4.7 Article

COVID-19 in South Korea: epidemiological and spatiotemporal patterns of the spread and the role of aggressive diagnostic tests in the early phase

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 49, 期 4, 页码 1106-1116

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyaa119

关键词

COVID-19 epidemic; aggressive testing; epidemiological pattern; severe-patients-targeted treatment; South Korea

资金

  1. Korea Ministry of Environment via the `Climate Change Correspondence Program' [2014001310007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: South Korea experienced the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in the early period; thus data from this country could provide significant implications for global mitigation strategies. This study reports how COVID-19 has spread in South Korea and examines the effects of rapid widespread diagnostic testing on the spread of the disease in the early epidemic phase. Methods: We collected daily data on the number of confirmed cases, tests and deaths due to COVID-19 from 20 January to 13 April 2020. We estimated the spread pattern with a logistic growth model, calculated the daily reproduction number (R-t) and examined the fatality pattern of COVID-19. Results: From the start date of the epidemic in Korea (18 February 2020), the time to peak and plateau were 15.2 and 25 days, respectively. The initial R-t was 3.9 [95% credible interval (CI) 3.7 to 4.2] and declined to <1 after 2 weeks. The initial epidemic doubling time was 3.8 days (3.4 to 4.2 days). The aggressive testing in the early days of the epidemic was associated with reduction in transmission speed of COVID-19. In addition, as of 13 April, the case fatality rate of COVID-19 in Korea was 2.1%, suggesting a positive effect of the targeted treatment policy for severe patients and medical resources. Conclusions: Our findings provide important information for establishing and revising action plans based on testing strategies and severe patient care systems, needed to address the unprecedented pandemic.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据