Back

On Reliability of the COVID-19 Forecasts

Baruah, H. K.

2020-06-01 epidemiology
10.1101/2020.06.01.20118844 medRxiv
Show abstract

In this expository article, we are aiming to show with an example that even short term forecasts regarding the COVID-19 spread pattern may sometimes not be very reliable. We have studied data published by Worldometers.info to get numerically an approximate formula of the spread pattern for a short period. We have observed that in the United States of America, there was a nearly exponential spread pattern for a very short period from May 3 to May 8, 2020. From May 9 to May 13, the nearly exponential character of the spread was found to be absent. Hence it can be concluded that the COVID-19 spread pattern, even after more than four months from the start of the outbreak, is not quite predictable. Therefore even short term forecasts regarding the spread may not be very reliable. We have found that forecasts using the assumption of an exponential pattern of spread may actually lead to overestimation.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 4%
31.9%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 11%
6.4%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Infectious Disease Modelling
○ 54 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.1%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics
○ 11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals
○ 32 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.9%
6
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
○ 128 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.9%
Similar papers in this journal
50% of probability mass above
7
Epidemiology and Infection
◐ 89 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.5%
8
Mathematical Biosciences
○ 49 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.5%
9
The European Physical Journal Plus
○ 13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
10
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 12%
2.2%
11
Royal Society Open Science
● 214 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
12
PeerJ
◐ 308 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.2%
13
Frontiers in Public Health
○ 148 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
14
Cureus
○ 68 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
15
Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering
○ 10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
16
Mathematics
○ 11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.2%
17
COVID
○ 14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
18
Nonlinear Dynamics
○ 10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
19
JMIRx Med
◐ 32 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
20
Journal of Clinical Medicine
○ 97 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
21
Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering
● 23 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
22
Physical Biology
○ 46 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
23
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
◐ 45 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
24
Applied Sciences
○ 25 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
25
BMC Infectious Diseases
○ 133 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
26
F1000Research
○ 88 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
27
BMC Research Notes
○ 33 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
28
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
○ 29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%
29
Heliyon
○ 152 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.6%
30
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
● 235 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.