of winter.

Across scenarios, we find that the infection rate in each country usually peaks and then stabilizes at a lower and slowly declining linear rate, in some cases after damped oscillations (i.e. second waves). These (approximately) steady-state infection rates are at levels that motivate just enough policy and behavioral response to bring effective reproduction number R_E to 1. Faster rates lead to exponential growth, raise alarms and bring down contacts; slower ones lead to relaxation of policies bringing the reproduction number back up to 1. Those post-peak infection rates vary widely across countries and depend on risk perception parameters, time constants, and contact sensitivity to risk, as well as weather and susceptible population size.

Figure 2-D shows country-level details for another projection for cumulative infection and death rates (as percentage of population) at the end of winter 2021. In this scenario we shift both testing and contact sensitivity to perceived risks to arguably more realistic values between current ones and those in scenarios II and III in Figure 4-C. Specifically, on July 1^st 2020 we shift test rates to a value 20% between the current rates and 0.1% per day (which increases testing in most countries and reduces it in a few). Similarly, sensitivity of contacts to perceived risk is shifted to 20% of the way between estimated country-level values and a high value of 8. Resulting infection and death rates at the end of this period reflect the post-peak burden of the disease discussed above and are estimated at 0.01% (CI: 0.005-0.045) and 7.9e-5% (CI: 4.4e-5-3.3e-4) of global population per day. The top ten countries by projected daily infection rates at the end of winter 2021 are India (287 thousand infections per day), USA (95.4), South Africa (20.6), Iran (17.0), Indonesia (13.2), UK (4.2), Nigeria (4.0), Turkey (4.0), France (3.3), and Germany (3.0). Appendix S4 provides projections for all countries. Note that projections are highly sensitive to assumed testing, behavioral, and policy responses in the scenario. As such they should be interpreted as indicators of potential risk and not precise predictions of future cases; more rigorous testing and reductions in contacts in response to risk perception will significantly reduce future cases while laxer response and normalization of risks can lead to overwhelming breakouts.

DISCUSSION

This paper provides a systemic view of the COVID-19 pandemic globally. By incorporating testing capacity and prioritization, hospitalization, and risk perception and responses into an epidemiological model, we are able to closely match widely varying country-specific trajectories of the epidemic. Our model explains the observed heterogeneities primarily through three pathways. First, estimates point to much variance in initial reproduction numbers across countries. This heterogeneity is not surprising given that reproduction number is very much a function of human behaviors and interaction environments. Nevertheless, our study was not designed to tease out the sources of that heterogeneity, an important task that requires other types of data and analysis. Second, the course of the epidemic is also significantly impacted by risk perception and behavioral and policy responses that vary notably across different countries. Finally, we show that differences in testing rates play an important role in shaping those trajectories.

Despite those variations, we also find much that is consistent across the globe: a) We estimate that just over half of the infections are asymptomatic, consistent with detailed estimates from smaller samples (1, 13, 14). b) We estimate that asymptomatic individuals are about a third as infective as symptomatic patients. c) In our model, hospitalization brings down fatality substantially, highlighting the crucial importance of keeping cases below hospital capacity. d) We find an average global infection fatality rate close to 0.68%. This is consistent with growing evidence on IFR (11, 28). Our estimates for IFR change predictably with age, and require few other predictors and no country-specific factors to stay consistent with the data. e) An order of magnitude under-reporting of cases is the norm across most countries, with a few percent of population already infected across many nations; nevertheless, herd immunity remains distant. f) Finally, absent notable improvements in country level responses or breakthroughs in vaccination or treatment, the outlook for the epidemic remains grim, with most nations settling into a steady state of cases and deaths that, while below their peaks, are troublingly large.

S1-MODEL STURCUTRE AND KEY FORMULATIONS

The model simulates the evolution of COVID-19 epidemic, risk perception and response, testing, hospitalization, and fatality at the level of a country. Here we explain key equations and structures in each sector, followed by complete listing of model equations and parameters in S5.

Population Groups and Transmission Dynamics

The model is a derivative of the well-known SEIR (Susceptible, Exposed, Infectious, Recovered) framework for simulating infection dynamics. Figure S5 provides an overview of key population groups and the population movements among them¹.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure S5.

Key population stocks and flows. Rectangles represent stocks (state variables), while arrows and valves represent the flows between them (state transitions).

The Susceptible population (S) transitions to the Pre-Symptomatic Infected state (P) based on the Infection Rate (r_SP). After an average Incubation Period (τ_P), these pre-symptomatic infected transition into the Infected Pre-Detection (I_P) state. After a further average Onset to Detection Delay (τ_T), this group splits among multiple pathways. First, if tested positive for COVID-19, they transition into either Infectious Confirmed Not Hospitalized (I_C) or Hospitalized Infectious Confirmed (I_CH). Anyone not tested positive, whether for lack of testing or erroneous test results, transitions into either Hospitalized Infectious Unconfirmed (I_UH) or Infectious Unconfirmed Post-Detection (I_U). We assume demand for testing and hospitalization are driven by symptoms, so all asymptomatic patients will be in the latter category.

From these Infectious categories, resolution flows (r_…) take individuals to either Recovered (R_…) or Dead (D_…) states, with corresponding subscripts U, C, CH, and UH for stocks and UU, UHCH etc. for flows. Given the differences in severity and potential survival extension due to hospitalization, we distinguish between resolution delay for those in hospital (Hospitalized Resolution Time; τ_H) and those not hospitalized (Post-Detection Phase Resolution Time; τ_R). We use first order exponential delays for all lags, though sensitivity analyses showed very little impact of using higher order delays.

The Infection Rate (r_SP) controls the flow from S to P and depends on Infectious Contacts (C_I), fraction of total Population (N) that is susceptible, and Weather Effect on Transmission (W). The latter is a function of R_W, the country-level projections for impact of weather on COVID-19 transmission risk year-round developed by Xu and colleagues (7) and a parameter, Sensitivity to Weather (s_W), to be estimated:

Infectious contacts depend on the Reference Force of Infection (β), various infectious sub-populations (and their relative transmission rates; m_a for asymptomatic and m_T for confirmed), and Contacts Relative to Normal (F_C), which captures behavioral and policy responses as a fractional multiplier to baseline infectious contacts:

In this equation we separate various stocks (of I and P) into asymptomatic (a superscript) and symptomatic (s superscript). That distinction is treated analytically using a zero-inflated Poisson distribution that is discussed in the next section. In light of evidence on the short serial interval for COVID-19, likely below the incubation period (29, 30), we do not distinguish the infectivity of pre-symptomatic individuals from those post onset. Contagion dynamics start from Patient Zero Arrival Time, T₀, another estimated parameter. The key mechanisms regulating the population flows among these stocks are discussed below, and a schematic of important relationships is provided in Figure S6.

Five parameters are estimated in the equations discussed above. One of them (s_W) is global (i.e. assumed identical across countries; see the estimation section below for details on the distinction between global and country-specific parameters) and the remaining four are country-specific: β, m_T, m_a, and T₀.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure S6.

Overview of model’s mechanisms. Major feedback loops are identified as Balancing (or Negative feedback; B) and Reinforcing (or Positive feedback; R).

S2-ESTIMATION METHOD

Numerical Methods

The model includes a large number of parameters to be estimated: a general parameter for the impact of weather, 2 general parameters for ε_j, and 21 parameters for each country that are coupled together based on the random effects framework described above. Out of those 1 parameter is for ε_i and the rest are informing various features of disease transmission, testing, hospitalization, and risk perception and response. With a sample of 84 countries, this would lead to about 1800 parameters to be estimated. A direct optimization approach to this problem suffers from potential risk of getting stuck in local optima, and direct use of MCMC methods to find the promising region of parameter space suffers from the curse of dimensionality. We therefore designed the following 4-step procedure to find more reliable solutions to both problems.

1. We estimate the model with the full parameter vector for a smaller number of countries with larger outbreaks (3-5 countries). We use the Powell direction search method implemented in Vensim™ simulation software for this step. The method is a local search approach though it has features that allows it to escape local optima in some cases. We restart the optimization from various random points in the feasible parameter space and track the convergence of those restarts to unique local peaks. We stop this process when we are repeatedly landing on the same local peaks in the parameter space. This procedure showed that local peaks do exist, but they are not many; for example within 100 restarts we may find 2-4 distinct peaks. This provides a coherent set of starting points for ϕ and for next steps.

2. We go through iterations of the following two steps: A) Conduct country-specific optimizations with 50 restarts to find the vector of θ_i given the ϕ and from first optimization or from the step B. B) Conduct a global optimization, including all countries but fixing θ_i and optimizing on ϕ (and ; though that is simply the mean across country level parameters from previous round). We stop when iterations offer little improvement from one round to the next (less than 0.05% improvement in log-likelihood).

3. We conduct a full optimization allowing all parameters (θ_i, ϕ and ) to change, starting from the point found in the last iteration of step 2. This step finds the exact peak on the likelihood landscape which is the best-fitting parameter set for the model.

4. For the MCMC, theoretically one should conduct the sampling from all model parameters in the full model. However, our experiments showed that the large dimensionality of the parameter space requires an infeasible number of samples to achieve adequate mixing and ensure reliable credible regions for parameters and projections. To overcome this challenge we note that the parameters of different countries are connected to each other only through ϕ and , and these general parameters are rather insensitive to dynamics in each country. The insensitivity is due to the fact that a single country only contributes about 1% to the general parameters’ values, and within a typical MCMC the country-level parameters often can’t change more than 10% before the resulting samples become highly unlikely. Therefore, one can conduct an approximate country-level MCMC by fixing the general parameters at those from step 3, and only sampling from the θ_i for each country. The MCMC algorithm used is one designed for exploring high dimensional parameter spaces using differential evolution and self-adaptive randomized subspace sampling (19). Using this method we obtain good mixing and stable outcomes (Robin-Brooks-Gelman PSFR convergence statistic remaining under 1.1) after about 600,000 samples (the burn-in period). We continue the MCMC for each country for 1 million samples and then randomly take a subsample of those points after the burn-in period for the next step.

5. The resulting subsamples for different countries from step 4 are assembled together to create a final sample of parameters for the full model to conduct projections and sensitivity analysis at the global scale. Uncertainties in the handful of global parameters is not identified in this procedure, but can be quantified by assessing the sensitivity of the global likelihood surface to changes in those parameters.

The process above is automated using a Python script that controls the simulation software (Vensim). We conduct the analysis using a parallel computing feature of Vensim on a Windows server with 48 cores. After compiling the simulation model into C++ code (which speeds up calculations significantly), and using a simulation time step of 0.25 days, it takes about 20 hours to complete the estimation for 84 countries. Full analysis code is available online at https://github.com/tseyanglim/CovidGlobal.

S3-DATA PRE-PROCESSING

Getting contemporaneous, comprehensive, national-level data on Covid-19 is a challenge. The most widely-cited data aggregators, such as the Johns Hopkins Center for Systems Science and Engineering’s COVID-19 database (31), OurWorldInData portal (3), and the US-focused COVID Tracking Project (21), get their data from the same few official sources, such as the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the European CDC (ECDC), and the World Health Organization (WHO). These official agencies in turn get their data from national and subnational public health authorities, which ultimately rely on reports from hospitals, clinics, and private and public health labs.

As a result, idiosyncrasies in the ground-level data collection processes permeate virtually all sources of aggregate data. Most notably, data collection involves time lags, which can differ from source to source. Daily death counts could reflect the date of actual death or the date a death is registered or reported; different UK government sources, for instance, use each of these metrics.² Daily infection or case counts could include the total new cases reported on a given date, or the total cases confirmed from that date; the latter would result in some ‘backfill’ whereby case counts for previous days can continue to increase for some time as delayed confirmations come in. Daily counts of tests conducted could report samples collected, samples processed, results reported, or a mix of these; the US CDC, for instance, reports a mix of testing by date of sample collection and date of sample delivery to the CDC.³ Aside from differences in unit of measure (people vs. tests vs. samples), there may be different time lags involved as well. In addition to these idiosyncrasies, testing data in particular is also patchy for many countries, even as testing has become more widespread. The WHO does not report country-by-country testing, nor does the JHU Covid map outside the US. Furthermore, there are sometimes irregular delays in the reporting of test results, which can create occasional unexpected spikes in reported numbers of tests, infections, or both.⁴

Depending on the specifics of how daily infection and test counts are reported, there can in some cases be a disjunction between the two. Because confirmed case counts largely depend on positive test results, test and infection counts should be correlated – ceteris paribus, a day with a lot of samples collected for testing should see more confirmed cases attributed to it, while a day with no sample collection should see no cases. But since cases may not be reported by the date of the test, and tests may not be reported by the date of sample collection, officially reported numbers can get out of sync in either direction.

This problem is most salient when there are clear weekly cycles in daily rates. In most of the world, particularly western countries, daily test rates are far lower on weekends than during the week. As a result, infection numbers show a clear weekly cyclical component as well. But the weekly cycles in testing and infection numbers for a given country do not always line up. Our model explicitly accounts for the effect of testing on reported infections, but we do not explicitly model the country-level idiosyncrasies of reporting and how they vary between test data and infections. Instead we account for any such lags in pre-processing of the data to align testing and case data.

The weekly cycle occurs in many countries’ death rate data as well, where it presents a different problem. A weekly cycle in testing is a behaviourally realistic part of the data-generation process, as many labs, clinics, or other testing sites for instance may be closed on weekends. As testing provides the window on the state of confirmed infections, a comparable cycle in confirmed cases is to be expected as well. By linking case confirmations to testing, our model explicitly accounts for this limited visibility on the true state of the epidemic. However, a weekly cycle in death rates almost certainly reflects different limitations of the data-generation process, typically to do with hospital staffing,⁵ which we do not explicitly model. As such we need to address any weekly cycle in death rates through data pre-processing as well.

To deal with these challenges, we developed a multi-step algorithm to pre-process our data before feeding it into the model for calibration. The algorithm is described below. It was implemented in Python, largely using the Pandas and NumPy packages, and the code is available in full at: https://github.com/tseyanglim/CovidGlobal.

The algorithm proceeds country-by-country, following these steps on each country.

1. Examine daily cumulative test data; if data are insufficient (6 or fewer data points), drop country from the dataset.

2. Interpolate any missing daily cumulative test data points using a piecewise cubic Hermite interpolating polynomial (PCHIP) spline. If the first reported infection is before the first reported cumulative test, also extrapolate cumulative tests back to the date of first reported infection.

   1. Extrapolation to the date of first reported infection is necessary since both in the model and, to a large extent, in reality, reported infections require testing for confirmation.

   2. PCHIP spline interpolation yields a continuous monotonic function with a continuous first derivative, thus avoiding generating any anomalous rapid change in daily test rate.

   3. We used the implementation of PCHIP interpolation from the widely used SciPy package for Python.⁶

3. Calculate daily test rate as daily cumulative tests less the preceding day’s cumulative test total:

4. Examine the original daily cumulative test data to estimate how much of the calculated daily test rate is based on interpolated vs. original data.

   1. Daily test rates calculated based on mostly original data should be expected to include any weekly cycles or occasional irregularities that would also be reflected in daily infection counts. Conversely, daily test rates calculated from cumulative test counts that are largely interpolated would not be expected to fully reproduce any such cycles or irregularities, since the interpolation produces a relatively smooth function.

   2. As a rule of thumb, we examine the cumulative test data for the second half of the time from the first test to the latest test. If fewer than half the days in that window have original cumulative test data, we consider the test data to be ‘sparse’, requiring further processing.

5. If the test data are not sparse, account for any potential lag or other reporting delay differences between daily test rate and daily infection rate using a time-shift algorithm to estimate any such lags or delays from the data and shift the test rate time series accordingly. The time-shift algorithm ensures that any weekly cycles present in the daily infection rate data are reflected in the daily test rate data and aligned as best as possible on date, thereby accounting for the fact that model-generated reported infections depends on testing but with no time lag between test and result.

   1. First, identify the weekly component of the time series of daily infection rate and daily test rate using a seasonal-trend decomposition based on LOESS (STL) procedure.⁷

      1. STL deconstructs time series data into several components, including a trend and a seasonal component over a specified period (weekly, in this case) as well as a residual. STL is an additive decomposition, and has the advantage of allowing the seasonal component to change over time (rather than being a fixed pattern repeated exactly across the whole time series).

      2. We used the STL implementation from the Statsmodels package for Python.⁸

   2. Shift the time series over a one-week range (from −2 to +4 days of lag between test and infection reporting), calculating the cross-correlation between the weekly seasonal component of the daily infection rate data and the daily test rate data for each time shift.

   3. Identify the time shift within this range that maximizes the cross-correlation between the infection rate and test rate data, and shift the test rate data accordingly.

6. If the test data are sparse, the spline interpolation will generally cut out some of any weekly cyclicality that may be present. Visual inspection of daily test rates for countries with sparse test data also shows large, irregular spikes in reported tests are not uncommon, without necessarily having concomitant irregular spikes in reported daily infection rates. As such, rather than attempting to eliminate differences in reporting lags through the time-shift algorithm described above, we instead apply a data-smoothing algorithm to both daily test rate and daily infection rate, in order to reduce any cyclicality and irregular spikes. This smoothing allows the calibration of the main model to focus on matching the underlying trends in the data.

7. In all cases, whether daily cumulative test data are sparse or not and whether infection and test rate data are smoothed or not, since weekly cycles in death data are reflective of reporting lags not captured in the model, daily death rate data is smoothed using the same algorithm.

8. The smoothing algorithm used is designed first to conserve the total number of reported cases (tests, infections, or deaths), and second to preserve some degree of variation in the time series, as some noise may be informative and retaining some is important to the calibration of the model.

   1. Starting from when the time series of daily rate (test or infection) exceeds a specified minimum value (5/day), calculate the rolling mean of the daily rate, using a centred moving window of 11 days.

   2. Calculate the residual between each day’s data point and the rolling mean for that day, and divide by the square root of the rolling mean, to get an adjusted deviation value:

      1. Dividing by the square root of the rolling mean reflects a heuristic assumption that each daily rate (of infections, deaths, or tests) behaves as a Poisson process (StDev of Pois(λ) = λ^0.5).

      2. The functional result of this adjustment is that both absolute and relative magnitudes of deviations from the rolling mean are given some weight – large relative deviations when absolute values are small (and data are noisier) are not ignored, but neither do they outweigh larger absolute (but smaller relative) deviations that occur when the mean is large, which is important since most of the time series data are growing significantly over the time horizon of the model.

   3. Calculate thresholds for identifying dips and peaks in the data based on the median of the adjusted deviations, ± one median absolute deviation (MAD) of the adjusted deviations:

      1. Using the median absolute deviation to determine thresholds for peaks and dips is robust to outliers in the deviations, which do arise occasionally in the data.

      2. A threshold width of one MAD is relatively narrow for outlier detection, but by inspection of the data, is about right for identifying most of the peaks and dips caused by weekly cycles in test, infection, and death rates, as well as larger outliers.

   4. Once thresholds are calculated, iterate through the data points in the time series first forward in time from oldest to newest, filling in any ‘dips’ (data points with adjusted deviations below the lower threshold), then backward in time from newest to oldest, smoothing out any ‘peaks’ (data points with adjusted deviations above the upper threshold) that remain. Repeat the process until all data points’ adjusted deviations are within the originally calculated thresholds for the time series.

      1. We infer that the underlying processes generating dips and peaks are somewhat different. Dips are generally the result of weekly cycles in the data, e.g. lower rates of testing or longer lags in death reporting that occur on weekends. Peaks arise to some extent due to the same weekly processes, e.g. some deaths that occur on weekends only being recorded at the start of the next week. However, some peaks, especially larger ones, may result from irregular random delays in reporting, such as large batches of tests being held up due to logistical issues and then getting processed all at once. As such the smoothing procedure for dips vs. peaks is slightly different.

   5. The dip-filling step fills a fraction of each dip (specified as a smoothing factor) by redistributing data counts based on a multinomial draw from the subsequent few days following each dip.

      1. First, calculate the amount to fill based on the deviation and the smoothing factor specified, in this case 0.67:

      2. Calculate the amount redistributed from each of the following few (7) days X_t+1, X_t+2, … X_t+k, k = 7, based on a multinomial distribution as follows:

         Where p_t+1, p_t+2, … p_t+7 are calculated as:

      3. This formulation allows some redistribution from any of the subsequent few days whose adjusted deviations exceed the focal day’s adjusted deviation, but with more redistribution from days with higher adjusted deviations.

   6. The peak-smoothing step similarly redistributes a fraction of each peak, specified by the smoothing factor, to the preceding several days based on another multinomial draw.

      1. First, calculate the amount to redistribute similarly to the dip-filling step:

      2. Calculate the amount redistributed to each of the preceding several (14) days Y_t−1, Y_t−2, … Y_t−k, k = 14, based on a multinomial distribution as follows:

         Where p_t−1, p_t−2, … p_t−14 are calculated as:

      3. This formulation redistributes peaks to preceding days based on the calculated rolling mean counts of those days, on the assumption that the irregular delays that generate random spikes in counts are essentially random and equally likely to affect any given unit of data over a several-day span. As such, the probability that a unit showing up in a spike due to such delays comes from a given preceding day is simply proportional to the expected count for that day, as approximated by the rolling mean.

   7. By filling dips first before smoothing peaks, the combined algorithm largely addresses any peaks that are due primarily to weekly cycles during the dip-filling stage, such that remaining peaks that get smoothed tend to be the larger, irregular ones.

S4-EXTENDED RESULTS

Quality of fit measures

Table S3 reports two quality of fit metrics for different countries and different time series. The first four columns report Mean Absolute Error Normalized by Mean (MAEN) and the last four report the R-Squared measures. Errors for cumulative infection and deaths are followed by those for the new cases and deaths (flow variables).

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup

Table S3.

Measures of fit between data and simulations for different countries. Mean Absolute Error Normalized by Mean (MAEN) and R-Squared are reported for cumulative and new cases and deaths.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure S7.

Comparison of data and simulation. New cases in blue (left axis, in thousands per day) and new deaths (red, right axis).

Figure S7 shows the visualization of fit between data and simulations for all the countries in our sample. These graphs include data and model outputs for reported new cases (blue; left axis in thousands per day) and deaths (red; right axis in thousands per day) starting from the beginning of the epidemic in each country until June 20.

Estimates for true magnitude of epidemic

Estimates for true cumulative cases (blue; left axis in millions) and deaths (red; right axis in thousands) across different countries up to June 20 are reported in Figure S8.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure S8.

Estimates and 95% credible intervals for true magnitude of epidemic. Cumulative cases (blue, left axis in millions) and cumulative deaths (red, right axis, in thousands)

Excess deaths

Figure S9 shows the ratio of estimated excess deaths, i.e. COVID-19 fatalities not reported as such, to reported excess deaths, i.e. deaths over historical baseline not accounted for by reported COVID-19 deaths, for the countries for which such data are available.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure S9.

Ratio of estimated excess deaths to reported excess deaths.

Maximum reproduction number

Figure S10 shows the initial reproduction number (RE) occurring in each country. Reproduction numbers are changing dynamically and transient dynamics may lead to larger than equilibrium numbers if maximum RE values were used. We therefore use the 90^th percentile of simulated reproduction number in this graph. Also note the large credible intervals for these estimates, partly coming from changes in what is included in the 90^th percentile (sometimes it includes the highest values and sometimes it does not), as well as the inherent uncertainty when both reproduction number and behavioral and policy responses are estimated: one can have smaller initial RE and smaller response functions, or larger values for both, and stay consistent with the data.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure S10.

Maximum reproduction number RE for each country’s outbreak

Parameter estimates

Figure S11 reports most likely estimates for the vector of country-specific parameters (θi). The figure also includes 95% credible intervals for these parameter estimates.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure S11.

Parameter estimates and 95% credible regions for country-specific parameters.

Future projections

Figure S12 reports country-level projections for new cases and deaths based on the following assumptions (consistent with those reported in Figure 2-D in the main paper). We shift both testing and contact sensitivity to perceived risks to arguably more realistic values between current ones that capture some improvements but not a completely different behavior. Specifically, on July 1^st 2020 we shift test rate to a value 20% between the current rates and 0.1% per day (which increases testing in most countries and reduces it in a few). Similarly, sensitivity of contacts to perceived risk is shifted to 20% of the way between estimated country-level values and a high value of 8 that is.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure S12.

Country level projections until Spring 2021. Daily cases (in thousands, blue, left axis) and daily deaths (red, right axis) are graphed.

S5-COMPLETE MODEL DOCUMENTATION

Below we provide complete model equations and units. The model in the .mdl format is available with this appendix as well, and online at https://github.com/tseyanglim/CovidGlobal. Most equations are self-explanatory. The “[…]” notation is used to subscript variables over a set of members. For example, the subscript “Rgn” is used to identify different countries. Therefore [Rgn] indicates that a variable is defined separately for each member of the set “Rgn”. Other subscript ranges used in the equations are:

expnt: Used for numerically solving the probability of missing symptoms equation. pdim: Used for setting policy levels for a few variables.

Priors: Used for implementing the random effects estimation components. Each estimated parameter is mapped into an element of this subscript to simplify vector-based calculations.

Series: The data series (Infection, Death, Recovery).

TstSts: The test status including those confirmed (‘Tested’) and those unconfirmed (‘Notest’).

Complete equations and units

1. a[Rgn] = XIDZ (Potential Test Demand from Susceptible Population[Rgn], Positive Candidates Interested in Testing Poisson Subset Adj[Rgn], 1) Units: dmnl

2. AbsPrcErr[Rgn,Series] = if then else (DataIncluded[Rgn] = 0, :NA:, ZIDZ (abs (FlowResiduals[Rgn,Series]), DataFlowOverTime[Rgn,Series])) Units: dmnl

3. AbsStd[Priors] = 0.2, 0.3, 0.2, 0.2, 0.0005, 0.2, 30, 0.03, 6, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.8, 0.1, 1e-05, 10, 0.01, 0.005, 0.03, 10, 10, 10, 0.02

4. Active Test Rate[Rgn] = if then else (Time < New Testing Time, DataTestRate[Rgn], External Test Rate[Rgn]) Units: Person/Day

5. ActiveAve[PriorEndoAve] = INITIAL(InputAve[PriorEndoAve] * (1 −SW EndoAve) + SW EndoAve * CalcAve[PriorEndoAve])

6. ActiveAve[PMT] = InputAve[PMT]

7. Activities Allowed by Government[Rgn] = 1 Units: dmnl

8. Additional Asymptomatic Post Detection[Rgn] = Weighted Infected Post Detection Gate[Rgn] * Additional Asymptomatic Relative to Symptomatic[Rgn] / (1 + Additional Asymptomatic Relative to Symptomatic[Rgn]) Units: Person

9. Additional Asymptomatic Relative to Symptomatic[Rgn] = ZIDZ (Total Asymptomatic Fraction Net[Rgn] - exp (- Covid Acuity[Rgn]), 1 - Total Asymptomatic Fraction Net[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

10. AdvCntrs[Rgn] = 1 Units: dmnl

11. All Recovery[Rgn] = Recovery of Confirmed[Rgn] + Recovery of Untested[Rgn] + sum (Hospital Discharges[Rgn,TstSts!]) Units: Person/Day

12. Allocated Fraction COVID Hospitalized[Rgn] = min (1, (- Expected Positive Poisson Covid Patients[Rgn] + Sqrt (Expected Positive Poisson Covid Patients[Rgn] ^ 2 + 4 * Effective Hospital Capacity[Rgn] * Effective Hospital Capacity[Rgn])) / (2 * Effective Hospital Capacity[Rgn])) Units: dmnl

13. Allocated Fration NonCOVID Hospitalized[Rgn] = SMOOTHI (Allocated Fraction COVID Hospitalized[Rgn] ^ 2, Hospital Adj T, 1) Units: dmnl

14. alp[Rgn,Infection] = min (maxAlp, ialp * alpR[Rgn])

15. alp[Rgn,Death] = min (1, dalp * alpR[Rgn])

16. alp[Rgn,Test] = min (1, talp * alpR[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

17. alpR[Rgn] = 1 Units: dmnl

18. Area of Region[Rgn] = GET VDF CONSTANTS(Constant Data File, ‘DataConstants[Rgn]’, 5) Units: Km*Km

19. Average Acuity Hospitalized[Rgn,Tested] = Average Acuity of Positively Tested[Rgn] * XIDZ ((1 - Probability of Missing Acuity Signal at Hospitals[Rgn,Tested] * Fraction Poisson not Hospitalized[Rgn,Tested] ^ 2), 1 - Fraction Poisson not Hospitalized[Rgn,Tested], 2 * Probability of Missing Acuity Signal at Hospitals[Rgn,Tested])

20. Average Acuity Hospitalized[Rgn,Notest] = ZIDZ (Average Acuity of Untested Poisson Subset[Rgn] * (1 - Probability of Missing Acuity Signal at Hospitals[Rgn,Notest] * Fraction Poisson not Hospitalized[Rgn,Notest] ^ 2), 1 - Fraction Poisson not Hospitalized[Rgn,Notest]) Units: dmnl

21. Average Acuity Not Hospitalized[Rgn,Notest] = ZIDZ (Average Acuity Not Hospitalized Poisson[Rgn,Notest] * Infectious not Tested or in Hospitals Poisson[Rgn], “Infected Unconfirmed Post-Detection”[Rgn])

22. Average Acuity Not Hospitalized[Rgn,Tested] = Average Acuity Not Hospitalized Poisson[Rgn,Tested] Units: dmnl

23. Average Acuity Not Hospitalized Poisson[Rgn,Tested] = Max (0, Probability of Missing Acuity Signal at Hospitals[Rgn,Tested] * Average Acuity of Positively Tested[Rgn] * Fraction Poisson not Hospitalized[Rgn,Tested])

24. Average Acuity Not Hospitalized Poisson[Rgn,Notest] = Max (0, Probability of Missing Acuity Signal at Hospitals[Rgn,Notest] * Average Acuity of Untested Poisson Subset[Rgn] * Fraction Poisson not Hospitalized[Rgn,Notest]) Units: dmnl

25. Average Acuity of Positively Tested[Rgn] = Covid Acuity[Rgn] * XIDZ ((1 - Prob Missing Symptom[Rgn] * Fraction Interested not Tested[Rgn] ^ 2), 1 - Fraction Interested not Tested[Rgn], 2 * Prob Missing Symptom[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

26. Average Acuity of Untested Poisson Subset[Rgn] = ZIDZ (Poisson Subset Reaching Test Gate[Rgn] * Covid Acuity[Rgn] - Positive Tests of Infected[Rgn] * Average Acuity of Positively Tested[Rgn], Poisson Subset Not Tested Passing Gate[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

27. b[Rgn] = ZIDZ (Testing on Living[Rgn] - Positive Candidates Interested in Testing Poisson Subset Adj[Rgn] - Potential Test Demand from Susceptible Population[Rgn], Positive Candidates Interested in Testing Poisson Subset Adj[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

28. Base Fatality Rate for Unit Acuity[Rgn] = 0.0006 Units: dmnl

29. Base Fatality Rate for Unit Acuity Net[Rgn] = INITIAL(Base Fatality Rate for Unit Acuity[Rgn] * (1 - SW Gen[BsFtRt]) + SW Gen[BsFtRt] * InputAve[BsFtRt]) Units: dmnl

30. BaseError = 5 Units: Person

31. Baseline Daily Fraction Susceptible Seeking Tests[Rgn] = 0.001 Units: 1/Day

32. Baseline Fatality Multiplier[Rgn] = INITIAL(Demographic Impact on Fatality Relative to China[Rgn] * Base Fatality Rate for Unit Acuity Net[Rgn] * Liver Disease Impact on Fatality[Rgn] * Obesity Impact on Fatality[Rgn] * Chronic Impact on Fatality[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

33. Baseline Risk of Transmission by Asymptomatic[Rgn] = INITIAL(Baseline Transmission Multiplier for Untested Symptomatic * Multiplier Transmission Risk for Asymptomatic Net[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

34. Baseline Transmission Multiplier for Untested Symptomatic = 1 Units: dmnl

35. Bed per Square Kilometer[Rgn] = INITIAL(Nominal Hospital Capacity[Rgn] / Area of Region[Rgn]) Units: Person/(Km*Km)

36. Beds per Thousand Population[Rgn] = GET VDF CONSTANTS(Constant Data File, ‘DataConstants[Rgn]’, 11) Units: dmnl

37. CalcAve[Priors] = INITIAL(sum (RegionalInputs[Priors,Rgn!]) / ELMCOUNT(Rgn))

38. cft[Rgn,p2] = lnymix[Rgn,p2]

39. cft[Rgn,p3] = lnymix[Rgn,p3] - lnymix[Rgn,p2]

40. cft[Rgn,p4] = (ln (min (100, Max (1e-06, ZIDZ (lnymix[Rgn,p4] - lnymix[Rgn,p2], lnymix[Rgn,p3] - lnymix[Rgn,p2]) / ln (2))))) Units: dmnl

41. Chng Cml Dth Untst Untrt[Rgn] = Deaths of Symptomatic Untested[Rgn] - Post Mortem Test Rate[Rgn] * Frac Post Mortem from Untreated[Rgn] Units: Person/Day

42. Chronic Death Rate[Rgn] = GET VDF CONSTANTS(Constant Data File, ‘DataConstants[Rgn]’, 17) Units: dmnl

43. Chronic Impact on Fatality[Rgn] = INITIAL((Chronic Death Rate[Rgn] / MeanChronic) ^ Sens Chronic Impact Net[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

44. Cml Death Frac In Hosp[Rgn] = XIDZ (Cumulative Deaths at Hospital[Rgn,Tested] + Cumulative Deaths at Hospital[Rgn,Notest], Cumulative Deaths[Rgn], 1) Units: dmnl

45. Cml Death fraction in hospitals large enough = sum (if then else (Cml Death Frac In Hosp[Rgn!] < MinHspDTresh, 1, 0)) Units: dmnl

46. Cml Death Hsp Inc[Rgn,Tested] = Hospitalized Infectious Deaths[Rgn,Tested] + PostMortemCorrection[Rgn]

47. Cml Death Hsp Inc[Rgn,Notest] = Hospitalized Infectious Deaths[Rgn,Notest] - PostMortemCorrection[Rgn] Units: Person/Day

48. Cml Known Death Frac Hosp[Rgn] = XIDZ (Cumulative Deaths at Hospital[Rgn,Tested], Cumulative Deaths[Rgn], 1) Units: dmnl

49. CmltErrPW = 2 Units: dmnl

50. CmltPenaltyScl = 0 Units: dmnl

51. CmltToInclude[Series] = 0, 0, 0 Units: dmnl

52. Confirmation Impact on Contact[Rgn] = 0.002 Units: dmnl

53. Confirmed Recovered[Rgn] = INTEG(Recovery of Confirmed[Rgn], 0) Units: Person

54. Constant Data File :IS: ‘CovidModelInputs - ConstantData.vdf’

55. Contacts Relative to Normal[Rgn] = min (Voluntary Reduction in Contacts[Rgn], Activities Allowed by Government[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

56. Continue without Testing[Rgn] = Reaching Testing Gate[Rgn] - Symptomatic Infected to Testing[Rgn] - Untested symptomatic Infected to Hospital[Rgn] Units: Person/Day

57. Count Missed Death[Rgn] = if then else (Excess Death Start Count[Rgn] = :NA:, 0, if then else (Time >= Excess Death Start Count[Rgn] :AND: Time <= Excess Death End Count[Rgn], Cml Death Hsp Inc[Rgn,Notest] + Chng Cml Dth Untst Untrt[Rgn], 0)) Units: Person/Day

58. Covid Acuity[Rgn] = Flu Acuity * Covid Acuity Relative to Flu Net[Rgn] Units: dmnl

59. Covid Acuity Relative to Flu[Rgn] = 6 Units: dmnl

60. Covid Acuity Relative to Flu Net[Rgn] = INITIAL(Covid Acuity Relative to Flu[Rgn] * (1 - SW Gen[Acty]) + SW Gen[Acty] * InputAve[Acty]) Units: dmnl

61. Covid Poisson Fraction in Hospital[Rgn] = ZIDZ (Total Covid Hospitalized[Rgn], Infectious not Tested or in Hospitals Poisson[Rgn] + Infectious Confirmed Not Hospitalized[Rgn] + Total Covid Hospitalized[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

62. CRW[Rgn] Units: dmnl

63. Cumulative Cases[Rgn] = INTEG(New Cases[Rgn], 0) Units: Person

64. Cumulative Confirmed Cases[Rgn] = Infectious Confirmed Not Hospitalized[Rgn] + Hospitalized Infectious[Rgn,Tested] + Cumulative Deaths of Confirmed[Rgn] + Cumulative Confirmed Recovered[Rgn] Units: Person

65. Cumulative Confirmed Recovered[Rgn] = Confirmed Recovered[Rgn] + Cumulative Recovered at Hospitals[Rgn,Tested] Units: Person

66. Cumulative Death Fraction[Rgn] = ZIDZ (Cumulative Deaths[Rgn], Cumulative Deaths[Rgn] + Cumulative Recoveries[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

67. Cumulative Deaths[Rgn] = INTEG(Death Rate[Rgn], 0) Units: Person

68. Cumulative Deaths at Hospital[Rgn,TstSts] = INTEG(Cml Death Hsp Inc[Rgn,TstSts], 0) Units: Person

69. Cumulative Deaths of Confirmed[Rgn] = Cumulative Deaths at Hospital[Rgn,Tested] + Cumulative Deaths of Confirmed Untreated[Rgn] Units: Person

70. Cumulative Deaths of Confirmed Untreated[Rgn] = INTEG(Deaths of Confirmed[Rgn] + Post Mortem Test Untreated[Rgn], 0) Units: Person

71. Cumulative Deaths Untested Untreated[Rgn] = INTEG(Chng Cml Dth Untst Untrt[Rgn], 0) Units: Person

72. Cumulative Fraction Total Cases Hospitalized[Rgn] = ZIDZ (sum (Cumulative Deaths at Hospital[Rgn,TstSts!] + Cumulative Recovered at Hospitals[Rgn,TstSts!] + Hospitalized Infectious[Rgn,TstSts!]), Cumulative Cases[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

73. Cumulative Missed Death[Rgn] = INTEG(Count Missed Death[Rgn], 0) Units: Person

74. Cumulative Negative Tests[Rgn] = INTEG(Negative Test Results[Rgn], 0) Units: Person

75. Cumulative Recovered at Hospitals[Rgn,TstSts] = INTEG(Hospital Discharges[Rgn,TstSts], 0) Units: Person

76. Cumulative Recoveries[Rgn] = INTEG(All Recovery[Rgn], 0) Units: Person

77. Cumulative Tests Conducted[Rgn] = INTEG(SimTestRate[Rgn], 0) Units: Person

78. Cumulative Tests Data[Rgn] = INTEG(TstInc[Rgn], 0) Units: Person

79. Current Test Rate per Capita[Rgn] = INITIAL(if then else (DataLastTestRate[Rgn] = :NA:, 0, DataLastTestRate[Rgn] / Population[Rgn])) Units: 1/Day

80. dalp = 0.1 Units: dmnl

81. Data Excess Deaths[Rgn] = GET VDF CONSTANTS(Constant Data File, ‘DataConstants[Rgn]’, 15) Units: Person

82. Data Pseudo Case Fatality[Rgn] = ZIDZ (DataCmltDeath[Rgn], DataCmltInfection[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

83. DataAttentionTime[Rgn] = GET VDF CONSTANTS(Constant Data File, ‘DataConstants[Rgn]’, 9) Units: Day

84. DataCmltDeath[Rgn] Units: Person

85. DataCmltInfection[Rgn] Units: Person

86. DataCmltOverTime[Rgn,Infection] :RAW: := DataCmltInfection[Rgn]

87. DataCmltOverTime[Rgn,Death] :RAW: := DataCmltDeath[Rgn]

88. DataCmltOverTime[Rgn,Test] = DataCmltTest[Rgn] Units: Person

89. DataCmltTest[Rgn] Units: Person

90. DataFlowDeath[Rgn] :RAW: Units: Person/Day

91. DataFlowInfection[Rgn] Units: Person/Day

92. DataFlowOverTime[Rgn,Infection] :RAW: := DataFlowInfection[Rgn]

93. DataFlowOverTime[Rgn,Death] :RAW: := DataFlowDeath[Rgn]

94. DataFlowOverTime[Rgn,Test] :RAW: := DataTestRate[Rgn] Units: Person/Day

95. DataFlowRecovery[Rgn] :RAW: Units: Person/Day

96. DataIncluded[Rgn] = if then else (Max (Cumulative Deaths[Rgn], Max (Cumulative Confirmed Cases[Rgn], DataCmltInfection[Rgn])) > ThrsInc[Rgn], 1, 0) * DataLimitFromTime Units: dmnl

97. DataLastTestRate[Rgn] = INITIAL(GET DATA AT TIME (DataTestRate[Rgn], min (LastTestDate[Rgn], New Testing Time))) Units: Person/Day

98. DataLimitFromTime = if then else (Time > Max Time Data Used, 0, 1) Units: dmnl

99. DataTestCapacity[Rgn] Units: Person/Day

100. DataTestRate[Rgn] Units: Person/Day

101. Day of First Case Report in JHU Database = 99 Units: Day

102. Days per Year = 365 Units: Day/Year

103. Death Rate[Rgn] = Deaths of Confirmed[Rgn] + Deaths of Symptomatic Untested[Rgn] + sum (Hospitalized Infectious Deaths[Rgn,TstSts!]) Units: Person/Day

104. Deaths of Confirmed[Rgn] = Tested Untreated Resolution[Rgn] * Fatality Rate Untreated[Rgn,Tested] Units: Person/Day

105. Deaths of Symptomatic Untested[Rgn] = Infectious not Tested or in Hospitals Poisson[Rgn] / “Post-Detection Phase Resolution Time” * Fatality Rate Untreated[Rgn,Notest] Units: Person/Day

106. Delay Order = 1 Units: dmnl

107. Demographic Impact on Fatality Relative to China[Rgn] = GET VDF CONSTANTS(Constant Data File, ‘DataConstants[Rgn]’, 12) Units: dmnl

108. Di[Rgn,Series] = DataFlowOverTime[Rgn,Series] Units: Person/Day

109. Discount Rate Annual = 0.03 Units: 1/Year

110. Discount Rate per Day = INITIAL(Discount Rate Annual / Days per Year) Units: 1/Day

111. Dread Factor in Risk Perception[Rgn] = 25 Units: dmnl

112. Dread Factor in Risk Perception Net[Rgn] = if then else (Response Policy Time On < Time, Dread Factor Policy * Response Policy Weight[dfcP] + (1 - Response Policy Weight[dfcP]) * Dread Factor in Risk Perception[Rgn], Dread Factor in Risk Perception[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

113. Dread Factor Policy = 3000 Units: dmnl

114. Effective Hospital Capacity[Rgn] = Nominal Hospital Capacity[Rgn] * Normalized Hospital density[Rgn] ^ Impact of Population Density on Hospital Availability[Rgn] Units: Person

115. eps = 0.001 Units: Person/Day

116. Excess Death End Count[Rgn] = GET VDF CONSTANTS(Constant Data File, ‘DataConstants[Rgn]’, 14) Units: Day

117. Excess Death Mean Frac = 0.9 Units: dmnl

118. Excess Death Range Frac = 0.2 Units: dmnl

119. Excess Death Rate Error[Rgn] = if then else (Data Excess Deaths[Rgn] < 50, 0, ZIDZ (Cumulative Missed Death[Rgn] - Excess Death Mean Frac * Data Excess Deaths[Rgn], Excess Death Range Frac * Data Excess Deaths[Rgn]) ^ 4) Units: dmnl

120. Excess Death Start Count[Rgn] = GET VDF CONSTANTS(Constant Data File, ‘DataConstants[Rgn]’, 13) Units: Day

121. Expected Positive Poisson Covid Patients[Rgn] = sum (Potential Hospital Demand[Rgn,TstSts!]) * “Post-Detection Phase Resolution Time” Units: Person

122. expnt: (p2-p4)

123. External Test Rate[Rgn] = Population[Rgn] * Policy Test Rate[Rgn] Units: Person/Day

124. Extrapolated Estimator[Rgn] = if then else (Covid Acuity Relative to Flu Net[Rgn] > 1, cft[Rgn,p2] + cft[Rgn,p3] * (Covid Acuity Relative to Flu Net[Rgn] - 1) ^ cft[Rgn,p4], lnymix[Rgn,p2]) Units: dmnl

125. F[Rgn] = Utility from Normal Activities[Rgn] / (Utility from Limited Activities[Rgn] + Utility from Normal Activities[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

126. F0[Rgn] = INITIAL(F[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

127. Fatality Rate Treated[Rgn,TstSts] = min (1, Baseline Fatality Multiplier[Rgn] * Impact of Treatment on Fatality Rate[Rgn] * Average Acuity Hospitalized[Rgn,TstSts] ^ Sensitivity of Fatality Rate to Acuity Net[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

128. Fatality Rate Untreated[Rgn,TstSts] = min (1, Baseline Fatality Multiplier[Rgn] * Average Acuity Not Hospitalized Poisson[Rgn,TstSts] ^ Sensitivity of Fatality Rate to Acuity Net[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

129. Final Test Rate Per Capita[Rgn] = INITIAL(Current Test Rate per Capita[Rgn] + Weight Max in Test Goal * (Max Test Rate per Capita - Current Test Rate per Capita[Rgn])) Units: 1/Day

130. FINAL TIME = 250 Units: Day

131. FlowResiduals[Rgn,Series] = if then else (DataFlowOverTime[Rgn,Series] = :NA:, :NA:, DataFlowOverTime[Rgn,Series] - SimFlowOverTime[Rgn,Series]) Units: Person/Day

132. FlowToInclude[Series] = 1, 1, 0 Units: dmnl

133. Flu Acuity = 1 Units: dmnl

134. Flu Acuity Relative to Covid[Rgn] = Flu Acuity / Covid Acuity[Rgn] Units: dmnl

135. Frac Post Mortem from Untreated[Rgn] = SMOOTHI (ZIDZ (Deaths of Symptomatic Untested[Rgn], Deaths of Symptomatic Untested[Rgn] + Hospitalized Infectious Deaths[Rgn,Notest]), Post Mortem Test Delay, 1) Units: dmnl

136. FracThresh = 0.001 Units: dmnl

137. Fraction Covid Death In Hospitals Previously Tested[Rgn] = ZIDZ (Hospitalized Infectious Deaths[Rgn,Tested], sum (Hospitalized Infectious Deaths[Rgn,TstSts!])) Units: dmnl

138. Fraction Covid Hospitalized Positively Tested[Rgn] = ZIDZ (Hospitalized Infectious[Rgn,Tested], Total Covid Hospitalized[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

139. Fraction Interested not Tested[Rgn] = 1 - ZIDZ (Total Test on Covid Patients[Rgn], Positive Candidates Interested in Testing Poisson Subset[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

140. Fraction Interseted not Correctly Tested[Rgn] = 1 - (1 - Fraction Interested not Tested[Rgn]) * Sensitivity of COVID Test Units: dmnl

141. Fraction of Additional Symptomatic[Rgn] = Additional Asymptomatic Relative to Symptomatic[Rgn] / (1 + Additional Asymptomatic Relative to Symptomatic[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

142. Fraction of Fatalities Screened Post Mortem[Rgn] = Indicated Fraction Post Mortem Testing[Rgn] * Switch for Government Response[Rgn] Units: dmnl

143. Fraction of Population Hospitalized for Covid[Rgn] = Total Covid Hospitalized[Rgn] / Population[Rgn] Units: dmnl

144. Fraction Poisson not Hospitalized[Rgn,Tested] = exp (- Average Acuity of Positively Tested[Rgn] * (1 - Probability of Missing Acuity Signal at Hospitals[Rgn,Tested]))

145. Fraction Poisson not Hospitalized[Rgn,Notest] = exp (- Average Acuity of Untested Poisson Subset[Rgn] * (1 - Probability of Missing Acuity Signal at Hospitals[Rgn,Notest])) Units: dmnl

146. Fraction Seeking Test[Rgn] = 1 Units: dmnl

147. Fraction Tests Positive[Rgn] = ZIDZ (Positive Tests of Infected[Rgn], Testing on Living[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

148. Fraction Tests Positive Data[Rgn] = min (1, ZIDZ (DataFlowInfection[Rgn], Active Test Rate[Rgn])) Units: dmnl

149. Fractional Value of Limited Activities = 0.5 Units: dmnl

150. Global Cases = sum (Cumulative Cases[Rgn!]) Units: Person

151. Global Deaths = sum (Cumulative Deaths[Rgn!]) Units: Person

152. Global IFR = ZIDZ (Global Deaths, Global Cases) Units: dmnl

153. Government Response Start Time[Rgn] = INITIAL(DataAttentionTime[Rgn] + Day of First Case Report in JHU Database) Units: Day

154. Hazard of Symptomatic Infection[Rgn] = Infection Rate[Rgn] / Susceptible[Rgn] * (1 - Total Asymptomatic Fraction Net[Rgn]) Units: 1/Day

155. Herd Immunity Fraction = 0.8 Units: dmnl

156. Hospital Adj T = 1 Units: Day

157. Hospital Admission Infectious[Rgn,TstSts] = Hospital Admits All[Rgn,TstSts] Units: Person/Day

158. Hospital Admit Ratio[Rgn,TstSts] = XIDZ (Hospital Admits All[Rgn,TstSts], Potential Hospital Demand[Rgn,TstSts], 1) Units: dmnl

159. Hospital Admits All[Rgn,Tested] = Hospital Demand from Tested[Rgn] * Allocated Fraction COVID Hospitalized[Rgn]

160. Hospital Admits All[Rgn,Notest] = Hospital Demand from Not Tested[Rgn] * Allocated Fraction COVID Hospitalized[Rgn] Units: Person/Day

161. Hospital Demand from Not Tested[Rgn] = Poisson Subset Not Tested Passing Gate[Rgn] * (1 - exp (- Average Acuity of Untested Poisson Subset[Rgn] * (1 - PMAS Unconfirmed for Hospital Demand[Rgn]))) Units: Person/Day

162. Hospital Demand from Tested[Rgn] = Positive Tests of Infected[Rgn] * (1 - exp (- Average Acuity of Positively Tested[Rgn] * (1 - PMAS Confirmed for Hospital Demand[Rgn]))) Units: Person/Day

163. Hospital Discharges[Rgn,TstSts] = (1 - Fatality Rate Treated[Rgn,TstSts]) * Hospital Outflow Covid Positive[Rgn,TstSts] Units: Person/Day

164. Hospital Outflow Covid Positive[Rgn,TstSts] = Hospitalized Infectious[Rgn,TstSts] / Hospitalized Resolution Time Units: Person/Day

165. Hospitalized CFR Cumulative[Rgn,TstSts] = ZIDZ (Cumulative Deaths at Hospital[Rgn,TstSts], Cumulative Deaths at Hospital[Rgn,TstSts] + Cumulative Recovered at Hospitals[Rgn,TstSts]) Units: dmnl

166. Hospitalized Infectious[Rgn,TstSts] = INTEG(Hospital Admission Infectious[Rgn,TstSts] - Hospitalized Infectious Deaths[Rgn,TstSts] - Hospital Discharges[Rgn,TstSts], 0) Units: Person

167. Hospitalized Infectious Deaths[Rgn,TstSts] = Fatality Rate Treated[Rgn,TstSts] * Hospital Outflow Covid Positive[Rgn,TstSts] Units: Person/Day

168. Hospitalized Resolution Time = 20 Units: Day

169. Hospitalized True CFR[Rgn] = ZIDZ (sum (Hospitalized Infectious Deaths[Rgn,TstSts!]), sum (Hospital Outflow Covid Positive[Rgn,TstSts!])) Units: dmnl

170. Hospitalized True CFR Cumulative[Rgn] = ZIDZ (sum (Cumulative Deaths at Hospital[Rgn,TstSts!]), sum (Cumulative Deaths at Hospital[Rgn,TstSts!] + Cumulative Recovered at Hospitals[Rgn,TstSts!])) Units: dmnl

171. ialp = 0.1 Units: dmnl

172. Impact of Population Density on Hospital Availability[Rgn] = 0.72 Units: dmnl

173. Impact of Treatment on Fatality Rate[Rgn] = 0.32 Units: dmnl

174. Incubation Period = 5.6 Units: Day

175. Indicated fraction negative demand tested[Rgn] = 1 - exp (Flu Acuity * (Prob Missing Symptom[Rgn] - 1)) Units: dmnl

176. Indicated fraction positive demand tested[Rgn] = 1 - exp (Covid Acuity[Rgn] * (Prob Missing Symptom[Rgn] - 1)) Units: dmnl

177. Indicated Fraction Post Mortem Testing[Rgn] = Fraction Covid Death In Hospitals Previously Tested[Rgn] ^ Sensitivity Post Mortem Testing to Capacity[Rgn] Units: dmnl

178. Indicated Risk of Life Loss[Rgn] = min (1, Switch for Government Response[Rgn] * Perceived Hazard of Infection[Rgn] * Dread Factor in Risk Perception Net[Rgn] * PseudoCFR / Discount Rate per Day) Units: dmnl

179. Infected pre Detection[Rgn] = INTEG(Onset of Symptoms[Rgn] - Continue without Testing[Rgn] - Symptomatic Infected to Testing[Rgn] - Untested symptomatic Infected to Hospital[Rgn], 0) Units: Person

180. “Infected Unconfirmed Post-Detection”[Rgn] = INTEG(Continue without Testing[Rgn] - Deaths of Symptomatic Untested[Rgn] - Recovery of Untested[Rgn], 0) Units: Person

181. Infection Rate[Rgn] = Infectious Contacts[Rgn] * (Susceptible[Rgn] / Population[Rgn]) * Weather Effect on Transmission[Rgn] Units: Person/Day

182. Infectious Confirmed Not Hospitalized[Rgn] = INTEG(Positive Testing of Infected Untreated[Rgn] - Deaths of Confirmed[Rgn] - Recovery of Confirmed[Rgn], 0) Units: Person

183. Infectious Contacts[Rgn] = (“Pre-Symptomatic Infected”[Rgn] * Transmission Multiplier Presymptomatic[Rgn] + Infected pre Detection[Rgn] * Transmission Multiplier Pre Detection[Rgn] + (Additional Asymptomatic Post Detection[Rgn] + “Poisson Not-tested Asymptomatic”[Rgn]) * Baseline Risk of Transmission by Asymptomatic[Rgn] + (Infectious not Tested or in Hospitals Poisson[Rgn] - “Poisson Not-tested Asymptomatic”[Rgn]) * Baseline Transmission Multiplier for Untested Symptomatic + Infectious Confirmed Not Hospitalized[

184. Rgn] * Transmission Multiplier for Confirmed[Rgn] + sum (Hospitalized Infectious[Rgn,TstSts!] * Transmission Multiplier for Hospitalized[Rgn,TstSts!])) * Reference Force of Infection[Rgn] * Contacts Relative to Normal[Rgn] Units: Person/Day

185. Infectious not Tested or in Hospitals Poisson[Rgn] = “Infected Unconfirmed Post-Detection”[Rgn] - Additional Asymptomatic Post Detection[Rgn] Units: Person

186. Initial Population[Rgn] = GET VDF CONSTANTS(Constant Data File, ‘DataConstants[Rgn]’, 1) Units: Person

187. INITIAL TIME = 30 Units: Day

188. InpAveErr = INITIAL(sum (InpAveErrCmp[PriorEndoAve!]))

189. InpAveErrCmp[PriorEndoAve] = INITIAL((abs (CalcAve[PriorEndoAve] - InputAve[PriorEndoAve]) / Max (1e-06, CalcAve[PriorEndoAve]) * SW EndoAve))

190. 190) InputAve[Priors] = 1, 1.8, 0.47, 1, 0.0009, 0.81, 58, 0.017, 6.2, 0.1, 0.24, 0.4, 2.27, 0.52, 0.00055, 0.76, 5.9, 2.07, 0.55, 1e-06, 1e-06, 1e-06, 0.28

191. IrD: Travel,InformalDeath

192. Known death fraction in hospitals large enough = sum (if then else (Cml Known Death Frac Hosp[Rgn!] < MinHspDTreshAdv, 1, 0) * AdvCntrs[Rgn!]) Units: dmnl

193. LastTestDate[Rgn] = INITIAL(GET DATA Last TIME (DataTestRate[Rgn])) Units: Day

194. Liver Disease Impact on Fatality[Rgn] = INITIAL((Liver Disease Rate[Rgn] / MeanLiver) ^ Sens Liver Impact Net[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

195. Liver Disease Rate[Rgn] = GET VDF CONSTANTS(Constant Data File, ‘DataConstants[Rgn]’, 18) Units: dmnl

196. lnymix[Rgn,expnt] = − ln (Max (1e-06, 1 - Ymix[Rgn,expnt])) Units: dmnl

197. lnymix 0[Rgn,expnt] = − ln (Max (1e-06, 1 - Ymix[Rgn,expnt])) Units: dmnl

198. Max Test Rate per Capita = 0.001 Units: 1/Day

199. Max Time Data Used = 247 Units: Day

200. maxAlp = 1 Units: dmnl

201. MaxData[Rgn] = INITIAL(GET DATA MAX (DataCmltInfection[Rgn], 0, 500)) Units: Person

202. MaxRTresh = 8 Units: dmnl

203. MeanChronic = GET VDF CONSTANTS(Constant Data File, ‘MeanChronic’, 1) Units: dmnl

204. MeanLiver = GET VDF CONSTANTS(Constant Data File, ‘MeanLiver’, 1) Units: dmnl

205. MeanObesity = GET VDF CONSTANTS(Constant Data File, ‘MeanObesity’, 1) Units: dmnl

206. Min Contact Fraction[Rgn] = 0.04 Units: dmnl

207. Min Excess Death Attributable to COVID = 0.5 Units: dmnl

208. MinAdjT = 1 Units: Day

209. MinHspDTresh = 0.2 Units: dmnl

210. MinHspDTreshAdv = 0.8 Units: dmnl

211. MinSuscTresh = 0.7 Units: dmnl

212. Mu[Rgn,Series] = Max (eps, SimFlowOverTime[Rgn,Series]) Units: Person/Day

213. Multiplier Recent Infections to Test[Rgn] = 45 Units: dmnl

214. Multiplier Transmission Risk for Asymptomatic[Rgn] = 0.3 Units: dmnl

215. Multiplier Transmission Risk for Asymptomatic Net[Rgn] = INITIAL(Multiplier Transmission Risk for Asymptomatic[Rgn] * (1 - SW Gen[MTrAsym]) + SW Gen[MTrAsym] * InputAve[MTrAsym]) Units: dmnl

216. NBL1[Rgn,Series] = if then else (DataFlowOverTime[Rgn,Series] = 0, - ln (1 + alp[Rgn,Series] * Mu[Rgn,Series]) / alp[Rgn,Series], 0) Units: dmnl

217. NBL2[Rgn,Series] = if then else (DataFlowOverTime[Rgn,Series] > 0, GAMMA LN (Di[Rgn,Series] + 1 / alp[Rgn,Series]) - GAMMA LN (1 / alp[Rgn,Series]) - GAMMA LN (Di[Rgn,Series] + 1) - (Di[Rgn,Series] + 1 / alp[Rgn,Series]) * ln (1 + alp[Rgn,Series] * Mu[Rgn,Series]) + Di[Rgn,Series] * (ln (alp[Rgn,Series]) + ln (Mu[Rgn,Series])), 0) Units: dmnl

218. NBL3[Rgn,Series] = if then else (Di[Rgn,Series] > 0, - GAMMA LN (Di[Rgn,Series] + 1) - (Di[Rgn,Series] + 1 / alp[Rgn,Series]) * ln (1 + alp[Rgn,Series] * Mu[Rgn,Series]) + Di[Rgn,Series] * (ln (alp[Rgn,Series]) + ln (Mu[Rgn,Series])),0) Units: dmnl

219. NBLLFlow[Rgn,Series] = (NBL1[Rgn,Series] + NBL2[Rgn,Series]) * FlowToInclude[Series] * DataIncluded[Rgn] Units: dmnl

220. Negative Test Results[Rgn] = Testing on Living[Rgn] - Positive Tests of Infected[Rgn] Units: Person/Day

221. New Cases[Rgn] = Infection Rate[Rgn] Units: Person/Day

222. New Testing Time = 250 Units: Day

223. Nominal Hospital Capacity[Rgn] = INITIAL(Initial Population[Rgn] * Beds per Thousand Population[Rgn] / 1000) Units: Person

224. Normalized Hospital density[Rgn] = INITIAL(Bed per Square Kilometer[Rgn] / Reference Hospital Density) Units: dmnl

225. Not too few susceptibles = sum (if then else (SuscFrac[Rgn!] < MinSuscTresh, 1, 0)) Units: dmnl

226. Obesity Impact on Fatality[Rgn] = INITIAL((Obesity Rates[Rgn] / MeanObesity) ^ Sens Obesity Impact Net[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

227. Obesity Rates[Rgn] = GET VDF CONSTANTS(Constant Data File, ‘DataConstants[Rgn]’, 16) Units: dmnl

228. Onset of Symptoms[Rgn] = DELAY N (Infection Rate[Rgn], Incubation Period, 0, Delay Order) Units: Person/Day

229. Onset to Detection Delay = 5 Units: Day

230. Overall Death Fraction[Rgn] = ZIDZ (Death Rate[Rgn], All Recovery[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

231. Patient Zero Arrival[Rgn] = if then else (Time < Patient Zero Arrival Time[Rgn] :AND: Time + TIME STEP >= Patient Zero Arrival Time[Rgn], PatientZero / TIME STEP, 0) Units: Person/Day

232. Patient Zero Arrival Time[Rgn] = 1 Units: Day

233. PatientZero = 1 Units: Person

234. payoff = 0 Units: dmnl

235. pdim: tstP,dfcP,dgtP,scuP

236. Perceived Hazard of Infection[Rgn] = (Weight on Reported Probability of Infection[Rgn] * Reported Hazard of Infection[Rgn] + (1 - Weight on Reported Probability of Infection[Rgn]) * Hazard of Symptomatic Infection[Rgn]) Units: 1/Day

237. Perceived Risk of Life Loss[Rgn] = INTEG((Indicated Risk of Life Loss[Rgn] - Perceived Risk of Life Loss[Rgn]) / if then else (Indicated Risk of Life Loss[Rgn] > Perceived Risk of Life Loss[Rgn], Time to Upgrade Risk[Rgn], Time to Downgrade Risk Net[Rgn]), 0) Units: dmnl

238. PG1: PG

239. PMAS Confirmed for Hospital Demand[Rgn] = (1 - Reference COVID Hospitalization Fraction Confirmed[Rgn]) ^ (1 / Average Acuity of Positively Tested[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

240. PMAS Unconfirmed for Hospital Demand[Rgn] = PMAS Confirmed for Hospital Demand[Rgn] + (1 - PMAS Confirmed for Hospital Demand[Rgn]) * Untested PMAS Gap with Tested[Rgn] Units: dmnl

241. “Poisson Not-tested Asymptomatic”[Rgn] = Infectious not Tested or in Hospitals Poisson[Rgn] * exp (- Average Acuity Not Hospitalized Poisson[Rgn,Notest]) Units: Person

242. Poisson Subset Not Tested Passing Gate[Rgn] = Poisson Subset Reaching Test Gate[Rgn] - Positive Tests of Infected[Rgn] Units: Person/Day

243. Poisson Subset Reaching Test Gate[Rgn] = Reaching Testing Gate[Rgn] / (1 + Additional Asymptomatic Relative to Symptomatic[Rgn]) Units: Person/Day

244. Policy Test Rate[Rgn] = if then else (Time < New Testing Time, Current Test Rate per Capita[Rgn], Final Test Rate Per Capita[Rgn]) Units: 1/Day

245. Population[Rgn] = Infected pre Detection[Rgn] + “Infected Unconfirmed Post-Detection”[Rgn] + Susceptible[Rgn] + Recovered Unconfirmed[Rgn] + Confirmed Recovered[Rgn] + Infectious Confirmed Not Hospitalized[Rgn] + “Pre-Symptomatic Infected”[Rgn] + sum (Hospitalized Infectious[Rgn,TstSts!]) + sum (Cumulative Recovered at Hospitals[Rgn,TstSts!]) Units: Person

246. Positive Candidates Interested in Testing Poisson Subset[Rgn] = Poisson Subset Reaching Test Gate[Rgn] * Fraction Seeking Test[Rgn] Units: Person/Day

247. Positive Candidates Interested in Testing Poisson Subset Adj[Rgn] = Max (0.001 * Potential Test Demand from Susceptible Population[Rgn], Positive Candidates Interested in Testing Poisson Subset[Rgn]) Units: Person/Day

248. Positive Testing of Infected Untreated[Rgn] = Positive Tests of Infected[Rgn] * Fraction Poisson not Hospitalized[Rgn,Tested] Units: Person/Day

249. Positive Tests of Infected[Rgn] = Positive Candidates Interested in Testing Poisson Subset[Rgn] * (1 - Fraction Interseted not Correctly Tested[Rgn]) Units: Person/Day

250. Post Mortem Test Delay = 1 Units: Day

251. Post Mortem Test Rate[Rgn] = Post Mortem Tests Total[Rgn] * Sensitivity of COVID Test Units: Person/Day

252. Post Mortem Test Untreated[Rgn] = Post Mortem Test Rate[Rgn] * Frac Post Mortem from Untreated[Rgn] Units: Person/Day

253. Post Mortem Testing Need[Rgn] = SMOOTHI ((Deaths of Symptomatic Untested[Rgn] + Hospitalized Infectious Deaths[Rgn,Notest]) * Fraction of Fatalities Screened Post Mortem[Rgn], Post Mortem Test Delay, 0) Units: Person/Day

254. Post Mortem Tests Total[Rgn] = min (Post Mortem Testing Need[Rgn], Active Test Rate[Rgn]) Units: Person/Day

255. “Post-Detection Phase Resolution Time” = 10 Units: Day

256. PostMortemCorrection[Rgn] = min (Hospitalized Infectious[Rgn,Notest] / MinAdjT, Post Mortem Test Rate[Rgn] * (1 - Frac Post Mortem from Untreated[Rgn])) Units: Person/Day

257. Potential Hospital Demand[Rgn,Notest] = Hospital Demand from Not Tested[Rgn]

258. Potential Hospital Demand[Rgn,Tested] = Hospital Demand from Tested[Rgn] Units: Person/Day

259. Potential Test Demand from Susceptible Population[Rgn] = (Susceptible[Rgn] + Recovered Unconfirmed[Rgn] + Cumulative Recovered at Hospitals[Rgn,Notest]) * (Baseline Daily Fraction Susceptible Seeking Tests[Rgn] * Fraction Seeking Test[Rgn] + Multiplier Recent Infections to Test[Rgn] / Population[Rgn] * Recent Detected Infections[Rgn]) Units: Person/Day

260. “Pre-Symptomatic Infected”[Rgn] = INTEG(Infection Rate[Rgn] + Patient Zero Arrival[Rgn] - Onset of Symptoms[Rgn], 0) Units: Person

261. PriorEndoAve: UpAdj,DwnAdj,RFI,RfSkTs,WRpPIn,MInfTs,MnCnFrc,SnCnRdUt,CfImCn,ImPDnHs,ImTrFt,DrdFac,MxHsFr,BsFtRt,SnsWt h,Acty,SnFtAc,TtAsyFr,ObsImp,ChrImp,LivImp,MTrAsym

262. PriorErrs[Rgn,Priors] = INITIAL(ZIDZ (ActiveAve[Priors] - RegionalInputs[Priors,Rgn], AbsStd[Priors]) ^ 2 / 2)

263. PriorGen: BsFtRt,SnsWth,Acty,SnFtAc,TtAsyFr,ObsImp,ChrImp,LivImp,MTrAsym

264. Priors :UpAdj,DwnAdj,RFI,PMT,RfSkTs,WRpPIn,MInfTs,MnCnFrc,SnCnRdUt,CfImCn,ImPDnHs,ImTrFt,DrdFac,MxHsFr,BsFtRt,S nsWth,Acty,SnFtAc,TtAsyFr,ObsImp,ChrImp,LivImp,MTrAsym

265. Prob Missing Symptom[Rgn] = Max (0, ln (Y[Rgn]) / Flu Acuity + 1) Units: dmnl

266. Probability of Missing Acuity Signal at Hospitals[Rgn,Tested] = ZIDZ (ln (Max (1e-06, 1 - ZIDZ (Hospital Admits All[Rgn,Tested], Positive Tests of Infected[Rgn]))), Average Acuity of Positively Tested[Rgn]) + 1

267. Probability of Missing Acuity Signal at Hospitals[Rgn,Notest] = ZIDZ (ln (Max (1e-06, 1 - ZIDZ (Hospital Admits All[Rgn,Notest], Poisson Subset Not Tested Passing Gate[Rgn]))), Average Acuity of Untested Poisson Subset[Rgn]) + 1 Units: dmnl

268. PseudoCFR Units: dmnl

269. R Effective Reproduction Rate[Rgn] = ZIDZ (Infection Rate[Rgn], Total Weighted Infected Population[Rgn]) * Total Disease Duration Units: dmnl

270. Reaching Testing Gate[Rgn] = Infected pre Detection[Rgn] / Onset to Detection Delay Units: Person/Day

271. Realistic R0 = sum (if then else (R Effective Reproduction Rate[Rgn!] > MaxRTresh, 1, 0)) Units: dmnl

272. Recent Detected Infections[Rgn] = SMOOTHI (Positive Tests of Infected[Rgn], Time to Respond with Tests, 0) Units: Person/Day

273. Recovered Unconfirmed[Rgn] = INTEG(Recovery of Untested[Rgn], 0) Units: Person

274. Recovery of Confirmed[Rgn] = Tested Untreated Resolution[Rgn] * (1 - Fatality Rate Untreated[Rgn,Tested]) Units: Person/Day

275. Recovery of Untested[Rgn] = (“Infected Unconfirmed Post-Detection”[Rgn] / “Post-Detection Phase Resolution Time”) - Deaths of Symptomatic Untested[Rgn] Units: Person/Day

276. Reference COVID Hospitalization Fraction Confirmed[Rgn] = 0.7 Units: dmnl

277. Reference Force of Infection[Rgn] = 0.6 Units: 1/Day

278. Reference Hospital Density = 6.06 Units: Person/(Km*Km)

279. RegionalInputs[UpAdj,Rgn] = Log (Time to Upgrade Risk[Rgn], 10)

280. RegionalInputs[DwnAdj,Rgn] = Log (Time to Downgrade Risk[Rgn], 10)

281. RegionalInputs[RFI,Rgn] = Reference Force of Infection[Rgn]

282. RegionalInputs[PMT,Rgn] = Sensitivity Post Mortem Testing to Capacity[Rgn]

283. RegionalInputs[RfSkTs,Rgn] = Baseline Daily Fraction Susceptible Seeking Tests[Rgn]

284. RegionalInputs[WRpPIn,Rgn] = Weight on Reported Probability of Infection[Rgn]

285. RegionalInputs[MInfTs,Rgn] = Multiplier Recent Infections to Test[Rgn]

286. RegionalInputs[MnCnFrc,Rgn] = Min Contact Fraction[Rgn]

287. RegionalInputs[SnCnRdUt,Rgn] = Sensitivity of Contact Reduction to Utility[Rgn]

288. RegionalInputs[CfImCn,Rgn] = Confirmation Impact on Contact[Rgn]

289. RegionalInputs[ImPDnHs,Rgn] = Impact of Population Density on Hospital Availability[Rgn]

290. RegionalInputs[ImTrFt,Rgn] = Impact of Treatment on Fatality Rate[Rgn]

291. RegionalInputs[DrdFac,Rgn] = Log (Dread Factor in Risk Perception[Rgn], 10)

292. RegionalInputs[MxHsFr,Rgn] = Reference COVID Hospitalization Fraction Confirmed[Rgn]

293. RegionalInputs[BsFtRt,Rgn] = Base Fatality Rate for Unit Acuity Net[Rgn]

294. RegionalInputs[SnsWth,Rgn] = Sensitivity to Weather Net[Rgn]

295. RegionalInputs[Acty,Rgn] = Covid Acuity Relative to Flu Net[Rgn]

296. RegionalInputs[SnFtAc,Rgn] = Sensitivity of Fatality Rate to Acuity Net[Rgn]

297. RegionalInputs[TtAsyFr,Rgn] = Total Asymptomatic Fraction Net[Rgn]

298. RegionalInputs[ObsImp,Rgn] = Sens Obesity Impact Net[Rgn]

299. RegionalInputs[ChrImp,Rgn] = Sens Chronic Impact Net[Rgn]

300. RegionalInputs[LivImp,Rgn] = Sens Liver Impact Net[Rgn]

301. RegionalInputs[MTrAsym,Rgn] = Multiplier Transmission Risk for Asymptomatic Net[Rgn]

302. Relative Risk of Transmission by Hospitalized = 1 Units: dmnl

303. Relative Risk of Transmission by Presymptomatic = 1 Units: dmnl

304. Reported Hazard of Infection[Rgn] = Positive Tests of Infected[Rgn] / Susceptible[Rgn] Units: 1/Day

305. Response Policy Time On = 1000 Units: Day

306. Response Policy Weight[pdim] = 0 Units: dmnl

307. Rgn :Albania,Argentina,Armenia,Australia,Austria,Azerbaijan,Bahrain,Bangladesh,Belarus,Belgium,Bolivia,Bosnia,Bulgaria,Canada,Chil e,Colombia,CostaRica,Croatia,Cuba,CzechRepublic,Denmark,Ecuador,ElSalvador,Estonia,Ethiopia,Finland,France,Germany,Gh ana,Greece,Hungary,Iceland,India,Indonesia,Iran,Ireland,Israel,Italy,Japan,Kazakhstan,Kenya,Kuwait,Kyrgyzstan,Latvia,Lithuani a,Luxembourg,Malaysia,Maldives,Mexico,Morocco,Nepal,Netherlands,NewZealand,Nigeria,NorthMacedonia,Norway,Pakistan,P anama,Paraguay,Peru,Philippines

308. ,Poland,Portugal,Qatar,Romania,Russia,SaudiArabia,Senegal,Serbia,Singapore,Slovakia,Slovenia,SouthAfrica,SouthKorea,Spain,S weden,Switzerland,Thailand,Tunisia,Turkey,UAE,UK,Ukraine,USA

309. Rgn1: Rgn

310. SAVEPER = 1 Units: Day

311. Sens Chronic Impact = 1e-06 Units: dmnl

312. Sens Chronic Impact Net[Rgn] = INITIAL(Sens Chronic Impact * (1 - SW Gen[ChrImp]) + SW Gen[ChrImp] * InputAve[ChrImp]) Units: dmnl

313. Sens Liver Impact = 1e-06 Units: dmnl

314. Sens Liver Impact Net[Rgn] = INITIAL(Sens Liver Impact * (1 - SW Gen[LivImp]) + SW Gen[LivImp] * InputAve[LivImp]) Units: dmnl

315. Sens Obesity Impact = 1e-06 Units: dmnl

316. Sens Obesity Impact Net[Rgn] = INITIAL(Sens Obesity Impact * (1 - SW Gen[ObsImp]) + SW Gen[ObsImp] * InputAve[ObsImp]) Units: dmnl

317. SensCovidUntestedAdmission = 1 Units: dmnl

318. Sensitivity of Contact Reduction to Utility[Rgn] = 15 Units: dmnl

319. Sensitivity of Contact Reduction to Utility Net[Rgn] = if then else (Response Policy Time On < Time, Sensitivity of Contact Reduction to Utility Policy * Response Policy Weight[scuP] + (1 - Response Policy Weight[scuP]) * Sensitivity of Contact Reduction to Utility[Rgn], Sensitivity of Contact Reduction to Utility[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

320. Sensitivity of Contact Reduction to Utility Policy = 10 Units: dmnl

321. Sensitivity of COVID Test = 0.7 Units: dmnl

322. Sensitivity of Fatality Rate to Acuity[Rgn] = 2 Units: dmnl

323. Sensitivity of Fatality Rate to Acuity Net[Rgn] = INITIAL(Sensitivity of Fatality Rate to Acuity[Rgn] * (1 - SW Gen[SnFtAc]) + SW Gen[SnFtAc] * InputAve[SnFtAc]) Units: dmnl

324. Sensitivity Post Mortem Testing to Capacity[Rgn] = 1 Units: dmnl

325. Sensitivity to Weather = 0.76 Units: dmnl

326. Sensitivity to Weather Net[Rgn] = INITIAL(Sensitivity to Weather * (1 - SW Gen[SnsWth]) + SW Gen[SnsWth] * InputAve[SnsWth]) Units: dmnl

327. Series: Infection,Death,Test

328. SeriesErrorTerm[Rgn,Series] = if then else (DataCmltOverTime[Rgn,Series] = :NA:, 0, (abs (DataCmltOverTime[Rgn,Series] - SimCmltOverTime[Rgn,Series])) ^ CmltErrPW) / (BaseError + DataCmltOverTime[Rgn,Series]) * CmltPenaltyScl * CmltToInclude[Series] * DataIncluded[Rgn] Units: dmnl

329. Sim Pseudo Case Fatality[Rgn] = ZIDZ (Cumulative Deaths of Confirmed[Rgn], Cumulative Confirmed Cases[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

330. SimCmltOverTime[Rgn,Infection] = Cumulative Confirmed Cases[Rgn]

331. SimCmltOverTime[Rgn,Death] = Cumulative Deaths of Confirmed[Rgn]

332. SimCmltOverTime[Rgn,Test] = Cumulative Tests Conducted[Rgn] Units: Person

333. SimFlowOverTime[Rgn,Infection] = Post Mortem Test Rate[Rgn] + Positive Tests of Infected[Rgn]

334. SimFlowOverTime[Rgn,Death] = Post Mortem Test Rate[Rgn] + Deaths of Confirmed[Rgn] + Hospitalized Infectious Deaths[Rgn,Tested]

335. SimFlowOverTime[Rgn,Test] = Total Simulated Tests[Rgn] Units: Person/Day

336. SimTestRate[Rgn] = Total Simulated Tests[Rgn] Units: Person/Day

337. SqrdErr[Rgn,Series] = if then else (FlowResiduals[Rgn,Series] = :NA:, :NA:, FlowResiduals[Rgn,Series] ^ 2) Units: Person*Person/(Day*Day)

338. Susceptible[Rgn] = INTEG(- Infection Rate[Rgn], Initial Population[Rgn]) Units: Person

339. SuscFrac[Rgn] = Susceptible[Rgn] / Population[Rgn] Units: dmnl

340. SW EndoAve = INITIAL(if then else (ELMCOUNT(Rgn) > 1, 1, 0)) Units: dmnl

341. SW Gen[PriorGen] = 0 Units: dmnl

342. Switch for Government Response[Rgn] = if then else (Time > Government Response Start Time[Rgn], 1, 0) Units: dmnl

343. Symptomatic Fraction in Poisson[Rgn] = INITIAL(1 - exp (- Covid Acuity[Rgn])) Units: dmnl

344. Symptomatic Fraction Negative[Rgn] = INITIAL(1 - exp (- Flu Acuity)) Units: dmnl

345. Symptomatic Infected to Testing[Rgn] = Positive Testing of Infected Untreated[Rgn] + Hospital Admission Infectious[Rgn,Tested] Units: Person/Day

346. 346) t3[Rgn] = (−9 * b[Rgn] + 1.7321 * Sqrt (4 * a[Rgn] ^ 3 + 27 * b[Rgn] ^ 2)) ^ (1 / 3) Units: dmnl

347. talp = 5 Units: dmnl

348. Tested Untreated Resolution[Rgn] = Infectious Confirmed Not Hospitalized[Rgn] / “Post-Detection Phase Resolution Time” Units: Person/Day

349. TestErrorFrac = 0.0001 Units: dmnl

350. TestFlowErr[Rgn] = ((DataFlowOverTime[Rgn,Test] - SimFlowOverTime[Rgn,Test]) * WTestFlowErr[Rgn]) ^ 2 Units: dmnl

351. Testing Capacity Net of Post Mortem Tests[Rgn] = Active Test Rate[Rgn] - Post Mortem Tests Total[Rgn] Units: Person/Day

352. Testing Demand[Rgn] = Positive Candidates Interested in Testing Poisson Subset[Rgn] * Symptomatic Fraction in Poisson[Rgn] + Potential Test Demand from Susceptible Population[Rgn] * Symptomatic Fraction Negative[Rgn] Units: Person/Day

353. Testing on Living[Rgn] = min (Testing Capacity Net of Post Mortem Tests[Rgn], Testing Demand[Rgn]) Units: Person/Day

354. Tests on Negative Patients[Rgn] = Testing on Living[Rgn] * ZIDZ (Indicated fraction negative demand tested[Rgn] * Potential Test Demand from Susceptible Population[Rgn], Indicated fraction negative demand tested[Rgn] * Potential Test Demand from Susceptible Population[Rgn] + Indicated fraction positive demand tested[Rgn] * Positive Candidates Interested in Testing Poisson Subset[Rgn]) Units: Person/Day

355. Tests Per Million[Rgn] = Cumulative Tests Data[Rgn] / Initial Population[Rgn] * 1e+06 Units: dmnl

356. ThrsInc[Rgn] = Max (FracThresh * MaxData[Rgn], 50) Units: Person

357. TIME STEP = 0.25 Units: Day

358. Time to Adjust Testing = 30 Units: Day

359. Time to Downgrade Risk[Rgn] = 60 Units: Day

360. Time to Downgrade Risk Net[Rgn] = if then else (Response Policy Time On < Time, Time to Downgrade Risk Policy * Response Policy Weight[dgtP] + (1 - Response Policy Weight[dgtP]) * Time to Downgrade Risk[Rgn], Time to Downgrade Risk[Rgn]) Units: Day

361. Time to Downgrade Risk Policy = 300 Units: Day

362. Time to Herd Immunity[Rgn] = XIDZ (Herd Immunity Fraction * Susceptible[Rgn], Total Weighted Infected Population[Rgn] / Total Disease Duration, 0) Units: Day

363. Time to Respond with Tests = 5 Units: Day

364. Time to Upgrade Risk[Rgn] = 10 Units: Day

365. Total Asymptomatic Fraction[Rgn] = 0.5 Units: dmnl

366. Total Asymptomatic Fraction Net[Rgn] = INITIAL(Total Asymptomatic Fraction[Rgn] * (1 - SW Gen[TtAsyFr]) + SW Gen[TtAsyFr] * InputAve[TtAsyFr]) Units: dmnl

367. Total Covid Hospitalized[Rgn] = sum (Hospitalized Infectious[Rgn,TstSts!]) Units: Person

368. Total Disease Duration = Onset to Detection Delay + “Post-Detection Phase Resolution Time” + Incubation Period Units: Day

369. Total Simulated Tests[Rgn] = Post Mortem Tests Total[Rgn] + Testing on Living[Rgn] Units: Person/Day

370. Total Test on Covid Patients[Rgn] = Max (0, min (Positive Candidates Interested in Testing Poisson Subset[Rgn], Testing on Living[Rgn] - Tests on Negative Patients[Rgn])) Units: Person/Day

371. Total to Official Cases Simulated[Rgn] = ZIDZ (Cumulative Cases[Rgn], SimCmltOverTime[Rgn,Infection]) Units: dmnl

372. Total Weighted Infected Population[Rgn] = Infected pre Detection[Rgn] + “Pre-Symptomatic Infected”[Rgn] + Weighted Infected Post Detection Gate[Rgn] Units: Person

373. Transmission Multiplier for Confirmed[Rgn] = INITIAL(Baseline Transmission Multiplier for Untested Symptomatic * Confirmation Impact on Contact[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

374. Transmission Multiplier for Hospitalized[Rgn,TstSts] = INITIAL(Baseline Transmission Multiplier for Untested Symptomatic * Relative Risk of Transmission by Hospitalized * if then else (TstSts = 1, Confirmation Impact on Contact[Rgn], 1)) Units: dmnl

375. Transmission Multiplier Pre Detection[Rgn] = INITIAL(Baseline Transmission Multiplier for Untested Symptomatic * (1 - Total Asymptomatic Fraction Net[Rgn]) + Total Asymptomatic Fraction Net[Rgn] * Baseline Risk of Transmission by Asymptomatic[Rgn]) Units: dmnl

376. Transmission Multiplier Presymptomatic[Rgn] = INITIAL((Baseline Transmission Multiplier for Untested Symptomatic * Relative Risk of Transmission by Presymptomatic) * (1 - Total Asymptomatic Fraction Net[Rgn]) + Total Asymptomatic Fraction Net[Rgn] * Baseline Risk of Transmission by Asymptomatic[Rgn] * Relative Risk of Transmission by Presymptomatic) Units: dmnl

377. TstInc[Rgn] = Active Test Rate[Rgn] Units: Person/Day

378. TstSts: Tested,Notest

379. Untested PMAS Gap with Tested[Rgn] = (1 - Allocated Fration NonCOVID Hospitalized[Rgn]) ^ SensCovidUntestedAdmission Units: dmnl

380. Untested symptomatic Infected to Hospital[Rgn] = Hospital Admission Infectious[Rgn,Notest] Units: Person/Day

381. Utility from Limited Activities[Rgn] = exp (Sensitivity of Contact Reduction to Utility Net[Rgn] * Fractional Value of Limited Activities) Units: dmnl

382. Utility from Normal Activities[Rgn] = exp (Sensitivity of Contact Reduction to Utility Net[Rgn] * (1 - Perceived Risk of Life Loss[Rgn])) Units: dmnl

383. Voluntary Reduction in Contacts[Rgn] = F[Rgn] / F0[Rgn] * (1 - Min Contact Fraction[Rgn]) + Min Contact Fraction[Rgn] Units: dmnl

384. W Ave Acuity Hospitalized[Rgn] = ZIDZ (sum (Average Acuity Hospitalized[Rgn,TstSts!] * Hospitalized Infectious[Rgn,TstSts!]), sum (Hospitalized Infectious[Rgn,TstSts!])) Units: dmnl

385. Weather Effect on Transmission[Rgn] = CRW[Rgn] ^ Sensitivity to Weather Net[Rgn] Units: dmnl

386. Weight Max in Test Goal = 0 Units: dmnl

387. Weight on Reported Probability of Infection[Rgn] = 0.78 Units: dmnl

388. Weighted Infected Post Detection Gate[Rgn] = “Infected Unconfirmed Post-Detection”[Rgn] + Infectious Confirmed Not Hospitalized[Rgn] + sum (Hospitalized Infectious[Rgn,TstSts!]) * “Post-Detection Phase Resolution Time” / Hospitalized Resolution Time Units: Person

389. WTestFlowErr[Rgn] = if then else (DataFlowOverTime[Rgn,Test] = :NA:, 0, 1 / Max (10, DataFlowOverTime[Rgn,Test] * TestErrorFrac)) Units: Day/Person

390. Y[Rgn] = min (1, Max (1e-06, 1 - exp (- Extrapolated Estimator[Rgn]))) Units: dmnl

391. Ymix[Rgn,p2] = - b[Rgn] / (1 + a[Rgn])

392. Ymix[Rgn,p3] = (Sqrt (a[Rgn] ^ 2 - 4 * b[Rgn]) - a[Rgn]) / 2

393. Ymix[Rgn,p4] = (−0.87358 * a[Rgn]) / t3[Rgn] + 0.38157 * t3[Rgn] Units: dmnl