Quantifying transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 and impact of intervention within long-term healthcare facilities.

Estimates of the basic reproduction number (R 0) for COVID-19 are particularly variable in the context of transmission within locations such as long-term healthcare (LTHC) facilities. We sought to characterize the heterogeneity of R 0 across known outbreaks within these facilities. We used a unique comprehensive dataset of all outbreaks that occurred within LTHC facilities in British Columbia, Canada as of 21 September 2020. We estimated R 0 in 18 LTHC outbreaks with a novel Bayesian hierarchical dynamic model of susceptible, exposed, infected and recovered individuals, incorporating heterogeneity of R 0 between facilities. We further compared these estimates to those obtained with standard methods that use the exponential growth rate and maximum likelihood. The total size of outbreaks varied dramatically, with range of attack rates 2%-86%. The Bayesian analysis provided an overall estimate of R 0 = 2.51 (90% credible interval 0.47-9.0), with individual facility estimates ranging between 0.56 and 9.17. Uncertainty in these estimates was more constrained than standard methods, particularly for smaller outbreaks informed by the population-level model. We further estimated that intervention led to 61% (52%-69%) of all potential cases being averted within the LTHC facilities, or 75% (68%-79%) when using a model with multi-level intervention effect. Understanding of transmission risks and impact of intervention are essential in planning during the ongoing global pandemic, particularly in high-risk environments such as LTHC facilities.

How much leeway is there to relax COVID-19 control measures?

Following successful non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) aiming to control COVID-19, many jurisdictions reopened their economies and borders. As little immunity had developed in most populations, re-establishing higher contact carried substantial risks, and therefore many locations began to see resurgence in COVID-19 cases. We present a Bayesian method to estimate the leeway to reopen, or alternatively the strength of change required to re-establish COVID-19 control, in a range of jurisdictions experiencing different COVID-19 epidemics. We estimated the timing and strength of initial control measures such as widespread distancing and compared the leeway jurisdictions had to reopen immediately after NPI measures to later estimates of leeway. Finally, we quantified risks associated with reopening and the likely burden of new cases due to introductions from other jurisdictions. We found widely varying leeway to reopen. After initial NPI measures took effect, some jurisdictions had substantial leeway (e.g., Japan, New Zealand, Germany) with > 0.99 probability that contact rates were below 80% of the threshold for epidemic growth. Others had little leeway (e.g., the United Kingdom, Washington State) and some had none (e.g., Sweden, California). For most such regions, increases in contact rate of 1.5-2 fold would have had high (> 0.7) probability of exceeding past peak sizes. Most jurisdictions experienced June-August trajectories consistent with our projections of contact rate increases of 1-2-fold. Under such relaxation scenarios for some regions, we projected up to ∼100 additional cases if just one case were imported per week over six weeks, even between jurisdictions with comparable COVID-19 risk. We provide an R package covidseir to enable jurisdictions to estimate leeway and forecast cases under different future contact patterns. Estimates of leeway can establish a quantitative basis for decisions about reopening. We recommend a cautious approach to reopening economies and borders, coupled with strong monitoring for changes in transmission.

Quantifying the impact of COVID-19 control measures using a Bayesian model of physical distancing.

Extensive non-pharmaceutical and physical distancing measures are currently the primary interventions against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide. It is therefore urgent to estimate the impact such measures are having. We introduce a Bayesian epidemiological model in which a proportion of individuals are willing and able to participate in distancing, with the timing of distancing measures informed by survey data on attitudes to distancing and COVID-19. We fit our model to reported COVID-19 cases in British Columbia (BC), Canada, and five other jurisdictions, using an observation model that accounts for both underestimation and the delay between symptom onset and reporting. We estimated the impact that physical distancing (social distancing) has had on the contact rate and examined the projected impact of relaxing distancing measures. We found that, as of April 11 2020, distancing had a strong impact in BC, consistent with declines in reported cases and in hospitalization and intensive care unit numbers; individuals practising physical distancing experienced approximately 0.22 (0.11-0.34 90% CI [credible interval]) of their normal contact rate. The threshold above which prevalence was expected to grow was 0.55. We define the "contact ratio" to be the ratio of the estimated contact rate to the threshold rate at which cases are expected to grow; we estimated this contact ratio to be 0.40 (0.19-0.60) in BC. We developed an R package 'covidseir' to make our model available, and used it to quantify the impact of distancing in five additional jurisdictions. As of May 7, 2020, we estimated that New Zealand was well below its threshold value (contact ratio of 0.22 [0.11-0.34]), New York (0.60 [0.43-0.74]), Washington (0.84 [0.79-0.90]) and Florida (0.86 [0.76-0.96]) were progressively closer to theirs yet still below, but California (1.15 [1.07-1.23]) was above its threshold overall, with cases still rising. Accordingly, we found that BC, New Zealand, and New York may have had more room to relax distancing measures than the other jurisdictions, though this would need to be done cautiously and with total case volumes in mind. Our projections indicate that intermittent distancing measures-if sufficiently strong and robustly followed-could control COVID-19 transmission. This approach provides a useful tool for jurisdictions to monitor and assess current levels of distancing relative to their threshold, which will continue to be essential through subsequent waves of this pandemic.