Abstract
A model to account for the fatality rate in England and its regions is proposed. It follows the clear observation that, rather than two connected waves, there have been many waves of infections and fatalities in the regions of England of various magnitudes, usually overlapping. The waves are self-limiting, in that clear peaks are seen, particularly in reported positive test rates. The present model considers fatalities as the data reported are more reliable than positive test rates, particularly so during the first wave when so little testing was done.
The model considers the observed waves are essentially similar in form and can be modelled using a single wave form, whose final state is only dependent on its peak height and start date. The basic wave form was modelled using the observed fatality rates for London, which unlike the other regions, exhibited almost completely as a single wave in the “first wave”. Its form matches rather well with the “Do Nothing” model reported by Imperial College on 16th March 2020, but reduced substantially from its expected peak.
There are, essentially, only two adjustable parameters used in the model, the start date of the relevant wave and its height. The modelled fatalities for each wave are summated per day and a cumulative curve is matched to that reported. The minimal number of adjustable parameters, alongside the fact that the waves invariably overlap, provides highly stringent conditions on the fitting process.
Results are presented for each region for both the “first” and “second’ waves. High levels of accuracy are obtained with R2 values approaching 100% against the ideal fit for both waves. It can also be seen that there are fundamental differences between the underlying behaviour of the “first” and “second” waves and reasons as to why those differences have arisen is briefly discussed.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding was received for the work
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
All of the human data used was published by UK Public Health except for the data for New York City, Paris and Madrid which were taken from Fernandes-Villaverde and Jones, "Estimating and Simulating a SIRD Model of COVID-19 for Many Countries, States and Cities" https://web.stanford.edu/∼chadj/sird-paper.pdf
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
The paper has been updated to take into account the recent large wave of fatalities that occurred during January. The discussion section has been expanded and potential explanation for how the multiple wave form in the second wave has arisen is proposed. A further appendix have been added, applying the wave model to the international cities, New York, Paris and Madrid.
Data Availability
All of the data referenced are in the public domain
