ABSTRACT
Random genetic drift in the population-level dynamics of an infectious disease outbreak results from the randomness of inter-host transmission and the randomness of host recovery or death. The strength of genetic drift has been found to be high for SARS-CoV-2 due to superspreading, and this is expected to substantially impact the disease epidemiology and evolution. Noise that results from the measurement process, such as biases in data collection across time, geographical areas, etc., can potentially confound estimates of genetic drift as both processes contribute "noise" to the data. To address this challenge, we develop and validate a method to jointly infer genetic drift and measurement noise from time-series lineage frequency data. We apply this method to over 490,000 SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequences from England collected between March 2020 and December 2021 by the COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) consortium. We find that even after correcting for measurement noise, the strength of genetic drift is consistently, throughout time, higher than that expected from the observed number of COVID-19 positive individuals in England by 1 to 3 orders of magnitude. Corrections taking into account epidemiological dynamics (susceptible-infected-recovered or susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered models) do not explain the discrepancy. Moreover, the levels of genetic drift that we observe are higher than the estimated levels of superspreading found by modeling studies that incorporate data on actual contact statistics in England. We discuss how even in the absence of superspreading, high levels of genetic drift can be generated via community structure in the host contact network. Our results suggest that further investigations of heterogeneous host contact structure may be important for understanding the high levels of genetic drift observed for SARS-CoV-2 in England.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , DeathABSTRACT
The SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7, now designated Variant of Concern 202012/01 (VOC) by Public Health England, originated in the UK in late Summer to early Autumn 2020. We examine epidemiological evidence for this VOC having a transmission advantage from several perspectives. First, whole genome sequence data collected from community-based diagnostic testing provides an indication of changing prevalence of different genetic variants through time. Phylodynamic modelling additionally indicates that genetic diversity of this lineage has changed in a manner consistent with exponential growth. Second, we find that changes in VOC frequency inferred from genetic data correspond closely to changes inferred by S-gene target failures (SGTF) in community-based diagnostic PCR testing. Third, we examine growth trends in SGTF and non-SGTF case numbers at local area level across England, and show that the VOC has higher transmissibility than non-VOC lineages, even if the VOC has a different latent period or generation time. Available SGTF data indicate a shift in the age composition of reported cases, with a larger share of under 20 year olds among reported VOC than non-VOC cases. Fourth, we assess the association of VOC frequency with independent estimates of the overall SARS-CoV-2 reproduction number through time. Finally, we fit a semi-mechanistic model directly to local VOC and non-VOC case incidence to estimate the reproduction numbers over time for each. There is a consensus among all analyses that the VOC has a substantial transmission advantage, with the estimated difference in reproduction numbers between VOC and non-VOC ranging between 0.4 and 0.7, and the ratio of reproduction numbers varying between 1.4 and 1.8. We note that these estimates of transmission advantage apply to a period where high levels of social distancing were in place in England; extrapolation to other transmission contexts therefore requires caution.
ABSTRACT
Background: Unprecedented public health interventions including travel restrictions and national lockdowns have been implemented to stem the COVID-19 epidemic, but the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions is still debated. International comparisons are hampered by highly variable conditions under which epidemics spread and differences in the timing and scale of interventions. Cumulative COVID-19 morbidity and mortality are functions of both the rate of epidemic growth and the duration of uninhibited growth before interventions were implemented. Incomplete and sporadic testing during the early COVID-19 epidemic makes it difficult to identify how long SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in different places. SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequences can be analyzed to provide an estimate of both the time of epidemic origin and the rate of early epidemic growth in different settings. Methods: We carried out a phylogenetic analysis of more than 29,000 publicly available whole genome SARS-CoV-2 sequences from 57 locations to estimate the time that the epidemic originated in different places. These estimates were cross-referenced with dates of the most stringent interventions in each location as well as the number of cumulative COVID-19 deaths following maximum intervention. Phylodynamic methods were used to estimate the rate of early epidemic growth and proxy estimates of epidemic size. Findings: The time elapsed between epidemic origin and maximum intervention is strongly associated with different measures of epidemic severity and explains 46% of variance in numbers infected at time of maximum intervention. The reproduction number is independently associated with epidemic severity. In multivariable regression models, epidemic severity was not associated with census population size. The time elapsed between detection of initial COVID-19 cases to interventions was not associated with epidemic severity, indicating that many locations experienced long periods of cryptic transmission. Interpretation: Locations where strong non-pharmaceutical interventions were implemented earlier experienced much less severe COVID-19 morbidity and mortality during the period of study.