Genomic epidemiology offers high resolution estimates of serial intervals for COVID-19 (preprint)

Estimating key aspects of transmission is crucial in infectious disease control. Serial intervals - the time between symptom onset in an infector and infectee - are fundamental, and help to define rates of transmission, estimates of reproductive numbers, and vaccination levels needed to prevent transmission. However, estimating the serial interval requires knowledge of individuals' contacts and exposures (who infected whom), which is typically obtained through resource-intensive contact tracing efforts. We develop an alternate framework that uses virus sequences to inform who infected whom and thereby estimate serial intervals. The advantages are many-fold: virus sequences are often routinely collected to support epidemiological investigations and to monitor viral evolution. The genomic approach offers high resolution and cluster-specific estimates of the serial interval that are comparable with those obtained from contact tracing data. Our approach does not require contact tracing data, and can be used in large populations and over a range of time periods. We apply our techniques to SARS-CoV-2 sequence data from the first two waves of COVID-19 in Victoria, Australia. We find that serial interval estimates vary between clusters, supporting the need to monitor this key parameter and use updated estimates in onward applications. Compared to an early published serial interval estimate, using cluster-specific serial intervals can cause estimates of the effective reproduction number Rt to vary by a factor of up to 2-3. We also find that serial intervals estimated in settings such as schools and meat processing/packing plants tend to be shorter than those estimated in healthcare facilities.

Vaccine Rollout Strategies: The Case for Vaccinating Essential Workers Early (preprint)

In planning for upcoming mass vaccinations against COVID-19, many jurisdictions have proposed using primarily age-based rollout strategies, where the oldest are vaccinated first and the youngest last. In the wake of growing evidence that approved vaccines are effective at preventing not only adverse outcomes, but also infection (and hence transmission of SARS-CoV-2), we propose that such age-based rollouts are both less equitable and less effective than strategies that prioritize essential workers. We demonstrate using modelling that strategies that target essential workers earlier consistently outperform those that do not, and that prioritizing essential workers provides a significant level of indirect protection for older adults. This conclusion holds across numerous outcomes, including cases, hospitalizations, deaths, prevalence of Long COVID, chronic impacts of COVID, quality adjusted life years lost and net monetary benefit lost. It also holds over a range of possible values for the efficacy of vaccination against infection. Our analysis focuses on regimes where the pandemic continues to be controlled with distancing and other measures as vaccination proceeds, and where the vaccination strategy is expected to last for over the coming 6-8 months - for example British Columbia, Canada. In such a setting with a total population of 5M, vaccinating essential workers sooner is expected to prevent over 200,000 infections, over 600 deaths, and to produce a net monetary benefit of over $500M. 20-25% of the quality adjusted life years lost, and 28-34% of the net monetary benefit lost, are due to chronic impacts of COVID-19.

Quantifying transmissibility of COVID-19 and impact of intervention within long-term health care facilities (preprint)

Estimates of the basic reproduction number (R0) for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are particularly variable in the context of transmission within locations such as long-term health care (LTHC) facilities. We sought to characterise the heterogeneity of R0 across known outbreaks within these facilities. We used a unique comprehensive dataset of all outbreaks that have occurred within LTHC facilities in British Columbia, Canada. We estimated R0 with a Bayesian hierarchical dynamic model of susceptible, exposed, infected, and recovered individuals, that incorporates heterogeneity of R0 between facilities. We further compared these estimates to those obtained with standard methods that utilize the exponential growth rate and maximum likelihood. The total size of an outbreak varied dramatically, with a range of attack rates of 2%-86%. The Bayesian analysis provides more constrained overall estimates of R0 = 2.83 (90% CrI [credible interval] 0.25-7.19) than standard methods, with a range within facilities of 0.66-10.06. We further estimated that intervention led to 67% (56%-73%) of all cases being averted within the LTHC facilities. Understanding the risks and impact of intervention are essential in planning during the ongoing global pandemic, particularly in high-risk environments such as LTHC facilities.

Long time frames to detect the impact of changing COVID-19 control measures (preprint)

Background: Many countries have implemented population-wide interventions such as physical distancing measures, in efforts to control COVID-19. The extent and success of such measures has varied. Many jurisdictions with declines in reported COVID-19 cases are moving to relax measures, while others are continuing to intensify efforts to reduce transmission. Aim: We aim to determine the time frame between a change in COVID-19 measures at the population level and the observable impact of such a change on cases. Methods: We examine how long it takes for there to be a substantial difference between the cases that occur following a change in control measures and those that would have occurred at baseline. We then examine how long it takes to detect a difference, given delays and noise in reported cases. We use changes in population-level (e.g., distancing) control measures informed by data and estimates from British Columbia, Canada. Results: We find that the time frames are long: it takes three weeks or more before we might expect a substantial difference in cases given a change in population-level COVID-19 control, and it takes slightly longer to detect the impacts of the change. The time frames are shorter (11-15 days) for dramatic changes in control, and they are impacted by noise and delays in the testing and reporting process, with delays reaching up to 25-40 days. Conclusion: The time until a change in broad control measures has an observed impact is longer than is typically understood, and is longer than the mean incubation period (time between exposure than onset) and the often used 14 day time period. Policy makers and public health planners should consider this when assessing the impact of policy change, and efforts should be made to develop rapid, consistent real-time COVID-19 surveillance.

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

Following successful widespread non-pharmaceutical interventions aiming to control COVID-19, many jurisdictions are moving towards reopening economies and borders. Given that little immunity has developed in most populations, re-establishing higher contact rates within and between populations carries substantial risks. Using a Bayesian epidemiological model, we estimate the leeway to reopen in a range of national and regional jurisdictions that have experienced different COVID-19 epidemics. We estimate the risks associated with different levels of reopening and the likely burden of new cases due to introductions from other jurisdictions. We find widely varying leeway to reopen, high risks of exceeding past peak sizes, and high possible burdens per introduced case per week, up to hundreds in some jurisdictions. We recommend a cautious approach to reopening economies and borders, coupled with strong monitoring for changes in transmission.

Estimating the impact of COVID-19 control measures using a Bayesian model of physical distancing (preprint)

Extensive physical distancing measures are currently the primary intervention 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 measures, with the timing of these measures informed by survey data on attitudes to distancing and COVID-19.We fit our model to reported COVID-19 cases in British Columbia, Canada, using an observation model that accounts for both underestimation and the delay between symptom onset and reporting. We estimate the impact that physical distancing (also known as social distancing)has had on the contact rate and examine the projected impact of relaxing distancing measures. We find that distancing has had a strong impact, consistent with declines in reported cases and in hospitalization and intensive care unit numbers. We estimate that approximately 0.78 (0.66-0.89 90% CI) of contacts have been removed for individuals in British Columbia practising physical distancing and that this fraction is above the threshold of 0.45 at which prevalence is expected to grow. However, relaxing distancing measures beyond this threshold re-starts rapid exponential growth. Because the extent of underestimation is unknown, the data are consistent with a wide range in the prevalence of COVID-19 in the population; changes to testing criteria over time introduce additional uncertainty. Our projections indicate that intermittent distancing measures - if sufficiently strong and robustly followed - could control COVID-19 transmission, but that if distancing measures are relaxed too much, the epidemic curve would grow to high prevalence.