Résumé
ABSTRACT Accurate tracing of epidemic spread over space enables effective control measures. We examined three metrics of infection and disease in a pediatric cohort (N ≈ 3,000) over two chikungunya and one Zika epidemic, and in a household cohort (N=1,793) over one COVID-19 epidemic in Managua, Nicaragua. We compared spatial incidence rates (cases/total population), infection risks (infections/total population), and disease risks (cases/infected population). We used generalized additive and mixed-effects models, Kulldorf’s spatial scan statistic, and intracluster correlation coefficients. Across different analyses and all epidemics, incidence rates considerably underestimated infection and disease risks, producing large and spatially non-uniform biases distinct from biases due to incomplete case ascertainment. Infection and disease risks exhibited distinct spatial patterns, and incidence clusters inconsistently identified areas of either risk. While incidence rates are commonly used to infer infection and disease risk in a population, we find that this can induce substantial biases and adversely impact policies to control epidemics. Article summary line Inferring measures of spatial risk from case-only data can substantially bias estimates, thereby weakening and potentially misdirecting measures needed to control an epidemic.