COVID-19: The Second Wave is not due to Cooling-down in Autumn

In analogy to influenza the second wave of the CoVid-19 disease is generally considered as being triggered by cooling-down in autumn and enhanced aerosol distribution. Here, the time histories of the total case numbers in three European states are quantitatively compared with those of Argentina by a generally applicable fit procedure. It turns out that Argentina on the southern hemisphere sees the second wave simultaneously with similar parameters as Europe. This discards the assumption of the influence of atmospheric cooling in winter and puts into question present models of SARS-CoV-2 spreading.


2 Method
Each outbreak N is fitted by a single logistic function, as described earlier in (4): This well-known expression is the solution of the simple compartment model SIR (3). It is adapted to the observed case numbers and infection rates from very different countries by varying only a few parameters (Table 1): 1) 0, ≪ is the number of individuals triggering a new outbreak N.
2) The time constant of usually a few days has two implications: -During the first days an exponential increase of both case number and infection rate is seen, and the often cited doubling time is related to by 2, = • (2).
-Later, increase is significantly slower than exponential and the case number and infection rate asymptotically attain a constant value and zero, respectively. The time scale of the outbreak is also determined by .

3)
is the maximum number of infected persons at infinite time in a given outbreak, i.e. the whole group, which is in reach of the initially infected 0, . In the simplest case, is as high as the total population P of the respective country (cf. (5)). Social distancing limits the total number of individuals, which may be attained by the initially infected group. This, in the modified SIR-model, in each outbreak is much smaller than P, and = / ≪ 1. The second order rate constant 2, of the SIR model (cf. in (3)) is given as 2, = 1 • (in days -1 ·susceptible persons -1 ).
Each outbreak N is described independently by a new logistic function ( ), and distinct outbreaks of the virus are assigned to the observed data. Previously (4), outbreaks were considered separately in single time intervals. A first outbreak, N=0, showed purely exponential increase and was quickly interrupted after a few days. Sufficient data are now available for consistent fits over the whole time from end of January to mid-November. It thus turned out that the further outbreaks N=1-4 do not occur consecutively, but may also overlap on the time scale, and that the case numbers ( ) add up to the total case number ( ) :  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 30, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.27.20239772 doi: medRxiv preprint 4) The additional parameter 0, is introduced since the outbreaks start at different times. It is determined as the date, when the observed total case number and infection rate significantly increase with respect to the respective calculated sums of the previous waves 1..N-1.

Results and Discussion
The observed total case numbers yield fairly smooth curves (Figure 1) , and in many cases steps indicating a new outbreak are clearly visible. Even though a very simple model with few parameters (table 1) is underlying, the observed data are well fitted by equation (2). It is possible to extrapolate the curves over short times. By early identifying the deviation of observed data from the fit of the previous outbreaks (1..N-1), a spontaneous new outbreak N can be predicted.
Daily infection rates oscillate with a seven days period and are subjected to strong noise due to fluctuations in data collection ( Figure 2). Calculating the day to day differences of this rate effectively yields the second derivative of the total case number, which is an extremely rough function. In media presentation the problem of weekly fluctuation is reduced either by showing a seven days running average, or by evaluating rate differences not between consecutive days, but between a day and the same weekday in the week before. In any case statistical noise is obscured by the weekly oscillations. The procedure adopted here circumvents this problem by fitting the rather smooth total case number by an analytic function and then evaluating the infection rate as a smooth curve from the fit. The infection rate is essentially the first derivative of the total case number as a function of time, and shows a bell shaped structure for each outbreak. (1) N=0: The strictly exponential increase was interrupted after a few weeks in March by any form of social distancing in all countries before a significant deviation from the exponential increase or a saturation were recognizable. I0,0 was very low, but infection could have gone to very high numbers of 0 ≈ as provided in the original SIR-approach. The time constants were 3-4 days, the doubling time then only 2.3-3 days.
The following four outbreaks all took place under conditions of social distancing. A few weeks after the beginning t0,N, the additional case number IN(t) clearly drops below the initially exponential increase (4). The time N is significantly higher for N=1-4 than for N=0, and the outbreaks continue independently: . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 30, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.27.20239772 doi: medRxiv preprint (2) N=1: The first short outbreak after lock down or other measures started end of February or beginning of March 2020, and affected only a few tenth of percent of the population in Europe, whereas S1 was even nearly negligible in Argentina (cf. Fig 1a). Without the sequence of continuing spontaneous outbreaks, the pandemic should have ended in June 2020 (6). From the point of kinetics, this outbreak still had rather short time constants and high rate constants of around six days and 10 -6 , respectively.
(3) N=2: The N=1 outbreak was immediately followed by a next one starting April to June. The case numbers in this time were often ascribed to a release of the Anti-Corona measures. The initial number of infected people was significant (I0,2 of a 5-30 thousand), but the total number of infections only moderately increased by about 0.1% of the population in Europe. Only in Argentina, which had seen small impact of the N=1 outbreak, the case number was higher, around 1%. The time scale of this outbreak is considerably longer than of the previous one (2,N around 20 days), but the rate constant is still of the order of 10 -6 in Europe. and S4 during the second wave are significantly higher than S1, S2 immediately after the first measures in March. Thus, x3 and x4 are around 1-2% of the total population, and add up to an infection of 1.1-3% of the respective total population.
All rate constants k2,3 and k2,4 were close to 10 -7 and thus significantly lower than for N=1 or 2. It may be speculated that this indicates people being more cautious than in the beginning of the pandemic. The outbreak  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 30, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.27.20239772 doi: medRxiv preprint 6

Conclusion
A thorough quantitative analysis shows that the total case numbers and infection rates are not only described as first and second wave, but that a total of five outbreaks has to be distinguished so far. They typically start with a small number of infected persons, in the beginning few 100, later with in increasing number I0,N up to 50.000.
During the infection process, the total case numbers typically increase by a factor of ten; but the ratio SN/I0,N varies in a large range, as I0,N is not very strictly defined by the fit procedure.
In many cases, new outbreaks start parallel to previous ones, while these still generate significant infection rates.
The spontaneous appearance of new infection outbreaks with high initial case numbers shows that measures such as the lock down earlier in 2020 had had no definite success.
In large countries outbreaks from different regions could be shifted with respect to each other, and their superposition could scramble the data to be fitted. It has been shown in (4) that this is not the case. Obviously the outbreaks are correlated even under conditions of reduced personal exchange. Thus, new outbreaks start spontaneously, but simultaneously in different countries.
The fits ( Figure 1) yield a fairly stable prognosis as long as only existing breakouts are continued. From the noisy infection rate data, this is possible alone only with large computational effort, if at all (7). Prognosis on a longer timescale and for the end of the infection spreading is not possible due to spontaneous outbreaks.
Here, case numbers and infection rates of Argentina were compared with respective data from Europe. The main point to make is that the second wave occurs in a country on the southern hemisphere on a quite similar time scale and with similar incidences as in European countries of comparable sizes. As Argentina now sees the transition from winter to summer rather than from summer to winter as in Europe, this similarity discards the common theory that the second wave is due to autumn cooling. Moreover, the second wave should have larger impact in Germany than in Spain, where the climate in autumn still is rather mild. The opposite is observed, the country is far more severely hit than Germany. These observations leads to the speculative question, if the person to person transfer of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in aerosols is indeed the only efficient infection mechanism. As nearly all measures in . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 30, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.27.20239772 doi: medRxiv preprint most countries aim at reducing the aerosol mechanism, bypassing it by another infection channel would explain, why the success of many anti-Corona measures is limited. Table 1: Fit parameters for CoVid-19 outbreaks according to eq. (2). The meaning of the parameters is explained in the text. For clarity, the numbers N of the outbreaks and the respective colors in Figures 1 and 2  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 30, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.27.20239772 doi: medRxiv preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 30, 2020. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 30, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.27.20239772 doi: medRxiv preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 30, 2020. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 30, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.27.20239772 doi: medRxiv preprint