Analysis of serological surveys of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in the United States to estimate parameters needed for transmission modeling and to evaluate and improve the accuracy of predictions.

Seroprevalence studies can estimate proportions of the population that have been infected or vaccinated, including infections that were not reported because of the lack of symptoms or testing. Based on information from studies in the United States from mid-summer 2020 through the end of 2021, we describe proportions of the population with antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 as functions of age and time. Slices through these surfaces at arbitrary times provide initial and target conditions for simulation modeling. They also provide the information needed to calculate age-specific forces of infection, attack rates, and - together with contact rates - age-specific probabilities of infection on contact between susceptible and infectious people. We modified the familiar Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Removed (SEIR) model to include features of the biology of COVID-19 that might affect transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and stratified by age and location. We consulted the primary literature or subject matter experts for contact rates and other parameter values. Using time-varying Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker assessments of US state and DC efforts to mitigate the pandemic and compliance with non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) from a YouGov survey fielded in the US during 2020, we estimate that the efficacy of social-distancing when possible and mask-wearing otherwise at reducing susceptibility or infectiousness was 31% during the fall of 2020. Initialized from seroprevalence among people having commercial laboratory tests for purposes other than SARS-CoV-2 infection assessments on 7 September 2020, our age- and location-stratified SEIR population model reproduces seroprevalence among members of the same population on 25 December 2020 quite well. Introducing vaccination mid-December 2020, first of healthcare and other essential workers, followed by older adults, people who were otherwise immunocompromised, and then progressively younger people, our metapopulation model reproduces seroprevalence among blood donors on 4 April 2021 less well, but we believe that the discrepancy is due to vaccinations being under-reported or blood donors being disproportionately vaccinated, if not both. As experimenting with reliable transmission models is the best way to assess the indirect effects of mitigation measures, we determined the impact of vaccination, conditional on NPIs. Results indicate that, during this period, vaccination substantially reduced infections, hospitalizations and deaths. This manuscript was submitted as part of a theme issue on "Modelling COVID-19 and Preparedness for Future Pandemics."

On the benefits of flattening the curve: A perspective.

The many variations on a graphic illustrating the impact of non-pharmaceutical measures to mitigate pandemic influenza that have appeared in recent news reports about COVID-19 suggest a need to better explain the mechanism by which social distancing reduces the spread of infectious diseases. And some reports understate one benefit of reducing the frequency or proximity of interpersonal encounters, a reduction in the total number of infections. In hopes that understanding will increase compliance, we describe how social distancing (a) reduces the peak incidence of infections, (b) delays the occurrence of this peak, and (c) reduces the total number of infections during epidemics. In view of the extraordinary efforts underway to identify existing medications that are active against SARS-CoV-2 and to develop new antiviral drugs, vaccines and antibody therapies, any of which may have community-level effects, we also describe how pharmaceutical interventions affect transmission.