Social contacts and transmission of COVID-19 in British Columbia, Canada (preprint)

PurposeClose-contact rates are thought to be a significant driving force behind the dynamics of transmission for many infectious respiratory diseases. Efforts to control such infections typically focus on the practice of strict contact-avoidance measures. Yet, contact rates and their relation to transmission, and the impact of control measures, are seldom quantified. Here, we quantify the response of contact rates, transmission and new cases of COVID-19 to public health contact-restriction orders, and the associations among these three variables, in the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC) and within its two most densely populated regional health authorities: Fraser Health Authority (FHA) and Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA). MethodsWe obtained time series for self-reported close-contact rates from the BC Mix COVID-19 Survey, new reported cases of COVID-19 from the BC Center for Disease Control, and transmission rates based on dynamic model fits to reported cases. Our study period was from September 13, 2020 to February 19, 2021, during which three public health contact-restriction orders were introduced (October 26, November 7 and November 19, 2020). We used segmented linear regression to quantify impacts of public health orders, Pearson correlation to assess the instantaneous relation between contact rates and transmission, and vector autoregressive modeling to study the lagged relations among the three variables. ResultsOverall, declines in contact rates and transmission occurred concurrently with the announcement of public health orders, whereas declines in new cases showed a reporting delay of roughly two weeks. The impact of the first public health order (October 26, 2020) on contact rates and transmission was more pronounced than that of the other two health orders. Contact rates and transmission on the same day were strongly correlated (correlation coefficients = 0.64, 0.53 and 0.34 for BC, FHA, and VCHA, respectively). Moreover, contact rates were a significant time-series driver of COVID-19 and explained roughly 30% and 18% of the variation in new cases and transmission, respectively. Interestingly, increases in transmission and new cases were followed by reduced rates of contact: overall, average daily cases explained about 10% of the variation in provincial contact rates. ConclusionWe show that close-contact rates were a significant driver of transmission of COVID-19 in British Columbia, Canada and that they varied in response to public health orders. Our results also suggest a possible feedback, by which contact rates respond to recent changes in reported cases. Our findings help to explain and validate the commonly assumed, but rarely measured, response of close contact rates to public health guidelines and their impact on the dynamics of infectious diseases.

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.