The IHME vs Me: Modeling USA CoVID-19 Spread, Early Data to the Fifth Wave

Epidemiologists have never had such high-quality real-time pandemic data. Modeling CoVID-19 pandemic data became a predictive tool instead of an afterwards analysis. How early CoVID-19 model predictions impacted US Government policies and practices is first reviewed here as an important part of the pandemic history. It spurred independent modeling efforts, such as this, to help develop a better understanding of CoVID-19 spread, and to provide a substitute for the IHME (Institute for Health Metrics & Evaluation, U. Washington) 4-month predictions for the expected pandemic evolution, which they had to revise every couple of weeks. Our alternative model, which was developed over the course of several earlier medrxiv.org preprints, is shown here to provide a good description for the entire USA CoVID-19 pandemic to date, covering: (1) the original CoVID-19 wave [3/21/20-6/07/20], (2) the Summer 2020 Resurgence [6/07/20-9/25/20], (3) the large Winter 2020 Resurgence [9/25/20-3/19/21], (4) a small Spring 2021 "Fourth Wave", [3/19/21-6/07/21], and (5) the present-day Summer 2021 "Fifth Wave" [6/07/21-present], which the USA is now in the midst of. Our analysis of the initial "Fifth Wave" data shows that this wave presently has the capacity to infect virtually all susceptible non-vaccinated persons who practice NO Mask-Wearing and minimal Social Distancing.


Introduction
The initial CoVID-19 pandemic response by the US Government and public agencies needs to be remembered for future pandemics. In spite of the availability of high-quality real-time pandemic data, the early history of the pandemic in the US shows that very little coordinated e¤ort occurred to use this data in a timely manner, or to test the robustness of early CoVID-19 pandemic assumptions.
This report includes material from a recent presentation for the Virtual MathFest 2021, hosted by the Mathematical Association of America (MAA) on 3-7 August 2021. Figure 1, created by Andy Balk for the UK online news 1 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 24, 2021. ;https://doi.org/10.1101https://doi.org/10. /2021 outlet The Independent 1 , shows the US early CoVID-19 data combined with the US President's early pandemic responses, including the President calling the pandemic a "hoax" that "wasn't out fault", before declaring a National Emergency in mid-March 2020. Figure 2 captures the impact of early CoVID-19 pandemic modeling by the University of Washington IHME (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation), which released a 4-month projection for CoVID-19 evolution in the USA 2 on 3/25/2020. It was labelled "America's most in ‡uential coronavirus model" 3 , and it initially projected a total of about 81,000 CoVID-19 fatalities. Two weeks later, on 4/06/2020, the IHME revised its projections to only about 60,000 USA deaths by August 2020 3 . By 4/19/2020, the White House had adopted this IHME projection as a guide for their national policies 4 . Unfortunately, less than two weeks later, on 5/01/2020, the USA number of CoVID-19 deaths surpassed this value 5 , three months early. A day later, the internet blog vox.com o¤ered the question 6 , "The IHME coronavirus model keeps being wrong. Why are we still listening to it?" We found a persistent ‡aw in the IHME model. It is illustrated by the IHME graphs in Figure 3, which shows their expected number of daily new cases until CoVID-19 pandemic end, for both Northern Pennsylvania 7 (IHME, 3/26/2020) and the nation 8 (IHME, 4/22/2020). The persistent ‡aw is that the IHME assumed that symmetric functions for the expected number of daily new cases would always be applicable. They further assumed that these functions would be symmetric Gaussians, which drove all their predictions, as disclosed in their MedRxiv preprint of 3/25/2020 9 .
Concerns about this IHME model and concerns with the Federal Government's early CoVID-19 pandemic response resulted in many mathematicallyminded individuals, including us, started their own independent CoVID-19 data analyses, while Sewing Circles all across America were making handmade masks for First Responders and patients.
The next section summarizes all of our CoVID-19 models, starting with our original March-April 2020 10 Social Distancing model. This model was then expanded 11 13 to include the likely e¤ects of Mask-Wearing. A comparison of our model to the USA CoVID-19 pandemic data up through August 2021 shows that our expanded model is applicable to all USA CoVID-19 data, and provides a fairly accurate and quanti…able picture of the four USA CoVID-19 waves that have already occurred. Initial study of present-day "Fifth Wave" data also shows that it has the capacity to become the most deadly wave of all.

Initial Model Background and Development
This CoVID-19 study starts with the standard SEIR (Susceptible, Exposed, Infected, Recovered/Removed) model and R 0 -index, as shown in Figure 4. This R 0 modi…es exponentials so that R 0 > 1 is pandemic growth; R 0 < 1 is pandemic decay; while R 0 = 1 gives a persistent disease baseline in the population.
Let N (t) be the total number of pandemic cases, with dN = dt being the 2 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 24, 2021. ;https://doi.org/10.1101https://doi.org/10. /2021 expected number of daily new cases. The simplest SEIR model is: [2.1c] The fK R ; R 0 g combination sets how fast an infected person spreads CoVID-19 to others; N o is the number of infected people at time t = 0; and t dbl is the pandemic doubling time. As shown in Figure 4, the early USA CoVID-19 data 5 followed this exponential growth, with a very short doubling time of t dbl 2:02 d.  Figure 5. This change corresponds to an increasing t R or t dbl , making these parameters time-dependent. We next showed 10 that the simplest t dbl (t) model, using a linear function for t dbl (t): 2] naturally predicts pandemic end, since: [2.3] The S parameter measures the amount of Social Distancing. Instead of being a symmetric function, the dN = dt from Eq. [2.2] for the expected number of daily new cases is very asymmetric, with a predicted~1=t 2 long-term tail: 4] This asymmetry in dN = dt closely matches the bing.com CoVID-19 USA data up through 4/19/2020 17 , as shown in Figure 6.
Our original preprint was sent to multiple organizations on 4/29/2020, including the IHME. Within a week, on 5/4/2020, the IHME substantially revised their entire reported modeling e¤ort 16 , and o¤ered only a range of possibilities, in lieu of a speci…c prediction. As reported by Alan Boyle of geekwire.com 17 , the IHME researchers acknowledged on 5/4/2020 that their previous CoVID-19 modeling wasn't "sophisticated enough". Figure 7 shows the results of applying Eq. [2.2] to the ongoing bing.com CoVID-19 USA data up through 6/07/2020, seven weeks later than in Figure  6. The fN o [3=21=2020]; t R ; S g values changed only by 8% 10% between the 4/19/20 and 6/07/20 analyses. The N F IN AL value for the total number of USA CoVID-19 cases predicted at pandemic end, changed~18%, from N F IN AL 5:46 million to N F IN AL 4:50 million. It represents a signi…cantly smaller 3 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 24, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.16.21262150 doi: medRxiv preprint model prediction change over a much longer time, compared to the 3/25/2020 IHME model. Figure 8 shows the world-wide early CoVID-19 data, as assembled by The Royal Society of London for their early CoVID-19 pandemic 8/24/2020 review 18 . Various preset t dbl values are also shown as a visual guide. Using a logarithmic ordinate, virtually all these data show a downward curvature away from the straight-line function of pure exponential growth.
In Figure 9, the Eq. [2.2] model was applied to the early pandemic growth for various countries and the World, showing it provided a fairly good approximation for most cases examined 10 . However, as Figure 10 shows, the early CoVID-19 data from Italy was somewhat di¤erent, in that it had a post-peak dN = dt tail that was almost a pure exponential decay down to fairly low values, which made it di¢ cult for the Eq. [2.2] model to handle.
As NPR reported 19 , the People's Republic of China, as part of their early CoVID-19 pandemic assistance to Italy, recommended three large-scale changes, which the Italian government quickly adopted: (1) signi…cant mask-wearing, (2) more aggressive business shutdowns, and (3) more social distancing. It is doubtless that these aggressive changes contributed to a di¤erent early CoVID-19 pandemic evolution in Italy.
A second parameter was then added to the Eq. [2.2] model 12 , to explicitly enable dN = dt long-term tails to exhibit a nearly exponential decay with time: 5] but it needs an added restriction that this pandemic wave ends whenever the calculated dN = dt < 0 …rst occurs using Eq. [2.5].
Using Eq. [2.5] gives the Italy data…t shown in Figure 10. Since the main di¤erence between the USA and Italy CoVID-19 responses at that time was signi…cant Mask-Wearing, the o size is likely to primarily be a Mask-Wearing metric.
Follow-on analyses for the successive waves of USA CoVID-19 infections are shown in Figures  Since each new CoVID-19 wave sits atop the tails from all the prior CoVID-19 waves, the CoVID-19 overall progression in Figure 15 shows that this multiwave analysis has retained its overall validity, from the initial 3/21/2020 start date, up through the latest data. Model parameters that were derived from each prior wave did not need any revisions, once the next new CoVID-19 wave became established as exceeding the prior baseline.
The various ft R ; S ; o g values associated with each of these CoVID-19 stages are summarized in Figure 16. Those parameter values provide additional insight as to what factors were likely driving the CoVID-19 infection rate for each USA pandemic wave.

4
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 24, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10. 1101/2021 The …rst weeks of the CoVID-19 pandemic (3/7/2020-3/21/2020) had an N (t) doubling time of~2:02 d, as shown in Figure 4. As given in the Figure 16 table, the entire pandemic …rst-wave, from 3/21/2020 through 6/07/2020, showed a best-…t value of t R = 2:8804, corresponding to an intrinsic doubling time of: Unfortunately, loosening controls led to a CoVID-19 Summer 2020 Resurgence, which likely started around 6/07/2020, 78 days after the start of USAwide Social Distancing on 3/21/2020. Other factors such as di¤erent CoVID-19 variants circulating could have also contributed to the overall size of this resurgence. The Eq. [3.1] t R -value and intrinsic doubling time for the Summer 2020 Resurgence was 40% 50% larger than the CoVID-19 initial wave, indicating that SEIR parameters for this resurgence were actually less aggressive. The calculated Social Distancing value of S = 0:058 = day was similar to the initial CoVID-19 pandemic wave, indicating a similar amount of Social Distancing mitigation.
People in the USA started to engage in Mask-Wearing, so that the post-peak decline for this Summer 2020 resurgence was faster than for the initial Spring 2020 CoVID-19 wave, as shown by the Figure 11 inset. Our analysis gave o = 0:0108 = day for Mask-Wearing. Although this value is signi…cantly smaller in size than S , its unit-for-unit impact is greater. Thus, Mask-Wearing is more powerful as a CoVID-19 pandemic stopping agent than Social Distancing. Had all of those controls remained in place, and had the weather not changed, these calculations would have predicted a CoVID-19 pandemic end with N F IN AL 9:643 million USA cases total.
But the seasons changed, the USA weather changed, and the dreaded, almost unavoidable, Winter 2020 Resurgence then occurred. Our best estimate for its starting date was 9/25/2020, 110 days after the 6/07/2020 start of the Summer 2020 Resurgence. Its Eq. [3.1] t R -value and intrinsic doubling time was almost 2X larger than the Summer 2020 Resurgence, indicating that SEIR parameters continued to become even less aggressive. However, both the Social Distancing parameter S , and the Mask-Wearing index o were much less, which made the Winter 2020 Resurgence very long and very deadly.
It overlaps with a small Spring 2021 "Fourth Wave", which started around 3/19/2021, 175 days after the Winter 2020 Resurgence started on 9/25/2020. This small "Fourth Wave" likely ended 80 days later, around 6/07/2021, which ironically covered virtually the same calendar interval as the original CoVID-19 pandemic start. Combining the Winter 2020 Resurgence and this small 5 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
We are now in the CoVID-19 pandemic "Fifth Wave". We estimate that it started around 6/07/2021, and it is a pernicious Summer 2021 Resurgence. Our initial analyses shows that the basic SEIR model t R parameter continues to increase, which is good. But any positive t R value means that the CoVID-19 pandemic can still exponentially grow at any time. CoVID-19 pandemic shuto¤ needs a relatively large S Social Distancing value, and a …nite Mask-Wearing index o to hasten the pandemic end.
Our model tells us who is getting infected in this "Fifth Wave". As the Figure 16 Table shows, the infected people in this "Fifth Wave" are associated with virtually NO Mask-Wearing, and very little S Social Distancing. The S and o values are so small for the beginning of this "Fifth Wave" that our model predicts an N F IN AL value in the billions, assuming an arbitrarily large susceptible population. What such a large N F IN AL means is that, unabated, this "Fifth Wave" can infect virtually every susceptible non-vaccinated person in USA who is in this "minimal Social Distancing" and "NO Mask-Wearing" sub-group.

Summary
Let N (t) be the total number of pandemic cases, with dN = dt for the expected number of daily new cases. Figures 1-3 here summarize elements of the early USA CoVID-19 response. One of the most in ‡uential early USA CoVID-19 models by the IHME (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation) was likely wrong, which led us to develop an alternative model for USA CoVID-19 spread.
For the early CoVID-19 pandemic, a basic SEIR (Susceptible, Exposed, Infected, Recovered/Removed) epidemiology model accurately predicted an N (t) exponential growth : [4.1c] where t R is the pandemic growth rate, and t dbl is the N (t) doubling time.
Because SEIR models are local models that track and predict the number of infected persons, they do not automatically account for changes in the collective behavior among the large population of uninfected people. These changes can be due to new government mandates, or changes in the individual choices among uninfected people, such as Social Distancing and Mask-Wearing. These factors can add a new non-local dimension to pandemic evolution, requiring an extension of the basic Eqs. [4.1a]-[4.1c] SEIR exponential growth models.
The USA CoVID-19 data showed that these large-scale interventions convert t dbl in Eq. [4.1c] into a function of time t dbl (t). To model these changes, early data supported using a nearly linear function of time for t dbl (t): [4.2b] 6 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 24, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.16.21262150 doi: medRxiv preprint [4.2c] A simple interpretation of S is that it measures the amount of Social Distancing among uninfected persons, as a pandemic mitigation measure. When t dbl (t) is a nearly linear function of time, the total number of infected persons at the pandemic end, N (t ! 1), will converge to a …nite value, automatically shutting the pandemic o¤. Having a sub-linear t dbl (t) growth would only slow the pandemic down, but not stop it from eventually infecting all susceptible persons. Social Distancing is needed, and it has to be robust enough so that the long-time behavior of t dbl (t) is at least a linear function of time to enable pandemic shuto¤.
This model provided a good …t to the early USA CoVID-19 data, holding its predictive power for nearly two months. The Eqs. [4.2a]-[4.2c] functions were found to provide acceptable CoVID-19 data…ts for many other countries around the world, except for Italy.
Italy di¤ered from many other countries that mandated Social Distancing, Non-Essential Business Closures, and Lockdowns, in that they also instituted signi…cant Mask-Wearing. As a result, their post-peak decline in dN = dt for their …rst major CoVID-19 wave showed nearly an exponential decay, which is signi…cantly faster than the Eq. [4.2c] predictions. A second parameter was added to Eq. [4.2a], giving: 3] to cover this new case, but an additional restriction is needed that the end of the pandemic wave occurs when dN = dt < 0 is …rst calculated in Eq.  Table, are so small that, unabated, virtually every susceptible non-vaccinated USA person in this "minimal Social Distancing" and "NO Mask-Wearing" subgroup can become infected. Hopefully, as this "Fifth Wave" evolves, more aggressive personal responsibility by this susceptible sub-group will raise the pandemic-ending S and o values. 7 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 24, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.16.21262150 doi: medRxiv preprint Fig. 1: What President Trump Said in the Early Pandemic. Graph and text compiled by Andy Balk for the UK news outlet The Independent, showing the President minimizing the potential impacts of the pandemic, before reversing course and declaring it a National Emergency on 3/13/2020. Fig. 2: What the IHME Said in the CoVID-19 Early Pandemic. On 3/25/2020, the University of Washington IHME (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation) published their 4-month CoVID-19 projection, with two-week updates starting on 6 April 2020. The update projected only 60,000 USA CoVID-19 deaths by August 2020. These IHME projections quickly became "America's Most In ‡uential Coronavirus Model ". They were adopted by the White House on 4/19/2020 as part of the US Federal Government CoVID-19 response. Unfortunately, this 4-month future value was crossed on 5/1/2020, three months early, causing many to question the IHME modeling. Fig. 3: IHME Assumed Symmetric Functions Would Model the Rise and Fall of the Daily Number of Expected CoVID-19 Cases. IHME results for Northern Pennsylvania (3/26/2020) and the USA (4/22/2020), showing the IHME used the same symmetric function, pre-peak and post-peak, for the expected number of daily new cases [dN = dt] throughout this period. We found that this result arises solely due to the 3/26/2020 IHME model assumption that the dN = dt function had to be a Gaussian, which led us to develop a more data-based IHME model alternative. Fig. 4: What SEIR Models and Pandemic Ro Factors Are. The standard SEIR Model (Susceptible, Exposed, Infected, Recovered or removed) is reviewed. It is a local model, which presumes an exponential growth for the total number of infected persons during the initial pandemic. Inset shows early CoVID-19 data matching this growth, giving a doubling time of t dbl 2:02d. Growth. Within days of starting wide-scale Social Distancing measures among uninfected persons, including closure of schools and lockdown of non-essential businesses, the pandemic t dbl doubling time lengthened and CoVID-19 growth slowed. Fig. 6: The Simplest CoVID-19 Model: Let t dbl ! t dbl (t). Collective phenomena among the uninfected, such as Social Distancing, can stop an exponential growth if t dbl (t) itself is a linear function of time, so that N (t ! 1) automatically converges to a …nite value. A data vs model comparison to 4/19/2020 shows that a highly asymmetric dN = dt is predicted. On 4/29/2020, our MedRxiv pre-print covering this original model development and data analysis was sent to many organizations, including the IHME. Within a week, the IHME sta¤ substantially revised their entire reported modeling methods, saying that their original CoVID-19 model was not "sophisticated enough". Fig. 7: Same Model Gives Similar Predictions with Later USA Data. Our model was applied to the later USA CoVID-19 pandemic data, up through 6/07/2020, nearly 7 weeks after Figure 6. The parameter values changed only about 10% or less between these two periods, which altered the USA N (t ! 1) value about 18%, from~5:464 to~4:499 million.

8
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 24, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.16.21262150 doi: medRxiv preprint Fig. 8: Plot of World-Wide CoVID-19 Early Pandemic DATA. Graph by the Royal Society of London from their 8/24/2020 early CoVID-19 pandemic review. On a logarithmic ordinate, virtually all these data show a downward curvature from the straight-line of pure exponential growth. Fig. 9: Model Approximates Early Pandemic World Data Except for Italy. Early pandemic data up through 4/19/2020, with model data…ts are shown for the World and various countries. Our model worked fairly well on early CoVID-19 pandemic data for many countries except for Italy. Fig. 10: Updated Model for Italy. Empirically, the initial wave postpeak dN = dt data for Italy decreased nearly exponentially, which is outside the realm of dN = dt~1 = t 2 function, associated with our which original CoVID-19 pandemic model. As reported by NPR, Italy achieved this result with help from the People's Republic of China, which recommended public Mask-Wearing, making Italy the …rst country where this was mandated. Fig. 11: Modeling the Summer 2020 USA Resurgence. The Eq. [2.5] extended model has two parameters f S ; o g for quantifying the collective behavior of uninfected persons in enabling CoVID-19 pandemic shuto¤. infections. One is associated with Social Distancing and the other is associated with Mask-Wearing. The USA Summer 2020 CoVID-19 Resurgence by itself (inset) shows that the dN = dt post-peak tail has an exponential decay component, similar to the prior Italy data. That period also corresponds to the …rst time there was signi…cant USA Mask-Wearing. The USA N (t ! 1) pandemic-end value increased from~4:499 million (initial wave) to~9:643 million (initial wave plus Summer 2020 Resurgence). daily new cases after that signals a new Summer 2021 "Fifth Wave". Each CoVID-19 wave is assumed to end at the …rst calculated dN = dt < 0 point for that wave, which also provides a good marker for the next CoVID-19 start. USA infections at pandemic-end [N (t ! 1)] now exceeds 34 million. Fig. 14: Initial Analysis of USA CoVID-19 "Fifth Wave" By Itself. This graph plots the N (t) number of "Fifth Wave" cases by itself, with all prior CoVID-19 waves removed. Our estimated start date for this "Fifth Wave" is 6/07/2021. The relative lack of downward curvature, as compared to the Figure 8 data, shows that this "Fifth Wave" has very little Social Distancing or Mask-Wearing among this newly infected sub-group. Fig. 15: USA CoVID-19 Totals Including Early "Fifth Wave" Data. The blue curve shows the N (t) projections for all the USA CoVID-9 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 24, 2021. ;https://doi.org/10.1101https://doi.org/10. /2021 19 waves, including this "Fifth Wave". The daily dN = dt values are in red, and are projected to continue to rise sharply. Fig. 16: Summary of CoVID-19 Models and Model Parameters. This Table summarizes model parameters for each USA CoVID-19 pandemic wave. The t R or t dbl (t = 0) doubling times at the start of each CoVID-19 wave are increasing, but larger t R values only delay the time when all susceptible people become infected. More Social Distancing or Mask-Wearing is needed to prevent the present-day USA "Fifth Wave" from infecting all susceptible persons. See text Section 3 of the main text for additional interpretation of these results.
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 24, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.16.21262150 doi: medRxiv preprint . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.  4/29/20: Preprint sent to many organizations including IHME. 5/4/20: IHME revised entire published model. IHME staff then said their initial model was "not sophisticated enough". ** New IHME Model gave range of possibilities in lieu of a prediction.