english česky


Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 "The little Coronavirus"

Looking at the epidemy data, some quite interesting conclusions could be made. Each conclusion is discussed on a separate page. Currently all conclusions are made from the data of the first wave (i.e. from the period from March 2020 to June 2020). The second wave brings a new view on the data, but all the results from the first wave seems to be still valid. The observable conclusions are:

  1. The influence of Factor X on the progress of the epidemy: There are factors, which are not under the control of humans influencing the epidemy. These factors are moreover quite significant. They may influence the situation by more than 20%. These factors are called the Factor X.
  2. The effect of friday the 13th: In march, on friday the 13th a significant rise of daily infected cases happened in the countries of western Europe. This rise is exceeding all other daily case increases happened in the first wave of the epidemy. It looks like friday the 13th is unlucky only for mankind while not for viruses. In the countries of eastern Europe the effect of friday the 13th is totally insignificant and almost invisible.
  3. Very similar progress of the epidemy spread in the European countries: The epidemy of Covid-19 share very similar parameters across the whole Europe. Regardless of how much the epidemy spreaded or which measures were taken, it may be told that the spread speed was very similar. The progress similarity is also in the fact, that the moment when the curve of the spread speed intersect the zero axes (which is the moment of the epidemic peak) happens in the whole Europe at the turn of march and april. In some countries (United kingdom, Sweden) the peak-like formation is also appreciable. However, in these countries the epidemy continued with a milder growth while it went to a decline of the epidemy in most countries.
  4. Almost identical progress of the epidemy spread in the Czech Republic and in Germany: In the Czech Republic and in Germany, the epidemy has almost identical progress in march and april 2020 and differs only with the starting position of both countries. The most interesting point is, that the spread speed of both countries copies each other including weekly oscilations.
  5. It does not depend only on the testing methodology but also on the result counting methodology: If we look on the data from the Czech Republic from two different, but official sources, it comes out, that both sources mapping the same testing process may differ quite a lot. Therefore, even the methodology, how partial cases are count together may influence the data.

Blog posts (czech only)

The problematics of the spread of the coronavirus is also discussed in several posts from the blog vidlakovykydy.cz. These posts are in Czech only. They try to popularize several findings being made by observations of graphs being shown in this site. In posts being written in the time of the fist wave it may be observed the lack of information that the goverments of european countries jumped into the first wave in the middle of the wave. Nothing else may explain the big differences in the R number estimations from the fist and second wave. This explanation was not available in the time of the fist wave and become clear by observing the second wave of the epidemy.

From the posts being published at the blog, which are more or less analysing the epidemy data, I would mention these (they are odrdered by the date of publishing):

Cached sources: Dynamic sources: testing page