Informing pandemic response in the face of uncertainty. An evaluation of the U.S. COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub (preprint)

Our ability to forecast epidemics more than a few weeks into the future is constrained by the complexity of disease systems, our limited ability to measure the current state of an epidemic, and uncertainties in how human action will affect transmission. Realistic longer-term projections (spanning more than a few weeks) may, however, be possible under defined scenarios that specify the future state of critical epidemic drivers, with the additional benefit that such scenarios can be used to anticipate the comparative effect of control measures. Since December 2020, the U.S. COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub (SMH) has convened multiple modeling teams to make 6-month ahead projections of the number of SARS-CoV-2 cases, hospitalizations and deaths. The SMH released nearly 1.8 million national and state-level projections between February 2021 and November 2022. SMH performance varied widely as a function of both scenario validity and model calibration. Scenario assumptions were periodically invalidated by the arrival of unanticipated SARS-CoV-2 variants, but SMH still provided projections on average 22 weeks before changes in assumptions (such as virus transmissibility) invalidated scenarios and their corresponding projections. During these periods, before emergence of a novel variant, a linear opinion pool ensemble of contributed models was consistently more reliable than any single model, and projection interval coverage was near target levels for the most plausible scenarios (e.g., 79% coverage for 95% projection interval). SMH projections were used operationally to guide planning and policy at different stages of the pandemic, illustrating the value of the hub approach for long-term scenario projections.

Evaluating targeted COVID-19 vaccination strategies with agent-based modeling (preprint)

We evaluate approaches to vaccine distribution using an agent-based model of human activity and COVID-19 transmission calibrated to detailed trends in cases, hospitalizations, deaths, seroprevalence, and vaccine breakthrough infections in Florida, USA. We compare the incremental effectiveness for four different distribution strategies at four different levels of vaccine availability, reflecting different income settings' historical COVID-19 vaccine distribution. Our analysis indicates that the best strategy to reduce severe outcomes is to actively target high disease-risk individuals. This was true in every scenario, although the advantage was greatest for the middle-income-country availability assumptions, and relatively modest compared to a simple mass vaccination approach for rapid, high levels of vaccine availability. Ring vaccination, while generally the most effective strategy for reducing infections, ultimately proved least effective at preventing deaths. We also consider using age group as a practical, surrogate measure for actual disease-risk targeting; this approach still outperforms both simple mass distribution and ring vaccination. We also find that the magnitude of strategy effectiveness depends on when assessment occurs (e.g., after delta vs. after omicron variants). However, these differences in absolute benefit for the strategies do not change the ranking of their performance at preventing severe outcomes across vaccine availability assumptions.

Household secondary attack rates of SARS-CoV-2 by variant and vaccination status: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis (preprint)

We previously reported a household secondary attack rate (SAR) for SARS-CoV-2 of 18.9% through June 17, 2021. To examine how emerging variants and increased vaccination have affected transmission rates, we searched PubMed from June 18, 2021, through January 7, 2022. Meta-analyses used generalized linear mixed models to obtain SAR estimates and 95%CI, disaggregated by several covariates. SARs were used to estimate vaccine effectiveness based on the transmission probability for susceptibility ( VE S,p ), infectiousness ( VE I,p ), and total vaccine effectiveness ( VE T,p ). Household SAR for 27 studies with midpoints in 2021 was 35.8% (95%CI, 30.6%-41.3%), compared to 15.7% (95%CI, 13.3%-18.4%) for 62 studies with midpoints through April 2020. Household SARs were 38.0% (95%CI, 36.0%-40.0%), 30.8% (95%CI, 23.5%-39.3%), and 22.5% (95%CI, 18.6%-26.8%) for Alpha, Delta, and Beta, respectively. VE I,p , VE S,p , and VE T,p were 56.6% (95%CI, 28.7%-73.6%), 70.3% (95%CI, 59.3%-78.4%), and 86.8% (95%CI, 76.7%-92.5%) for full vaccination, and 27.5% (95%CI, -6.4%-50.7%), 43.9% (95%CI, 21.8%-59.7%), and 59.9% (95%CI, 34.4%-75.5%) for partial vaccination, respectively. Household contacts exposed to Alpha or Delta are at increased risk of infection compared to the original wild-type strain. Vaccination reduced susceptibility to infection and transmission to others. Summary Household secondary attack rates (SARs) were higher for Alpha and Delta variants than previous estimates. SARs were higher to unvaccinated contacts than to partially or fully vaccinated contacts and were higher from unvaccinated index cases than from fully vaccinated index cases.

Household Secondary Attack Rate of COVID-19 and Associated Determinants (preprint)

Background: As of April 2, 2020, the global reported number of COVID-19 cases has crossed over 1 million with more than 55,000 deaths. The household transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2, the causative pathogen, remains elusive. Methods: Based on a comprehensive contact-tracing dataset from Guangzhou, we estimated both the population-level effective reproductive number and individual-level secondary attack rate (SAR) in the household setting. We assessed age effects on transmissibility and the infectivity of COVID-19 cases during their incubation period. Results: A total of 195 unrelated clusters with 212 primary cases, 137 nonprimary (secondary or tertiary) cases and 1938 uninfected close contacts were traced. We estimated the household SAR to be 13.8% (95% CI: 11.1-17.0%) if household contacts are defined as all close relatives and 19.3% (95% CI: 15.5-23.9%) if household contacts only include those at the same residential address as the cases, assuming a mean incubation period of 4 days and a maximum infectious period of 13 days. The odds of infection among children (<20 years old) was only 0.26 (95% CI: 0.13-0.54) times of that among the elderly ([≥]60 years old). There was no gender difference in the risk of infection. COVID-19 cases were at least as infectious during their incubation period as during their illness. On average, a COVID-19 case infected 0.48 (95% CI: 0.39-0.58) close contacts. Had isolation not been implemented, this number increases to 0.62 (95% CI: 0.51-0.75). The effective reproductive number in Guangzhou dropped from above 1 to below 0.5 in about 1 week. Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 is more transmissible in households than SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, and the elderly [≥]60 years old are the most vulnerable to household transmission. Case finding and isolation alone may be inadequate to contain the pandemic and need to be used in conjunction with heightened restriction of human movement as implemented in Guangzhou.

Epidemiological and clinical features of the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak in China (preprint)

Our manuscript was based on surveillance cases of COVID-19 identified before January 26, 2020. As of February 20, 2020, the total number of confirmed cases in mainland China has reached 18 times of the number in our manuscript. While the methods and the main conclusions in our original analyses remain solid, we decided to withdraw this preprint for the time being, and will replace it with a more up-to-date version shortly. Should you have any comments or suggestions, please feel free to contact the corresponding author.