Mass mask-wearing notably reduces COVID-19 transmission (preprint)

Mask-wearing has been a controversial measure to control the COVID-19 pandemic. While masks are known to substantially reduce disease transmission in healthcare settings (Howard et al 2021), studies in community settings report inconsistent results (Brainard et al 2020). Investigating the inconsistency within epidemiological studies, we find that a commonly used proxy, government mask mandates, does not correlate with large increases in mask-wearing in our window of analysis. We thus analyse the effect of mask-wearing on transmission instead, drawing on several datasets covering 92 regions on 6 continents, including the largest survey of individual-level wearing behaviour (n=20 million) (Kreuter et al 2020). Using a hierarchical Bayesian model, we estimate the effect of both mask-wearing and mask-mandates on transmission by linking wearing levels (or mandates) to reported cases in each region, adjusting for mobility and non-pharmaceutical interventions. We assess the robustness of our results in 123 experiments across 22 sensitivity analyses. Across these analyses, we find that an entire population wearing masks in public leads to a median reduction in the reproduction number R of 25.8%, with 95% of the medians between 22.2% and 30.9%. In our window of analysis, the median reduction in $R$ associated with the wearing level observed in each region was 20.4% [2.0%, 23.3%]. We do not find evidence that mandating mask-wearing reduces transmission. Our results suggest that mask-wearing is strongly affected by factors other than mandates. We establish the effectiveness of mass mask-wearing, and highlight that wearing data, not mandate data, are necessary to infer this effect.

Seasonal variation in SARS-CoV-2 transmission in temperate climates (preprint)

While seasonal variation has a known influence on the transmission of several respiratory viral infections, its role in SARS-CoV-2 transmission remains unclear. As previous analyses have not accounted for the implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in the first year of the pandemic, they may yield biased estimates of seasonal effects. Building on two state-of-the-art observational models and datasets, we adapt a fully Bayesian method for estimating the association between seasonality and transmission in 143 temperate European regions. We find strong seasonal patterns, consistent with a reduction in the time-variable Rt of 42.1% (95% CI: 24.7% - 53.4%) from the peak of winter to the peak of summer. These results imply that the seasonality of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is comparable in magnitude to the most effective individual NPIs but less than the combined effect of multiple interventions.

Understanding the effectiveness of government interventions in Europe’s second wave of COVID-19 (preprint)

As European governments face resurging waves of COVID-19, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) continue to be the primary tool for infection control. However, updated estimates of their relative effectiveness have been absent for Europe’s second wave, largely due to a lack of collated data that considers the increased subnational variation and diversity of NPIs. We collect the largest dataset of NPI implementation dates in Europe, spanning 114 subnational areas in 7 countries, with a systematic categorisation of interventions tailored to the second wave. Using a hierarchical Bayesian transmission model, we estimate the effectiveness of 17 NPIs from local case and death data. We manually validate the data, address limitations in modelling from previous studies, and extensively test the robustness of our estimates. The combined effect of all NPIs was smaller relative to estimates from the first half of 2020, indicating the strong influence of safety measures and individual protective behaviours--such as distancing--that persisted after the first wave. Closing specific businesses was highly effective. Gathering restrictions were highly effective but only for the strictest limits. We find smaller effects for closing educational institutions compared to the first wave, suggesting that safer operation of schools was possible with a set of stringent safety measures including testing and tracing, preventing mixing, and smaller classes. These results underscore that effectiveness estimates from the early stage of an epidemic are measured relative to pre-pandemic behaviour. Updated estimates are required to inform policy in an ongoing pandemic.

How Robust are the Estimated Effects of Nonpharmaceutical Interventions against COVID-19? (preprint)

To what extent are effectiveness estimates of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) against COVID-19 influenced by the assumptions our models make? To answer this question, we investigate 2 state-of-the-art NPI effectiveness models and propose 6 variants that make different structural assumptions. In particular, we investigate how well NPI effectiveness estimates generalise to unseen countries, and their sensitivity to unobserved factors. Models that account for noise in disease transmission compare favourably. We further evaluate how robust estimates are to different choices of epidemiological parameters and data. Focusing on models that assume transmission noise, we find that previously published results are remarkably robust across these variables. Finally, we mathematically ground the interpretation of NPI effectiveness estimates when certain common assumptions do not hold.

The effectiveness and perceived burden of nonpharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 transmission: a modelling study with 41 countries (preprint)

Background: Governments are attempting to control the COVID-19 pandemic with nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). However, it is still largely unknown how effective different NPIs are at reducing transmission. Data-driven studies can estimate the effectiveness of NPIs while minimizing assumptions, but existing analyses lack sufficient data and validation to robustly distinguish the effects of individual NPIs. Methods: We collect chronological data on NPIs in 41 countries between January and May 2020, using independent double entry by researchers to ensure high data quality. We estimate NPI effectiveness with a Bayesian hierarchical model, by linking NPI implementation dates to national case and death counts. To our knowledge, this is the largest and most thoroughly validated data-driven study of NPI effectiveness to date. Results: We model each NPI's effect as a multiplicative (percentage) reduction in the reproduction number R. We estimate the mean reduction in R across the countries in our data for eight NPIs: mandating mask-wearing in (some) public spaces (2%; 95% CI: -14%-16%), limiting gatherings to 1000 people or less (2%; -20%-22%), to 100 people or less (21%; 1%-39%), to 10 people or less (36%; 16%-53%), closing some high-risk businesses (31%; 13%-46%), closing most nonessential businesses (40%; 22%-55%), closing schools and universities (39%; 21%-55%), and issuing stay-at-home orders (18%; 4%-31%). These results are supported by extensive empirical validation, including 15 sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Our results suggest that, by implementing effective NPIs, many countries can reduce R below 1 without issuing a stay-at-home order. We find a surprisingly large role for school and university closures in reducing COVID-19 transmission, a contribution to the ongoing debate about the relevance of asymptomatic carriers in disease spread. Banning gatherings and closing high-risk businesses can be highly effective in reducing transmission, but closing most businesses only has limited additional benefit.