SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) by the numbers
- The Weizmann Institute for Science, Israel
- University of California, Berkeley, United States
- California Institute of Technology, United States
Abstract
The current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is a harsh reminder of the fact that, whether in a single human host or a wave of infection across continents, viral dynamics is often a story about the numbers. In this snapshot, our aim is to provide a one-stop, curated graphical source for the key numbers that help us understand the virus driving our current global crisis. The discussion is framed around two broad themes: 1) the biology of the virus itself and 2) the characteristics of the infection of a single human host. Our one-page summary provides the key numbers pertaining to SARS-CoV-2, based mostly on peer-reviewed literature. The numbers reported in summary format are substantiated by the annotated references below. Readers are urged to remember that much uncertainty remains and knowledge of this pandemic and the virus driving it is rapidly evolving. In the paragraphs below we provide 'back of the envelope' calculations that exemplify the insights that can be gained from knowing some key numbers and using quantitative logic. These calculations serve to improve our intuition through sanity checks, but do not replace detailed epidemiological analysis.
Data availability
This article is a compilation of previously published data; no new data were generated in this study.
Article and author information
Author details
Funding
National Institutes of Health (1R35 GM118043-01 (Maximizing Investigators Research Award))
- Rob Phillips
Charles and Louise Gartner professional chair
- Ron Milo
Azrieli Fellow
- Yinon M Bar-On
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
Reviewing Editor
- Michael B Eisen, HHMI, University of California, Berkeley, United States
Publication history
- Received: March 27, 2020
- Accepted: March 30, 2020
- Accepted Manuscript published: March 31, 2020 (version 1)
- Accepted Manuscript updated: April 1, 2020 (version 2)
- Accepted Manuscript updated: April 2, 2020 (version 3)
- Version of Record published: May 14, 2020 (version 4)
Copyright
© 2020, Bar-On et al.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 71,799
- Page views
-
- 8,679
- Downloads
-
- 550
- Citations
Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) by the numbers
eLife 9:e57309.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.57309
Further reading
-
- Epidemiology and Global Health
Background: Home-based self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing may be an alternative for women not attending clinic-based cervical cancer screening.
Methods: We assessed barriers to care and motivators to use at-home HPV self-sampling kits during the COVID-19 pandemic as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating kit effectiveness. Participants were women aged 30-65 and under-screened for cervical cancer in a safety-net healthcare system. We conducted telephone surveys in English/Spanish among a subgroup of trial participants, assessed differences between groups, and determined statistical significance at p<0.05.
Results: Over half of 233 survey participants reported that clinic-based screening (Pap) is uncomfortable (67.8%), embarrassing (52.4%), and discomfort seeing male providers (63.1%). The last two factors were significantly more prevalent among Spanish versus English speakers (66.4% vs. 30% (p=0.000) and 69.9 vs. 52.2% (p=0.006), respectively). Most women who completed the kit found Pap more embarrassing (69.3%), stressful (55.6%), and less convenient (55.6%) than the kit. The first factor was more prevalent among Spanish versus English speakers (79.6% vs. 53.38%, p=0.001) and among patients with elementary education or below.
Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic influenced most (59.5%) to participate in the trial due to fear of COVID, difficulty making appointments, and ease of using kits. HPV self-sampling kits may reduce barriers among under-screened women in a safety-net system.
Funding: This study is supported by a grant from the National Institute for Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD, R01MD013715, PI: JR Montealegre).
Clinical trial number: NCT03898167.
-
- Epidemiology and Global Health
Local cervical cancer epidemiological data essential to project the context-specific impact of cervical cancer preventive measures are often missing. We developed a framework, hereafter named Footprinting, to approximate missing data on sexual behaviour, human papillomavirus (HPV) prevalence, or cervical cancer incidence, and applied it to an Indian case study. With our framework, we (1) identified clusters of Indian states with similar cervical cancer incidence patterns, (2) classified states without incidence data to the identified clusters based on similarity in sexual behaviour, (3) approximated missing cervical cancer incidence and HPV prevalence data based on available data within each cluster. Two main patterns of cervical cancer incidence, characterized by high and low incidence, were identified. Based on the patterns in the sexual behaviour data, all Indian states with missing data on cervical cancer incidence were classified to the low-incidence cluster. Finally, missing data on cervical cancer incidence and HPV prevalence were approximated based on the mean of the available data within each cluster. With the Footprinting framework, we approximated missing cervical cancer epidemiological data and made context-specific impact projections for cervical cancer preventive measures, to assist public health decisions on cervical cancer prevention in India and other countries.
