SARS-CoV-2 infection dynamics in Denmark, February through October 2020: Nature of the past epidemic and how it may develop in the future

A. Main data source

To inform, test and validate our simulation we use the available data for the total hospital H_tot and ICU occupations, as well as non-hospital and total death toll numbers from the onset of the Danish epidemic through August 2020 that are published daily by SSI, Statens Serum Institut (SSI) [54], the Danish national center for disease control. The time-series of these data are shown in Fig 1.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Daily total hospital H_tot (which includes ICU) and ICU occupation data, as well as total deaths updated daily and non-hospital (mainly eldercare facilities) deaths updated weekly from March 9 to August 31, 2020 [54].

We use additional data from SSI. These include the initial influx of newly infected individuals into Denmark in February 2020, recall discussion in previous section. We also use hospital admission data and the daily number of PCR positive individuals from both outside and inside of the hospital system, that are used to estimate the so-called daily transmission contact number, also called “contact number”, ℛ_t [54]. The ℛ_ts measure the current changes in the infection trend and thus allow us to better understand the detailed (micro) properties of the empirical data after the initial infection peak.

It should be noted that SSI has modified minor details in the COVID-19 data multiple times during the period February through August 2020. However, these small changes have not had any measurable impact on our investigations or conclusions. All data are shown and further discussed in Appendix A.

B. Asymptomatic versus symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 positive persons

Several publications have investigated the infectious potential of COVID-19 positive individuals and the ratio between asymptomatic persons and symptomatic patients. Of the 567 elderly SARS-CoV-2 positive passengers on the cruise ship Diamond Princess (median age 68 years), 46.5% were asymptomatic [35][51]. The young staff (median age 30 years) of the USS Navy carrier Theodore Roosevelt arriving in Guam was infected with COVID-19 and of the 382 surveyed service members 81.5% reported one or more symptoms whereas 18.5% were asymptomatic [31]. The passengers and staff of a cruise ship departing from Ushuaia, Argentina on a 3 week cruise to Antarctic were infected with COVID-19, of which 128 passengers and crew tested positive for COVID-19. Only 19% were symptomatic whereas 81% were asymptomatic [21]. Based on these three carefully observed groups of patients, the percentage of symptomatic persons ranges from 19 to 81.5%. The percentage of asymptomatic persons ranges from 18.5 to 81% between these 3 groups. A meta-analysis estimated that about 40% of children are asymptomatic [56]. Obviously, there is a grey zone between asymptomatic and symptomatic infected where some authors differentiate asymptomatic and weakly symptomatic while others join these two groups into one class of asymptomatic and only view more severely symptomatic as being symptomatic.

Further, SARS-CoV-2 positive persons in the last part of their incubation time, before they turn symptomatic (thus still being pre-symptomatic), have been shown to harbor the same level of virus RNA in saliva and nasopharyngeal secretions as symptomatic COVID-19 patients and therefore are assumed to be nearly as infectious as symptomatic patients [36][29][13][47][7][25]. Note that this is not the case for incubating persons that later turn asymptomatic.

The mortality of COVID-19 is calculated in two ways: A Case Fatality Rate (CFR) which is the proportion of deaths from COVID-19 compared to the total number of individuals diagnosed with the disease for a particular period. The mortality is also calculated as Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) which is the proportion of deaths among all infected individuals, including symptomatic and asymptomatic and undiagnosed subjects (e.g. based on sero-prevalence studies).

C. Immunological memory

During COVID-19 infection an antibody response develops which involves IgM, IgG and IgA. At least 91 commercial antibody tests have been designed mostly using quantitative ELISA- or qualitative Rapid lateral flow immunoassays [42]. Nearly all patients have developed IgM, IgG and IgA antibodies 3 weeks after onset of the infection [50][55][46][8]. In one study of 70 Chinese patients, virus neutralizing antibodies correlated with antibodies measured by ELISA test [48], but in a study of 62 European patients only 66% developed protective antibodies as determined by virus neutralization tests [22]. The duration of the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 is not yet known, but the experience from the related SARS-CoV infected patients is, that 94% of the patients still had detectable IgG antibodies after 1 year and 50-74% of the patients after 4 years [23][26]. After mild or asymptomatic MERS CoV infection, antibodies were either limited or rapidly declined within 3 months whereas the antibody response in severe infections would last for 2-3 years [23]. Preliminary results and calculations from China indicate similar dynamics of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody response [45][49].

A. Infection parameters and relative frequency of symptomatic and asymptomatic infected

With ρ_s we express the relative frequency by which an individual moves from the incubation state to the symptomatic state, while ρ_a = 1 – ρ_s expresses the frequency of movement to the asymptomatic state. We may now define the relation between the infection parameters β_i, β_a, β_s in the SEIRS model as follows: assuming that β_i and β_a can both be defined relative to β_s and 0 < ζ ≤ 1.0 since we assume the asymptomatic are always less infectious than the symptomatic infected. The value of β_i in Eq. (4) is defined as the weighted sum of individuals that eventually become symptomatic and asymptomatic respectively, and where τ may be viewed as the fraction of the incubation time they are infectious. If we e.g. assume the incubating individuals are infectious the last 1.5 days (0.3) of the average 5 day incubation time [25] we get We may use clinical data to estimate a reasonable ζ value. Clinical investigations indicate the viral load in saliva from symptomatic and asymptomatic is comparable and that the peak viral load in saliva is found the last day of the incubation time [36] [29] [13] [47] [25]. Symptomatic children and adults have the same amount of SARS-CoV-2 in the upper respiratory tract [3].

From [28] it is further assumed that the relative infectiousness for the last day of pre-symptomatic (incubated that turns symptomatic) can be set to 1.00, while the average of the severe symptomatic, the weak symptomatic and the asymptomatic can be set to 0.89, 0.44 and 0.11 respectively during their infection time. In our study we do not distinguish between weak symptomatic and asymptomatic so the corresponding numbers for our model are 1.00, 0.89 and ((0.44+0.11)/2 = 0.275). We can now adjust Eqs. (3) and (4) so that they satisfy these relative infectiousness numbers where β_s and ρ_s are defined as earlier, and we assume an incubation time of 5 days. Eqs (7) - (9) are use in the simulations. Note that Eq. (9) can be rewritten as so it has the same form as Eq. (6) with the insertion of an extra factor δ = 1.0356 so that Eq. (9a) is identical to Eq. (9) for standard parameters, recall Table I. The main difference between this infection model and the simpler infection model given by Eqs. (3) - (6) is a slightly higher level of relative infectiousness for the incubating population for standard parameters. Simulation experiments with both types of infection models convinced us that we could obtain better fits with data if we adopt a higher weight to the incubating population. This is particularly clear when investigating the shape of the initial infection peak in the hospital data.

As neither the proportionality factor ζ between β_s and β_a nor the frequency ρ_s of symptomatic versus asymptomatic in Eqs. (4) and (9) are well known (October 2020), the initial part of this work is to explore the epidemiological impact of the relationship between ζ, β_s, β_a and β_i as well as ξ_s, ξ_a and ρ_s under different assumptions. Note that both infection models Eqs. (3) - (6) and Eqs. (7) - (9) assume a free epidemic. Policy interventions may be implemented by modifying the appropriate β parameters.

A. ℛ₀ for the SEIRS model

The basic reproduction number ℛ₀ can be derived from our SEIRS model system, recall Eqs. (1), and is given below. See Appendix D for details. Here β_x is the average infection parameter for each of the infected subpopulations, I_x, γ_x is one divided with the average infection period for each of the infected sub-populations and ρ_s is the fraction of incubating that becomes symptomatic. In the following sections we shall, when appropriate, estimate the numerical value for ℛ₀ during the different stages of the Danish epidemic.

B. Lockdown and re-opening of the country

The first documented COVID-19 infected arrived in Denmark in late February. On March 11, 2020 the Danish Prime minister announced that the country would be closing down in the following days, which meant that all non-essential professional activities would be shut down, social distancing (2 meters) and enhanced hand sanitation were imposed, only essential shopping was recommended (food and pharmacy), at most 10 individuals were allowed to gather at the same time, movement between different parts of the country was discouraged, international borders were closed, but face masks were not made mandatory. Further, any symptomatic individual with influenza-like symptoms were highly encouraged to self-isolate and seek medical advice and everybody who had been in contact with an infected were also highly encouraged to self-isolate.

We model the closedown process of the country as a sigmoid function for the infection parameters β_s, β_a, and β_i over a period of approximately 7 days. For all β_x, x = s, a, i, as defined in Eqs. (3) - (9) we get where ω defines the steepness of the sigmoid function, t₀ the middle of the approximately 7 days lockdown process, and d_s, d_a, and d_i the infection parameters for β_s, β_a, and β_i immediately after country shut down. Once it was realized that Denmark had been hit by the COVID-19 pandemic, all individuals with flu-like symptoms were highly encoraged to self-isolate, so in the following we assume β_s remains at the low level ∼ 1% of the free pandemic value, both during lockdown and after the country reopens.

We model the reopening of the country in a manner similar to the closedown process, i.e. by increasing β_a and β_i following the dates where the national reopening policies change. The reopening starts April 20 with the reopening of schools for the youngest kids (K-5) together with a number of small businesses including dentists, hairdressers and other businesses where services are rendered and where close physical proximity between a provider and a costumer is necessary. Later reopening activities were implemented May 7, 20, June 8, and August 14, 2020 [33].

We chose to model the reopening process as a slow (linear) increase of β_a and β_i over that interval. Thus, at time date₁ April 20, 2020, when the country starts reopening activities to date₂, June 8, 2020, a slow linear increase in β_y, y = i, a occurs as defined below: At time date₂, June 8, 2020, this linear increase levels off and becomes flat with a constant value. For the second reopening, August 14 - 31, 2020, a linear increase is again similarly defined leading to a constant using the August 31, 2020 value.

A graphical depiction of the reopening dynamics as expressed in Eqs. (11) and (12) is shown in Fig. 3.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3:

The middle of the governmental lockdown process of the country occurs approximately March 16, 2020, 20 days after the arrival of the initial group of COVID-19 infected. The lockdown is modeled by a sigmoid function with the inflection point at the middle of the process, see Eq. (11) and text for details. Successive governmental interventions that gradually reopen the country are approximated as a linear ramp starting April 20 and leveling off to a constant level June 8, 2020. The last reopening, August 14 - 31, 2020, is handled similarly, see Eqs. (11) and (12) and text for details.

C. Monte Carlo optimization of parameters

We may adjust the β parameters in Eqs. (1) and (2) manually while at the same time ensuring that the scale of the infection fits the data by adjusting ρ_s that determines the relative sizes of the symptomatic and asymptomatic populations. From the national serological test conducted in May 2020, the estimated number of recovered individuals is reported to be about 1.3% of the population (May 28, 2020) although this study only includes individuals of age 18 or above.

The advantage of such an approach is that after some time experimenting with the simulation, the experimenter obtains an intuitive understanding of how the simulation reacts to parameter changes and minor parameter adjustments can be made iteratively.

Alternatively, we may use a Monte Carlo method (MC) to randomly choose the parameter combinations from a uniform distribution in given intervals in a given scenario. This is done until a desired minimum value of the sum of squared differences (LS) between the daily reported data for total Danish hospital occupations and the same data generated in the corresponding simulation is achieved. For more details, see Appendix C.

Using the MC-LS method we initially need to ensure the optimization process takes into account the appropriate scale of the outbreak that can be obtained by adjusting ρ_s. Thus we start the formal parameter optimization by initially looping over slightly different ρ_s and different and values followed by a two-step MC-LS process:

1. In the first step we optimize the β⁰’s at the onset of the outbreak using the infection model given in Eqs. (7) - (9) and optimize for the period February 24 - April 20, 2020. We assume the lockdown of the outbreak value once the lockdown in a place, as virtually all symptomatic individuals are isolated. We can now optimize for (as well as and ) in the free outbreak and lockdown period from February 24 to April 20 for different fixed (and ) values, where each optimization yields a slightly different : The lower (and ), the higher .

2. In the second step we optimize two parameters simultaneously, and (as well as nd ) from April 20 to August 14 with the corresponding obtained in step (i), also using the infection model given in Eqs. (7) - (9).

Going through the simulation with correct seroprevalence numbers for May 28, 2020, the MC solutions with the smallest LS error in the second step is then selected. Then the output from the MC-LS optimization yields the following set of five parameters: and thus the associated and .

As we shall see in the Results Section, the MC-LS method tends to slightly underestimate compared to a visual inspection mainly because of the historical details of the data that are discussed in the next subsection.

D. The impact of noise

It is somewhat problematic using our mean field modeling approach to analyze and understand the successive, small and localized epidemic outbreaks over the late spring and summer of 2020. Although these outbreaks are small due to the low national hospital occupation numbers from May through August, most of these later micro-outbreaks are actually reflected in the hospital admittance numbers. Further, as we inspect the hospital admittance numbers for mid April 2020 they reveal a “shoulder” in the data that can be seen as one or more larger localized outbreaks overlaying a steadily decreasing macroscopic trend in the hospital admittance data, which is most clearly seen in Fig. 13(2), Appendix A. Both these earlier (larger) and later (smaller) fluctuations in the hospital data are also picked up in SSI’s daily estimated “contact number” ℛ_t that essentially measures the deviation from the currently observed number of infected compared to an average over that last week [54]. ℛ_t < 1 indicates decreasing observed infected, ℛ_t > 1 indicates increasing observed infected, while ℛ_t ∼ 1 means no change in the measured infection level. ℛ_t is estimated both from hospital admittance data and from the observed infected (positively PCR tested) individuals in the population at large.

When minimizing the least square error between the generated total hospital occupation H + ICU in simulation and the reported total hospital occupation, we obscure these fluctuations in the observed data, which is unsatisfactory as we also hope to understand the smaller details in the pandemic, in particular the micro-outbreaks.

This issue can be circumvented by viewing the localized outbreaks as events generated by coincidences that can be implemented by adding a noise term to the equation set (1) that determines the dynamics for I_i as follows: Here Y (A(t), f) is a Poisson point process with frequency f and amplitude A(t), a local outbreak of size A at time t that on average occurs with frequency f. We have included –Y (A(t), f) in Eq. (1a) to maintain population conservation by balancing out the same term in Eq. (1b). The rest of the Eqs. (1) and (2) remain the same.

In the Results Section we review manual parameter adjustment with and without noise as well as the MC-LS parameter optimization without noise.

E. Quasi steady state approximation

For extended periods the hospital occupation may be approximately constant indicating a steady state situation of the pandemic. For example, we saw that during the period July - August, 2020. If we assume a quasi steady-state pandemic situation we approximately have: We can then use our model to estimate the sizes of the infected background populations I_i, I_a, and I_s as we can calculate backwards from a known approximately constant hospital occupation. In a steady state situation we have h_fracγ_sI_s − (1 − ρ_h,icu)γ_hH − (1 − ρ_icu,h)γ_icuICU = 0 that expresses: what goes into the hospital system equals what leaves the hospital system. With known parameters h_frac, γ_s, ρ_h,icu, γ_h and known H and ICU populations the size of I_s can be estimated. Then I_a = ((1 − ρ_s)/ρ_s)I_s and I_i = (I_a +I_s)/2 as the average incubation time is half the average time of both the symptomatic and asymptomatic.

A. Visual inspection for infection parameter fitting

The typical infection dynamics generated by the SEIRS model as defined by the equation system (1) are discussed in Fig. 4 while the corresponding hospital and non-hospital dynamics defined by equation systems (2) are discussed in Fig. 5. For this simulation, the fraction of symptomatic infected is ρ_s = 0.16 and the infection model is defined by Eqs. (7) - (9), where . These parameters are selected by visual inspection of simulation output ensuring an infection scale such that ∼ 79,700 individuals had been infected by May 28, 2020 [54]. Other parameter values used are shown in Table I.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4:

Infection dynamics; upper panel linear scale, lower panel logarithmic scale. We assume the initial infection I_i stems from 690 individuals entering Denmark February 24, 2020. Parameter adjustments were done by visual inspection to match the observed hospital and death data in Fig. 5, as well as the number of persons with COVID-19 antibodies ∼ 1.37% of the population, ∼ 79, 700 recovered on May 28, 2020 (day 95 of the simulation). The governmental interventions, a lockdown and a successive reopening of the country, are discussed in Fig. 3. In this simulation ρ_s = 0.16, which means that a little more than 5 out of 6 infected individuals end up being asymptomatic, and we use the relationships between the β’s given in Eqs. (7) - (9). . The immunity loss parameters for asymptomatic infected are 1/ξ_a = 60 days and for symptomatic infected 1/ξ_s = 700 days. Health care parameters: α = 0.85, γ_h = 1/8, ρ_h,r = 0.775, ρ_h,icu = 0.135, ρ_h,d = 0.09, γ_icu = 1/10, ρ_icu,h = 0.72, m_frac = 0.0081, γ_m = 1/8. These are the standard parameters shown in Table I. The central relationship between ζ, ρ_s, β_s and ℛ₀ is discussed in Fig. 8.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5:

Dynamics of total daily hospital occupation H_tot, ICU occupation, total death D_tot as well as weekly non-hospital deaths D_nh corresponding to (same simulation as) infection dynamics in Fig. 4; upper panel linear scale; lower panel logarithmic scale. Dots represent the observed hospital and death data, lines represent the simulation data. Parameter adjustments were done by visual inspection to match observed data. Health care parameters used are α = 0.85, γ_h = 1/8, ρ_h,r = 0.775, ρ_h,icu = 0.135, ρ_h,d = 0.09, γ_icu = 1/10, ρ_icu,h = 0.72, m_frac = 0.0081, γ_m = 1/8, which are the standard parameters discussed in Table 1. These hospital and death times series data together with the hospital parameters define our main means of verification (or falsification) of our simulations. The central relationship between ζ, ρ_s, β_s and ℛ ₀ is discussed in Fig. 8.

It is noted that the large size of the infected total used above is because we also include the asymptomatic infected, which are estimated to be ∼ 5.2 times larger than the symptomatic infected. Initially only the symptomatic were tested and this is still reflected in the verified positive PCR test numbers that are commonly quoted.

B. Monte Carlo Least Squares optimization of infection parameters

Alternatively, we can utilize a Monte Carlo based Least Squares (MC-LS) optimization method to identify the different β_x where x = s, a, i as discussed in Section IV C. The result of the simulation is shown in Fig. 6. The MC-LS parameter optimization (8, 000 iterations) yields (assuming ), ρ_s = 0.1570 and using the same infection model as above defined by Eqs. (7) - (9). Also the death rates have to be slightly increased to fit the data, see discussion in Fig. 6. Other parameter values used are shown in Table I, except the parameters controlling the death rates both from the hospitals and the non-hospital locations.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 6:

Dynamics of total daily hospital occupation H_tot, ICU occupation and total death D_tot dynamics as well as weekly non-hospital deaths D_nh, where the parameter adjustments are done by 8, 000 iterations of MC-LS optimization. Upper panel linear scale and lower panel logarithmic scale. Dots represent the observed hospital and death data, lines represent the simulation data. See text for parameter details and compare with Fig. 5. Note how the MC-LS algorithm optimized for best fit of H_tot chooses a slightly lower because it minimizes the sum of the squares of the errors, which means that it misses the full amplitude of initial infection peak. A slightly lower implies a slightly lower ρ_s = 0.157 (relatively more asymptomatic infected needed to reach the measured seroprevalence level per May 28, 2020). Further, a lower implies a higher level (March 17 - April 20, 2020) and a relatively higher level implies a relatively lower level (after June 8 and before August 15, 2020). Finally, a lower requires a slightly higher death rates to match reported data so ρ_h,r = 0.775 → 0.755; ρ_h,icu = 0.135 → 0.15; ρ_h,d = 0.09 → 0.095; and m_frac = 0.0081 → 0.0083.

The hospital occupation data has a “shoulder” after the peak (see Appendix A and Fig. 13(2)). This means there is an extended period in mid April 2020 with close to constant hospital admissions. Thus the MC-LS algorithm selects a that underestimates the observed impact on the health care system as the LS error becomes smallest if the simulated hospital curve is close to as many observed data points as possible. Therefore the MC-LS estimate misses the full scale of the hospital occupation peak. As a consequence of the initial underestimation of , the MC-LS algorithm appropriately compensates by slightly increasing the estimate for , again to minimize the least square error between reported and generated data. Compare Figs. 5 and 6.

C. Impact of noise

Yet another way to interpret the Danish COVID-19 pandemic data is to view the macroscopic infection dynamics as described by the SEIRS model and the microscopic events as superimposed noise. Thus the noise can be interpreted as microscopic, localized infection events, as discussed in Section IV D.

We may assume the impact of noise in the hospital data only becomes visible around April 1, as singular microscopic events would be difficult to distinguish earlier because of the dominating macroscopic growth of the pandemic given by and the successive macroscopic disruption of the infection dynamics due to the sudden lockdown of the whole country. Inspecting the data from April 1 to August 31 supported by ℛ_t [54] measured from both hospital admissions and observed infected numbers, yields five distinct peaks corresponding to microscopic events, see Fig. 13(5 - 6) Appendix A. Thus we may estimate f as 5 events/150 days = 0.033 events/day.

Now recall Eqs. (1a) and (1b). For April 1 - 20, 2020, we assume A(t) = 2, 500 based on the size of shoulder in the hospital admittance for mid to late April; recall Fig. 13(5 - 6). A(t) is thus a bit smaller than 10% of the average size of the total infected population I(t) = I_i +I_a +I_s in that time interval according to our simulations. For April 21 - August 31, 2020, we assume A(t) = 1, 000 as there are no more major “shoulders” in the data. Thereby A(t) becomes approximately 1/3 of the size of the total infected population from early July through August, 2020 according to our simulations.

As a basis for the noise added simulation we in part use the standard parameters previously used to generate Figs. 4 and 5: ρ_s = 0.16, and . However, the reopening parameters have to be lower and . These β values are lower so that they, together with the noise added infections, on average generate a similar total number of infections as in the reported data. For simplicity we do not include the last reopening August 14 - 31, 2020, as it does not impact the reported data. Fig. 7 shows a comparison between the observed data and data generated by 100 Monte Carlo simulations each with a different noise sequence realization. Two such noise induced simulations are also highlighted in Fig. 7 to give an impression of the trajectories of individual realizations. Compare Fig. 7 with Figs. 5 and 6.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 7:

100 Monte Carlo realizations of the epidemic with noise added micro-outbreaks with a frequency of 0.033 events/day and an amplitude of size A(t) = 2,500 for April 1 - 20, and 1, 000 after April 21, 2020. Upper panel: linear scale dynamics of total daily hospital H_tot and ICU occupations together with total daily deaths D_tot as well as weekly non-hospital deaths Dnh. Dots represent the observed hospital and death data, lines represent the simulation data. Middle panel: logarithmic scale dynamics of the same observables. Lower panel: two realizations of the noise induced impact of local outbreaks on I_i(t), I_a(t), I_s(t) (logarithmic scale). See text for details.

VI. SYMPTOMATIC VERSUS ASYMPTOMATIC POPULATIONS

In the current study we define the symptomatic infected population as consisting of individuals with serious symptoms, while the asymptomatic population for simplicity includes individuals with no symptoms as well as weak symptoms, e.g. minor symptoms from upper airways (nose, throat) and no fever. Thus, in our model a symptomatic infected individual knows that he or she is sick and will likely seek medical advice as well as self-isolate, while an asymptomatic individual likely would continue his or her daily routines at home, go to school or go to work as well as engage in social activities. In some model studies asymptomatic and weakly symptomatic are treated separately [28].

Because historical total hospital H_tot and ICU occupations as well as death data only stem from the symptomatic infected population I_s, and we assume a constant fraction of seriously ill individuals are in need of hospitalization [18], the symptomatic population size is at any given time constrained by these real life data. The same is true about the non-hospital deaths. In contrast, the asymptomatic population could in principle vary freely if we didn’t include additional empirical information.

Randomized serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a population yields an estimate of the recovered, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, individuals at any give time. These recovery numbers can then be compared to the recovered population generated in simulation. The size of the recovered populations at any given time depends on both the number of recovered infected individuals and on the decay rate of the average immunological memory of symptomatic ξ_s and asymptomatic ξ_a individuals, recall Eqs. (1). This means that with only one serological measurement at t₁ infinitely many combinations of ρ_s and ξ_s, ξ_a fit the observed serological prevalence. In principle we need two serological samples at times t₁ and t₂, with some months in between, to fix the parameter values for ρ_s and the average of the two ξ’s. Thus, measuring the recovered population at two different times t₁ and t₂ fixes the average ξ, which then can be expressed in days.

Alternatively, we can estimate the immunological memory based on our knowledge of other corona viruses, recall Section II C, and use these as parameter inputs to our simulations. Assuming a half-life for 1/ξ_s to be 700 days and 1/ξ_a to be 60 days respectively, we can determine ρ_s and thus the relative frequency of symptomatic versus asymptomatic individuals from only one randomized serological test at time t₁ [49].

The Danish SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was found to be 34 out of 2, 424 tested ∼ 1.4% of the Danish population during the period May 8 - 28, 2020 [54], where it should be noted that this seroprevalence study only includes adults of more than 18 years of age. However, about 1/3 of the Danish population has been PCR-tested for SARS-CoV-2 virus by the end of August 2020 and the infection prevalence was found to be ∼ 1.1% in adults and ∼ 0.6% in children [54]. Since there are ∼ 1.30 mil. 0-19 aged and ∼ 4.52 mil. 20-90+ aged in Denmark we estimate 0.6 × (1.30/5.82) 1.4%+1.1 × (4.52/5.82) × 1.4% = 1.3692% ∼ 1.37%, where we assume the age distribution of infection prevalence is similar to the age distribution in seroprevalence.

We now need to adjust ρ_s to obtain ∼ 0.0137 × 5.82 × 10⁶ 79, ∼ 790 recovered individuals in our simulation by the end of May, 2020. This yields a ρ_s ≃ 0.16, which means that we estimate that approximately 16% of the infected are symptomatic while 84% of the infected are asymptomatic; thus ∼ 5.2 times more asymptomatic than symptomatic infected individuals. Also, as Denmark only has conducted one prevalence study so far, our estimated scale of the pandemic significantly relys on this one measurement.

A. Iso-symptomatic infection diagram

The parameters ζ: the relative infectiousness of asymptomatic versus symptomatic; ρ_s: the relative fraction of infected (incubated) that becomes symptomatic; : the infection parameter; and the initial ℛ₀, define critical properties of COVID-19 and other communicable infectious diseases. In Fig. 8 shows the relationship that exists between , and , which we may call an iso-symptomatic infection diagram. We assume ζ, ρ_s, β_s are constant over time and throughout a free (non-restricted) pandemic. Thus and also the initial ℛ₀ are defined for the initial free pandemic period.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 8:

The iso-symptomatic infection diagram shows the characteristics of a free COVID-19 epidemic as when it began in Denmark and is constructed as a result of multiple MC-LS optimization simulations for the free pandemic using the infection model in Eqs. (3) - (6). The abscissa, the ζ parameter, defines the relative infectiousness between symptomatic and asymptomatic infected (β_a = ζβ_s). The right ordinate is the initial reproductive number ℛ₀ (the number of persons which are infected by one contageous person) and the “+” curves indicate how it depend on ζ for ρ_s = 1.0, 0.5, 0.15, 0.01, the relative frequency of symptomatic ρ_s versus asymptomatic (1 – ρ_s) infected. Note how these “+” curves are virtually horizontal, see text for details. The right ordinate starts with ℛ₀ = 3.0 so that it can match the left ordinate depicting the infection rate of symptomatic infective individuals at the beginning of the epidemic. Different ρ_s values give different families of “* “curves for β_s where the ρ_s value colors match the ρ_s colors for the corresponding “+” curves for ℛ₀. Note that β_s as a function of ζ for ρ_s = 0.01 is off the chart (i.e. β_s ≃79.5) and also ρ_s → 0 implies β_s → ∞. The best parameter combination for describing the Danish COVID-19 pandemic with the infection model given in Eqs. (3) - (6) is discussed in the text. Note that an often cited ℛ₀ for COVID-19 is ∼ 3.2, which is obtained if no distinction is made between the symptomatic and asymptomatic infected populations: ζ = 1.0 and ρ_s = 1.0.

The iso-symptomatic infection diagram is constructed from multiple Monte Carlo - Least Square parameter optimized simulations that all match the observed Danish COVID-19 hospital occupation data at the onset of the pandemic. In this construction we use the more generic infection model with variable ζ as defined in Eqs. (3) - (6).

Quantitatively almost identical iso-symptomatic infection diagrams are found when we optimize the involve parameters not only for the initial free pandemic, but also include data through April 19 (lockdown) or include data through August 14, 2020 (after the first reopening).

Note that in Fig. 8 the “+” curves for ℛ₀ are virtually horizontal, which means that ζ and balance each other out; as ζ increases decreases and vice versa. This can be seen by substituting ζ into the expression of ℛ₀ in Eq. (10) that after reducing the expression yields where we have also inserted γ_a = γ_s = 0.5 γ_i = 0.1.

Since all simulations in Fig. 8 approximate the observed initial pandemic we need to empirically identify at least two of the three parameters ζ, β_s, ρ_s to know which parameter combination most likely represents the Danish epidemic. We have previously argued for ζ = 0.309 in the infection model given by Eqs. (7) - (9).

If we fix ζ = 0.309 for the infection model in Eqs. (3) - (6) and use visual inspection we obtain a slightly lower and a higher ρ_s ≃ 0.185 to match the initial infection peak in the reported H_tot data as well as the infection scale measured by May 28, 2020 (population wide antibody prevalence). However, with these parameters the later observed data requires a bit higher .

If we instead fix and use visual inspection we obtain ρ_s ≃ 0.18 and a slightly higher ζ ≃ 0.31 that both approximate the observed H_tot data and the observed May 28, 2020 population wide antibody prevalence.

Finally, if we fix ρ_s = 0.16 it is becomes more difficult to simultaneously fit the observed H_tot and antibody prevalence as of May 28, 2020. We either obtain a good seroprevalence fit and too low an initial infection wave or a good fit for the infection wave and too high a seroprevalence fit.

The above investigations with different fixed parameters underscore that even though it is always possible to identify a best MC-LS fit to H_tot it might not represent the actual pandemic as it misses the seroprevalence observation - and possibly other observables.

Iso-symptomatic infection diagrams could be constructed readily for most infectious diseases. With such diagrams available for the medical community, a single diagram would have crucial and quantitative information about critical parameters that define the dynamic characteristics of a given epidemic. Further, it would also at a glance make comparisons between different infectious diseases easier. Similar diagrams where critical thermo-dynamic properties of materials are depicted have had tremendous practical importance for the development of engineering since the early days of the industrial revolution.

B. Estimation of mortality rates of the Danish COVID-19 epidemic

The estimated Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) as of August 31, 2020, based on the simulations that include asymptomatic cases, can be calculated by dividing the total number of deaths with the total number of recovered: 628/173, 544 = 0.0036 or ∼ 0.4%.

The official calculations of mortality of COVID-19 in Denmark in the beginning of the pandemic was based on hospitalized patients. The value was found to be 3.3% April 3, 2020, just before Easter, and 4.8% June 19, 2020, when the testing strategy had been changed for about 2 months to also include non-hospitalized individuals. However, asymptomatic cases of COVID-19 were not included in these calculations and therefore the numbers were Case Fatality Rates (CFR). Thus, according to our calculations the true mortality (Infection Fatality Rate) of COVID-19 in Denmark has been overestimated by a factor of approximately 10.

In another location of the Danish Kingdom, the Faeroe Islands (52, 484 inhabitants), testing was far more extensive from the beginning of the epidemic (109, 233 tests as of September 14, 2020) to detect and isolate all contacts. They have recorded 423 COVID-19 cases (0.8% including asymptomatic cases) and no deaths (both IFR and CFR) (0% - 95% c.l. 0.0 - 0.9%) [54]. Note that our estimated IFR of 0.4% in Denmark is in the middle of their confidence interval.

In Iceland (364, 260 inhabitants), a serological study estimated that 0.9% of the population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and that the IFR was 0.3%, which is again similar to our estimates [19].

C. Estimation of the ℛ₀ for the different phases of the Danish COVID-19 epidemic

ℛ₀ can be estimated for the different phases of the epidemic using Eq. (10) if we adjust the β_x(t), x = i, a, s values appropriately. For standard simulation parameters and the simulation started on February 24, 2020 with 690 incubated individuals, we estimate ℛ₀ = 5.361 ≃ 5.4 for in the free pandemic until the lockdown March 16, 2020, recall Figs. 4 and 5. Using a bit lower instead for the MC-LS optimized parameters yields ℛ₀ = 5.213 ≃ 5.2. During the lockdown and the successive re-opening of the country we assume symptomatic infected individuals are effectively isolated to about 1% of the initial infection parameter so the majority of the infection transmission occurs due to asymptomatic and incubating individuals. We can derive during the lockdown March 16 - April 20, 2020, and after the reopening June 8 - August 14, 2020, with infection assumptions either as in Eqs. (3) - (6) or (7) - (9). Using the standard parameters for the simulation discussed in Figs 4 and 5 based on the infection model from Eqs. (7) - (9), we have An additional Danish reopening phase occurred over the period August 14 to August 31, 2020, that most significantly allowed physical attendance at higher educational institutions and longer opening times for pubs and restaurants [53]. This last re-opening, however, was partly rolled back in the first half of September due to a significant infection increase.

An expanding epidemic requires ℛ₀ > 1. For this to occur after the reopening of the country, the increased infection pressure must almost solely come from the asymptomatic and incubating populations as the symptomatic population is assumed to be almost completely isolated, i.e. . Taking this value and setting in the above equation, we can solve for the factor to multiply β_a and β_i by for the steady state reopening case and find the multiplier to be 0.2717.

From mid July to mid August 2020 the noise induced simulations generate a better approximation to the low-level steady state background infection that the observed data indicate. Neither of the deterministic simulations with parameters adjusted either by visual inspection nor by Monte Carlo Least Square optimization are able to capture the balance between the frequent micro-outbreaks and the otherwise slightly decreasing pandemic, compare Figs. 5, 6 and 7.

An approximate steady state is indicated in the following observables:

1. a fluctuating low level of hospitalized (H_tot ∼ 20) and

2. a close to stationary fluctuating number of observed infected (positively PCR tested) individuals in the population at large. The infection numbers fluctuate with an average of 85/day currently based on 20,000 - 40,000 tests/day or 0.3 - 0.6% of the population/day, if we average across the re-occurring micro-outbreaks.

3. The two contact numbers ℛ_t fluctuate around 1.0 estimated from the hospital admissions and the national testing program respectively.

We may thus view this situation as a low-level steady state for the background pandemic, with re-occurring, localized, micro-outbreaks, counteracted in part by testing and contact tracing operations. This means that Eq. (16) should modified to for July 15 to August 15, 2020 that indicates a quasi steady state epidemic.

A. Quasi steady state approximation for populations sizes

If we assume a steady-state pandemic situation we again have the relations given by Eq. (13). We can then use our model to estimate the sizes of the infected background populations I_i, I_a, and I_s during a quasi steady state period. It should be noted that the above mentioned steady state equation system is neutrally stable, which means that any perturbation to a solution we pick is also a solution, because the equation system is degenerate (determinant = 0). Thus, the system has infinitely many solutions all with an appropriate balance between the different infected populations and thus the resulting hospitalized patients.

Recall the hospitalization fraction h_frac ≃ 8.2% (Appendix B and [18]), which is the percentage of severely symptomatic infected that need hospital care, recall Eqs. (1) and (2). We can equate I_s × γ_s × h_frac with the average in-rate to the hospital system consisting of H_tot = H + ICU. Recall steady state where dH/dt +dICU/dt = 0 that can then be written out is where in the last equation we have expressed H and ICU as a function of H_tot where k is defined as H/H_tot. Inserting the parameter values from Table I we now have an estimate for the symptomatic population I_s. From this we can also estimate the other infected populations as: where the last relationship follows from γ_a = γ_s = 0.5γ_i. Thus, the size of the total infected population I_tot is: Currently PCR tests should be able to pick up SARS-CoV-2 RNA starting the last 1.5 days of the ∼ 5 day incubation period and through the ∼ 10 day period where the infected individuals are either symptomatic or asymptomatic.

Still assuming γ_a = γ_s = 0.1/day and no PCR detection after the 10 day infection period associated with I_s and I_a, the detectable steady state population is approximately as I_i on average can only be identified the last 1.5 days of the 5 day incubation time; thus the factor 0.3. It should be noted, however, that RNA virus can be excreted and be picked up by PCR measurements significantly longer than the approximately 10 days we have assumed as the duration of the infection both for the symptomatic and asymptomatic cases [6].

From Eqs. (1) for the steady state case we note that In steady state this means that the two terms should be identical; what goes into I_i is equal to what goes out of I_i. Thus, we can estimate the daily rate at which newly infected are recruited from the susceptible population as Based on hospitalization data and using Eqs. (16) to (22), we can estimate the corresponding infected and observable populations sizes as well as the daily infection rate, none of which are directly observable.

Note the linear proportionality between the numbers; e.g. 10 times higher hospital population yields 10 times higher infected populations and infection rates. Also note that these estimates may be impacted by testing and removal of identified infected individuals so their ability to further spread the infection is reduced. Finally, it should be noted that quasi steady state approximations are often successfully used even when true steady state conditions do not yet apply.

During the quasi steady state period from mid July to mid August, 2020, Denmark on average had 20 hospitalized COVID-19 patients (H_tot) where the intensive care unit patients are approximately one fifth of every patient, ICU = 0.2 × H_tot = (1 – k) × H_tot. Inserting these numbers and default values from Table I into Eqs. (16) to (20) and (22) we obtain the following population infection numbers: The reopening of the country August 14 - 31, 2020 un-fortunately caused a new significant infection rise with an increase in the hospitalizations from early to late September. The infection rise initially had a doubling time of approximately 8 days and by the end of September, 2020 the hospital occupation largely leveled off around 110 due to a number of national initiatives including renewed information campaigns and reinstated restrictions including early closing of bars (10 pm) and at most 50 people at private events. If we assume a quasi steady state for October 1 - 20, 2020 we get from [52] the averages H_tot = 111, k = 0.85 and T_d = 407 that inserted in the Eqs. (16) - (22) yield: The key population numbers for different H_tot population sizes are tabulated in Table II (all numbers are calculated on a computer with double precision and then rounded to integer values).

B. Testing efficiencies

From mid July to mid August, 2020 the nationwide voluntary testing program together with medically recommended testing and contact tracing on average identify and isolate T_d ∼ 85 infected/day from the contagious populations [54]. By comparing the number of identified infected T_d with the number observable contagious individuals Iobs gives a simple indicator of the testing efficiency. We may define a single day detection efficiency as the detected within a day divided with the estimated number of infected on that same day: DT_abs = T_d/I_obs = 85/1615 = 0.0526 or approximately 5.3%. So in a theoretical situation where every individual in the country could be tested in a single day, all observably infected would be identified in one day with a total efficiency of 100%.

However, from an operational point of view a more relevant efficiency number is DT_daily the net daily detected and isolated compared to the daily newly infected defined I_new. Obviously, the impact of the detection and isolation critically depends on which time point in an infected individual’s disease process it occurs. Since an explicit modeling of the infection and contact tracing processes is outside of the scope of our current study, we will only provide upper and lower bounds for the impact of the infection and contact tracing processes.

The impact would be maximal if the detection and isolation of all individuals occur during the incubation period and before the incubating infected become contagious, i.e. in the first 3.5 days of the incubation period.

Thus, we can calculate an upper bound of the impact of the net daily detection and isolation efficiency as or approximately 61%.

The impact would be minimal if the detection and isolation of all individuals are asymptomatic infected occurs the very last day of their time as infectiousness. However, we need to recall that throughout this study we have assumed that almost all the symptomatic infected are detected and isolated in Denmark so part of the daily identification and isolation process involves the symptomatic infected. Since I_s = 225 in the steady state, we can deduce that the epidemic produces I_sγ_s = 22.5 new symptomatic infected each day that are assumed detected. So 85 detections/day minus 22.5 detections/day = 62.5 detections/day are available for detection from I_a at their last contagious day. In our model there are 11.5 days of infectiousness for both the symptomatic and asymptomatic populations: 1.5 days of the incubation times plus 10 days of the symptomatic or asymptomatic time. If for simplicity we assume equal contagiousness every day we get that the symptomatic can only infect 1.5 days during the incubation time as we assume they are detected and isolated once they become symptomatic. The asymptomatic can infect 1.5 days during the incubation time and 9 days during the asymptomatic infection period, because they are only detected on the 10th and last day of this period.

Thus, we get a lower bound on the net daily detection efficiency or approximately 18.0%.

We now have estimates for a lower and upper bound on the daily testing efficiency for the period July 15 and August 15, 2020 given as 18% < DT_daily < 61%.

As we have no detailed knowledge about the details of the infection and contact tracing processes we may use the average (center point) of the upper and the lower bound as a rough estimate for the daily testing efficiency: (18 + 61)/2 39.5 or approximately 40%. Obviously, more accurate estimates could be calculated from an explicit modeling and simulation of the involved infection and contact tracing activities.

Similarly for the period October 1 - 20, 2020 we obtain a single day detection efficiency DT_abs = T_d/I_obs = 407/9351 = 0.0435 or approximately 4.4%. or approximately 50% while or approximately 31%.

Thus, a rough estimate for the daily testing efficiency is (50.1+31.0)/2 = 40.55 or approximately 41% that within rounding errors is the same daily testing efficiency as over the summer.

There are two important lessons to take home from the above estimates:

1. The testing, contact tracing, and isolation program in Denmark both provides a key indicator for the current geographic infection trends, but also takes part in balancing the background infection increase. This is particularly true when geographically focused efforts are undertaken. Removing and isolating on average 85 infected per day July 15 - August 15, 2020 together with behavioral restrictions had a significant impact in controlling the epidemic. Without the testing and the resulting daily removal of infected individuals the Danish pandemic would likely have been in an expansion phase during this period.

2. The Danish testing program, which is among the most ambitious in the world, has a testing efficiency of approximately 40% for both periods investigated, while the single day infection tracing efficiency indicator is found to be 5.3% mid July to mid August 2020 and 4.4% for October 1 - 20, 2020. Many countries have both lower net daily and single day testing efficiencies as we shall see in next subsection.

C. Hospitalized and estimated infected populations in other regions: Spain and the US

If we assume the biology of the COVID-19 pandemic is similar in Denmark, Spain and the US, and we further assume that the hospital system including ICUs in these countries function in a similar manner regarding treatment of COVID-19 patients, we may scale the Danish hospitalization numbers and the corresponding infected population estimates to larger populations. Obviously more detailed studies are necessary to verify - or falsify - the validity of such a comparison, but as a simplified approximation we believe such estimates provide appropriate order of magnitude estimates.

In Table II we list estimates for infected and observed population sizes based on the total hospitalized population size and the quasi steady state approximations given in Eqs. (16) to (22). For the estimates we assume the number of intensive care unit patients are approximately one fifth of every patient, thus ICU = 0.2 × H_tot (k = 0.8 in Eq. (16)).

Potential healthcare differences across different countries can be adjusted by adjusting the appropriate healthcare system parameters in Eq. (16).

By the end of August, 2020, Spain had about 6, 000 hospitalized with COVID-19 [39], which according to our estimates corresponds to a total infected population of about 630, 000 with about 484, 000 observable and about 42, 000 newly infected per day. In late August Spain detected and isolated a little less than 10, 000 positive COVID-19 cases/day [38]. Thus the Spanish daily single day testing efficiency indicator is approximately 10, 000/484, 000 0.0207 or 2.1%.

To estimate the net daily detection efficiency we need to approximate . or approximately 24%. To calculate we note that I_s ≃ 67, 390, so I_sγ_s 6, 739 new symptomatic infected are produced every day that we assume are detected. Since T_d 10, 000, 10, 000 6, 739 detections are thus available for individuals in I_i and I_a, recall discussion in the last subsection. or approximately 8.1%. This gives an approximate net daily detection efficiency of (23.81 + 8.12)/2 = 15.965 or approximately 16% by the end of August 2020.

By the end of September, 2020, the US had two hospitalization peaks, both with about 60, 000 patients, one in mid April and one in late July 2020 [43], as well as two valleys, both with about 30, 000 patients, one in mid June and one mid September 2020. The corresponding estimates from Table II indicate that 30, 000 hospitalizations corresponds to about 3.16 mil. infected while 60, 000 hospitalizations corresponds to about 6.32 mil. infected. The daily detection average for the US during September 2020 was about 40, 000 [43] while the daily newly infected average was about 210, 000. Thus the single day testing efficiency indicator in the US during September was about 40, 000/2, 420, 000 0.0165 or 1.7%.

To estimate the daily detection efficiency we need to approximate . or approximately 19%. To calculate we note that I_s ≃ 336, 951, so I_sγ_s ≃ 33, 695 new symptomatic infected are produced every day that we assume are detected. This assumption seems less appropriate with the actual numbers involved as almost all of the detections would then stem from symptomatic infected. However, to keep consistency in the estimations we keep this assumption. Since T_d 40, 000, 40, 000 33, 695 detections are thus available for individuals in I_i and I_a, recall discussion in last subsection. or approximately 4%. This gives an approximate net daily detection efficiency of (18.99 + 3.99)/2 = 11.4900 or approximately 11.5% during September 2020.

The above estimates from Spain and the US should only be viewed as an illustration of the method developed in Eqs. (16) - (22) applied to other countries. Healthcare differences across different countries should be implemented by adjusting the appropriate healthcare system parameters in Eq. (16) as well as our assumption about detection and isolation of symptomatic infected.

D. Impact of the fraction of hospitalized symptomatic

Because h_frac is a critical part of these population estimates, we investigate in simulation the impact of both a lower h_frac = 0.061 and a higher h_frac = 0.139 using visual inspection for appropriate fits between reported H, ICU occupation data as well as death data and the corresponding values generated in simulation. Recall the original h_frac = 0.082. For details, see Appendix E.

Obviously a modified value for h_frac requires a significant re-adjustment of the main infection parameters. If h_frac increases, a larger fraction of the symptomatic infected I_s needs hospitalization. As the reported hospitalization volume at any given time does not change, this implies that the total number of symptomatic infected I_s must also be smaller to ensure correspondence between the reported and simulated data. Thus, increasing h_frac means a decreasing ρ_s so a smaller fraction of incubated I_i becomes symptomatic I_s while a larger fraction (1 - ρ_s) becomes asymptomatic I_a. As we know from the COVID-19 iso-symptomatic infection diagram investigation, a smaller ρ_s means a larger and a larger ℛ₀ for a constant ζ value, that in our case is set to 0.309. As and ℛ₀ change for the initial free pandemic so must , x = i, a, and their corresponding ℛ₀ values.

Conversely, a smaller h_frac implies a larger ρ_s and a smaller m_frac as well as smaller β_s and ℛ₀.

Nice hospital occupation and death data fits can be obtained both for h_frac = 0.061 and 0.139, but only for the h_frac = 0.139 case is it in the same simulation also possible to obtain the correct seroprevalence number of ≃ 79, 700 or ≃ 1.37% of the adult population per May 28, 2020. For h_frac = 0.061 the simulated seroprevalence is ≃ 96.700 and thus overshoots with a factor of 96,800/79,700 ≃ 1.21, if we at the same time require appropriate fits for H, ICU and deaths tolls.

For more details, see Appendix E.

A. Best case scenario: Continued micro-outbreak scenarios with ℛ₀ ≃ 1

Since April 2020 Denmark has experienced a number of localized micro-outbreaks that were contained due to isolation, contact tracing, and increasingly more extensive testing. A narrative discussion of these micro-outbreaks was given in the Introduction while in the Results Section we discuss how we model and simulate the impact of such micro-outbreaks by means of added internal noise.

Previously in Section V C we used noise to trigger injections of newly infected into the population to generate local micro-outbreaks. Local fluctuations in the behavior from time to time triggers micro-outbreaks probably in part caused by a combination of events or places where many people are gathered and super-spreaders are present. In these situations the general background dynamics is characterized by ℛ₀ slightly smaller than 1.0 so that the background dynamics and the noise induced micro-outbreaks together generate a close to steady state infection level that corresponds to what we may call a macroscopic effective ℛ₀ ≃ 1. We interpret the general background dynamics as the sum of the behavior of the general population together with the testing and contact tracing activities that result in a daily removal of infected from the epidemic, which together defines a ℛ₀ that is smaller then one.

It should be emphasized that there is a critical difference between injecting additional infected into the general population versus changing the behavior in the general population. If the background infection is decreasing, ℛ₀ < 1, an injection of newly infected has the same impact whether they e.g. are returning travellers that were infected elsewhere or they stem from a local micro- outbreak from within the country. In an ℛ₀ > 1 situation both effects add equally to an already expanding pandemic.

From August 14 - 31, 2020, Denmark adjusted the re- opening of the country. The most significant changes included opening of higher educational and vocational institutions as well as longer opening hours of restaurants and bars. However, the restaurant and bar openings were partly rolled back in the first part of September together with a number of additional restrictions due to observed increase in infection levels and hospitalizations, see [53].

If, as a “best case scenario” we assume no changes in the general human behavior compared to the summer of 2020, as well as no impact by the cooler fall and winter temperatures, we obtain a development as seen in Fig. 9. We still assume recurring localized micro-outbreaks with the same frequency and amplitude as previously had, which is an optimal dynamical regime to operate in until a vaccine becomes available. Since the pandemic dynamics is operating around ℛ₀ ∼ 1 a quasi steady state can occur for any hospital occupation level, recall Section VII A. A low hospital occupation is obviously the most desirable. Unfortunately, Denmark did not follow this scenario.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 9:

Monte Carlo simulated health care system and death toll dynamics (100 realizations) with standard parameters, recall Table 1 and Fig. 7. The pandemic is assumed to be close to steady state with successive micro-outbreaks (ℛ₀ ∼ 1), where we assume no changes in policies and human behavior since the Summer of 2020, as well as no impact of colder fall and winter temperatures. Linear upper panel and logarithmic lower panel scales respectively. Note the continued low hospitalization and death toll. Dots represent the observed hospital and death data, lines represent the simulation data.

B. Aggressive infection scenario following the influenza pattern

If all behavioral and policy restrictions are lifted without a universally available vaccine, a new aggressive infection wave would immediately emerge. If we further assume that we still keep the symptomatic infected effectively isolated, i.e. , we get a scenario where the pandemic is governed by a free infection spread almost solely by the asymptomatic I_a and incubating I_i populations. Such a scenario yields, recall Eqs. (7) - (9), Both the initial growth in the H_tot observations as well as the simulations indicate that the initial pandemic February - March 2020 with ℛ₀ ∼ 5.4 had a doubling time of ∼ 2.4 days while a pandemic with ℛ₀ ℛ 3.0 would have a doubling time of ℛ 4.2 days. Thus, as long as we effectively isolate the symptomatic infected a worst case scenario of such an infection wave cannot be as aggressive as the initial wave we experienced early 2020. This means that future infection waves would be expected to emerge with ℛ₀ less than 3.0 and a doubling time of more than 4.2 days.

The most vulnerable period for an aggressive Danish COVID-19 infection wave would likely be at the time the country usually experiences it’s yearly influenza epidemic, see Fig. 10.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 10:

Vertical axis: number of laboratory verified influenza cases in Denmark shown for the flu seasons 2014/15 to 2019/20 until the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Horizontal axis: week number in a calendar year. Note the clear yearly epidemic pattern that starts in the early winter and peaks between early February and mid March. It should also be noted that the closing of Denmark due to COVID-19 March 16, 2020, stopped the influenza epidemic and actually also a smaller whooping cough epidemic, not shown in the above graph [16].

Fig. 11 shows an aggressive scenario with ℛ₀ = 3.0 and (isolated symptomatic infected) adapted to the yearly epidemic influenza pattern. To explore the full impact of such an infection wave no policy interventions are assumed, which means that incubating and asymptomatic individuals move freely to interact with and potentially infect the susceptible population. In particular, note that in particular due to the assumed limited immunological memory for the asymptotic infected (1/ξ_a = 60 days; decay time) the pandemic does not “burn out” as the susceptible population is continuously replenished by the recovered population.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 11:

Upper panel: Simulated infection dynamics of infected and recovered modeled after the yearly influenza pattern using standard parameters, recall Table I and Figs. 4 and 5. This hypothetical infection wave is simulated assuming no intervention to demonstrate the full potential impact. Initially the simulation regenerates the observed hospital and death data (March - August 2020) and continues with ℛ₀ ∼ 1 until early November 2020 when ℛ₀ in the simulation in- creases to 3.0 recall Eq. (26). Lower panel: Simulated resulting total hospital and ICU occupations, as well as total deaths and non-hospital deaths in logarithmic scale. Dots represent the observed hospital occupation and death data, lines represent the simulation data. After a year (November 1, 2021) mainly due to the short immune memory of the asymptomatic infected (decay-time ∼ 60 days), a close to steady state situation of the pandemic would be reached with H_tot ≃ 5, 027 out of which ICU ≃ 1, 295. We may view such a scenario as a “soft” version of the free COVID-19 pandemic explored in Fig 12.

Without intervention the pandemic peaks for I_i December 30, 2020 and January 7, 2021 for I_a and I_s, and by February 7, 2021, appoximately 4, 071, 000 people (∼ 70% of the population) would have been infected and recovered from the pandemic. The simulated hospital impact peaks around January 17, 2021 with ∼ 19, 680 hospitalized and January 20, 2021 with ≃ 4, 786 in ICUs which would completely overwhelm the Danish health- care system. It is estimated that the Danish ICU capacity is about 1, 000 beds and the total hospital capacity is about 15, 000 beds. A year after the onset of this infection wave (November 1, 2021) about 56, 690 people would have died from the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which is about the same as the total number of deaths in Denmark in the year 2019: 53, 958.

C. Free pandemic: Worst case scenario

“What would have happened if no policy interventions were imposed at the beginning of the pandemic?” This is a question many people have asked us. In Fig. 12 data are generated in simulation using standard the parameters also used in Figs 4 and 5, but assuming no behavioral modifications or policies imposed at the onset of the pandemic, thus ℛ₀ ≃ 5.36. This is a hypothetical scenario where the pandemic rages freely.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 12:

Upper panel: The simulated dynamics of the infected and recovered for a hypothetical free COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark that started February 24, 2020 and runs until November 1, 2021. This hypothetical pandemic would have peaked April 7, 2020 with I_i ≃ 1, 451, 000 and peaked April 13 with I_a ≃ 1, 729, 000 and I_s ≃ 329, 400 infected individuals. By May 13, 2020, the recovered population would have peaked with more than 4.32 mil. or about 74 % of the population (R_tot ≃ 4, 320, 000). Lower panel: Simulated and reported health care system occupation as well as death toll data (logarithmic scale). Dots represent the observed hospital and death data, lines represent the simulation data. The hypothetical death toll of 64, 960 is clearly underestimated as we use the health care model from Eqs. (2) that in this simulation is assumed to be able to scale with the pandemic, which it clearly cannot in real life. The hospitalization occupation peaks April 23, 2020, with H_tot ≃ 22, 850 patients and the intensive care units peaks April 26 with ICU ≃ 5, 472. The Danish healthcare systems would be completely overwhelmed in such a scenario and we would expect an increased mortality rate because of that.

The pandemic does not “burn out” in this scenario either as the susceptible population is continuously replenished by the recovered population, recall discussion in Fig. 11. This means that a relatively stable hospital population of about H_tot ≃ 6, 500 by October 2020 would slowly decrease to ≃ 4, 500 in October 2021. A conservative estimate of the expected excess deaths from such a free pandemic is ≃ 64, 960 after one year, by February 24, 2021, which is more than all the deaths in Denmark in 2019 (53, 958).