Double check combined interventions

[apascualgarcia]

@Jennifer-Villers

Could you please double check that this figure corresponds (i.e. same order and same parameters) to this file? Don't rely on "scale_label". I still feel there may be errors...

Thanks!

[Jennifer-Villers]

@apascualgarcia

Hi Alberto, I checked and there are indeed discrepancies.

If you want to make the table match the figure, then you should change lanes 17-20:

• lane 17 should be: safety + 50 tents + evac (instead of safety + 50 tents + lock 50%)
• lane 18 should be: safety + 50 tents + lock 50% (instead of safety + 50 tents + self 20%)
• lane 19 should be: safety + 50 tents + self 20% (instead of safety + 50 tents + self 50%)
• lane 20 should be: safety + 50 tents + self 50% (instead of safety + 50 tents + evac)

Lane 23 (safety + 50 tents + evac + lock 90% + self 50%) does not appear in the figure.

In addition, if the table is to be published together with the figure, I would replace isolate with evacuate (since isolate can easily be interpreted as the self-isolation tents rather than evacuation of hospitalized patients).

Do you want me to modify the table to match the figure or do you want to modify the figure to match the table?

[apascualgarcia]

Thanks @Jennifer-Villers, I am sorry, I did not explain you how they are linked. The excel file is the input of one script that will retrieve simulations with those parameters and plot the results (so it is no for publishing it is just an input file).

What I've found with your analysis is that one simulation was never done (the one at lane 17), which I was not expecting, so from that line all lines below were incorrect. I added one warning to the script now if there are simulations missing.

Could you please have another look to the figure and file to see if it is ok? I think now it is ok (the problem is that add the labels in the figure by hand, hence the errrors). Also that the accumulative reductions observed make sense given the previous ones.

If you think it is ok just close the issue.

Thanks!

[Jennifer-Villers]

Could you please have another look to the figure and file to see if it is ok? I think now it is ok (the problem is that add the labels in the figure by hand, hence the errrors). Also that the accumulative reductions observed make sense given the previous ones.

The table and the figure now match. Regarding the cumulative reductions I believe that they make sense. It seems that adding "lockdown" and "evacuation" to "safety + 50 tents + self 50%" does not reduce the number of deaths any further than what "safety + 50 tents + self 50%" can accomplish alone.

[apascualgarcia]

Yes, I agree, in general self 50% has the strongest effect and if present it looks like other minor interventions do not contribute much. But I also think that it may be the most difficult intervention to implement effectively.

[Jennifer-Villers]

@apascualgarcia @ecam85

Hi guys, while I was checking the manuscript this morning, I noticed that the last figure with the combined interventions does not correspond to the one that I double checked with Alberto here.

Can you please guys double check to make sure that we have the right one in the manuscript?

[ecam85]

It is probably my fault, let me check it.

[ecam85]

I fixed the figure. I was using an outdated table and it was missing the data for one of the interventions.