ABSTRACT
IntroductionFervorous investigation and dialogue surrounding the true number of SARS-CoV-2 related deaths and implied infection fatality rates in India have been ongoing throughout the pandemic, and especially pronounced during the nations devastating second wave. We aim to synthesize the existing literature on the true SARS-CoV-2 excess deaths and infection fatality rates (IFR) in India, through a systematic search followed by viable meta-analysis. We then provide updated epidemiological model-based estimates of the wave 1, wave 2 and combined IFRs using an extension of the Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Removed (SEIR) model, using data from April 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021. MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, the databases PubMed, Embase, Global Index Medicus, as well as BioRxiv, MedRxiv, and SSRN for preprints (accessed through iSearch), were searched on July 3, 2021 (with results verified through August 15, 2021). Altogether using a two-step approach, 4,765 initial citations were screened resulting in 37 citations included in the narrative review and 19 studies with 41 datapoints included in the quantitative synthesis. Using a random effects model with DerSimonian-Laird estimation, we meta-analyze IFR1 which is defined as the ratio of the total number of observed reported deaths divided by the total number of estimated infections and IFR2 (which accounts for death underreporting in the numerator of IFR1). For the latter, we provide lower and upper bounds based on the available range of estimates of death undercounting, often arising from an excess death calculation. The primary focus is to estimate pooled nationwide estimates of IFRs with the secondary goal of estimating pooled regional and state-specific estimates for SARS-CoV-2 related IFRs in India. We also try to stratify our empirical results across the first and the second wave. In tandem, we present updated SEIR model estimates of IFRs for waves 1, 2, and combined across the waves with observed case and death count data from April 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021. ResultsFor India countrywide, underreporting factors (URF) for cases (sourced from serosurveys) range from 14.3-29.1 in the four nationwide serosurveys; URFs for deaths (sourced from excess deaths reports) range from 4.4-11.9 with cumulative excess deaths ranging from 1.79-4.9 million (as of June 2021). Nationwide pooled IFR1 and IFR2 estimates for India are 0.097% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.067 - 0.140) and 0.365% (95% CI: 0.264 - 0.504) to 0.485% (95% CI: 0.344 - 0.685), respectively, again noting that IFR2 changes as excess deaths estimates vary. Among the included studies in this meta-analysis, the IFR1 generally appear to decrease over time from the earliest study end date to the latest study end date (from 4 June 2020 to 6 July 2021, IFR1 changed from 0.199 to 0.055%), whereas a similar trend is not as readily evident for IFR2 due to the wide variation in excess death estimates (from 4 June 2020 to 6 July 2021, IFR2 ranged from (0.290-1.316) to (0.241-0.651) %). Nationwide SEIR model-based combined estimates for IFR1 and IFR2 are 0.101% (95% CI: 0.097 - 0.116) and 0.367% (95% CI: 0.358 - 0.383), respectively, which largely reconcile with the empirical findings and concur with the lower end of the excess death estimates. An advantage of such epidemiological models is the ability to produce daily estimates with updated data with the disadvantages being that these estimates are subject to numerous assumptions, arduousness of validation and not directly using the available excess death data. Whether one uses empirical data or model-based estimation, it is evident that IFR2 is at least 3.6 times more than IFR1. ConclusionWhen incorporating case and death underreporting, the meta-analyzed cumulative infection fatality rate in India varies from 0.36%-0.48%, with a case underreporting factor ranging from 25-30 and a death underreporting factor ranging from 4-12. This implies, by June 30, 2021, India may have seen nearly 900 million infections and 1.7-4.9 million deaths when the reported numbers stood at 30.4 million cases and 412 thousand deaths (covid19india.org) with an observed case fatality rate (CFR) of 1.35%. We reiterate the need for timely and disaggregated infection and fatality data to examine the burden of the virus by age and other demographics. Large degrees of nationwide and state-specific death undercounting reinforce the call to improve death reporting within India.
ABSTRACT
India has seen a surge of SARS-CoV-2 infections and deaths in early part of 2021, despite having controlled the epidemic during 2020. Building on a two-strain, semi-mechanistic model that synthesizes mortality and genomic data, we find evidence that altered epidemiological properties of B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant play an important role in this resurgence in India. Under all scenarios of immune evasion, we find an increased transmissibility advantage for B.1617.2 against all previously circulating strains. Using an extended SIR model accounting for reinfections and wanning immunity, we produce evidence in support of how early public interventions in March 2021 would have helped to control transmission in the country. We argue that enhanced genomic surveillance along with constant assessment of risk associated with increased transmission is critical for pandemic responsiveness. One Sentence SummaryAltered epidemiological characteristics of B.1.617.2 and delayed public health interventions contributed to the resurgence of SARS-CoV-2 in India from February to May 2021.
ABSTRACT
ObjectiveThere has been much discussion and debate around the underreporting of COVID-19 infections and deaths in India. In this short report we first estimate the underreporting factor for infections from publicly available data released by the Indian Council of Medical Research on reported number of cases and national seroprevalence surveys. We then use a compartmental epidemiologic model to estimate the undetected number of infections and deaths, yielding estimates of the corresponding underreporting factors. We compare the serosurvey based ad hoc estimate of the infection fatality rate (IFR) with the model-based estimate. Since the first and second waves in India are intrinsically different in nature, we carry out this exercise in two periods: the first wave (April 1, 2020 - January 31, 2021) and part of the second wave (February 1, 2021 - May 15, 2021). The latest national seroprevalence estimate is from January 2021, and thus only relevant to our wave 1 calculations. ResultsBoth wave 1 and wave 2 estimates qualitatively show that there is a large degree of "covert infections" in India, with model-based estimated underreporting factor for infections as 11.11 (95% credible interval (CrI) 10.71-11.47) and for deaths as 3.56 (95% CrI 3.48 - 3.64) for wave 1. For wave 2, underreporting factor for infections escalate to 26.77 (95% CrI 24.26 - 28.81) and to 5.77 (95% CrI 5.34 - 6.15) for deaths. If we rely on only reported deaths, the IFR estimate is 0.13% for wave 1 and 0.03% for part of wave 2. Taking underreporting of deaths into account, the IFR estimate is 0.46% for wave 1 and 0.18% for wave 2 (till May 15). Combining waves 1 and 2, as of May 15, while India reported a total of nearly 25 million cases and 270 thousand deaths, the estimated number of infections and deaths stand at 491 million (36% of the population) and 1.21 million respectively, yielding an estimated (combined) infection fatality rate of 0.25%. There is considerable variation in these estimates across Indian states. Up to date seroprevalence studies and mortality data are needed to validate these model-based estimates.
ABSTRACT
The false negative rate of the diagnostic RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 has been reported to be substantially high. Due to limited availability of testing, only a non-random subset of the population can get tested. Hence, the reported test counts are subject to a large degree of selection bias. We consider an extension of the Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Removed (SEIR) model under both selection bias and misclassification. We derive closed form expression for the basic reproduction number under such data anomalies using the next generation matrix method. We conduct extensive simulation studies to quantify the effect of misclassification and selection on the resultant estimation and prediction of future case counts. Finally we apply the methods to reported case-death-recovery count data from India, a nation with more than 5 million cases reported over the last seven months. We show that correcting for misclassification and selection can lead to more accurate prediction of case-counts (and death counts) using the observed data as a beta tester. The model also provides an estimate of undetected infections and thus an under-reporting factor. For India, the estimated under-reporting factor for cases is around 21 and for deaths is around 6. We develop an R-package (SEIRfansy) for broader dissemination of the methods.
ABSTRACT
Many popular disease transmission models have helped nations respond to the COVID-19 pandemic by informing decisions about pandemic planning, resource allocation, implementation of social distancing measures and other non-pharmaceutical interventions. We study how five epidemiological models forecast and assess the course of the pandemic in India: a baseline model, an extended SIR (eSIR) model, two extended SEIR (SAPHIRE and SEIR-fansy) models, and a semi-mechanistic Bayesian hierarchical model (ICM). Using COVID-19 data for India from March 15 to June 18 to train the models, we generate predictions from each of the five models from June 19 to July 18. To compare prediction accuracy with respect to reported cumulative and active case counts and cumulative death counts, we compute the symmetric mean absolute prediction error (SMAPE) for each of the five models. For active case counts, SMAPE values are 0.72 (SEIR-fansy) and 33.83 (eSIR). For cumulative case counts, SMAPE values are 1.76 (baseline) 23.10 (eSIR), 2.07 (SAPHIRE) and 3.20 (SEIR-fansy). For cumulative death counts, the SMAPE values are 7.13 (SEIR-fansy) and 26.30 (eSIR). For cumulative cases and deaths, we compute Pearsons and Lins correlation coefficients to investigate how well the projected and observed reported COVID-counts agree. Three models (SAPHIRE, SEIR-fansy and ICM) return total (sum of reported and unreported) counts as well. We compute underreporting factors as of June 30 and note that the SEIR-fansy model reports the highest underreporting factor for active cases (6.10) and cumulative deaths (3.62), while the SAPHIRE model reports the highest underreporting factor for cumulative cases (27.79).
ABSTRACT
Recent media articles have suggested that women-led countries are doing better in terms of their responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. We examine an ensemble of public health metrics to assess the control of COVID-19 epidemic in women- versus men-led countries worldwide based on data available up to June 3. The median of the distribution of median time-varying effective reproduction number for women- and men-led countries were 0.89 and 1.14 respectively with the 95% two-sample bootstrap-based confidence interval for the difference (women - men) being [- 0.34, 0.02]. In terms of scale of testing, the median percentage of population tested were 3.28% (women), 1.59% (men) [95% CI: (-1.29%, 3.60%)] with test positive rates of 2.69% (women) and 4.94% (men) respectively. It appears that though statistically not significant, countries led by women have an edge over countries led by men in terms of public health metrics for controlling the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide. One Sentence SummaryWe quantitatively compare countries led by women with countries led by men in terms of public health metrics for controlling the spread of the novel coronavirus.
ABSTRACT
IntroductionIndia has been under four phases of a national lockdown from March 25 to May 31 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Unmasking the state-wise variation in the effect of the nationwide lockdown on the progression of the pandemic could inform dynamic policy interventions towards containment and mitigation. MethodsUsing data on confirmed COVID-19 cases across 20 states that accounted for more than 99% of the cumulative case counts in India till May 31, 2020, we illustrate the masking of state-level trends and highlight the variations across states by presenting evaluative evidence on some aspects of the COVID-19 outbreak: case-fatality rates, doubling times of cases, effective reproduction numbers, and the scale of testing. ResultsThe estimated effective reproduction number R for India was 3.36 (95% confidence interval (CI): [3.03, 3.71]) on March 24, whereas the average of estimates from May 25 - May 31 stands at 1.27 (95% CI: [1.26, 1.28]). Similarly, the estimated doubling time across India was at 3.56 days on March 24, and the past 7-day average for the same on May 31 is 14.37 days. The average daily number of tests have increased from 1,717 (March 19-25) to 131,772 (May 25-31) with an estimated testing shortfall of 4.58 million tests nationally by May 31. However, various states exhibit substantial departures from these national patterns. ConclusionsPatterns of change over lockdown periods indicate the lockdown has been effective in slowing the spread of the virus nationally. The COVID-19 outbreak in India displays large state-level variations and identifying these variations can help in both understanding the dynamics of the pandemic and formulating effective public health interventions. Our framework offers a holistic assessment of the pandemic across Indian states and union territories along with a set of interactive visualization tools that are daily updated at covind19.org.
ABSTRACT
ImportanceIndia has taken strong and early public health measures for arresting the spread of the COVID-19 epidemic. With only 536 COVID-19 cases and 11 fatalities, India - a democracy of 1.34 billion people - took the historic decision of a 21-day national lockdown on March 25. The lockdown was further extended to May 3rd, soon after the analysis of this paper was completed. ObjectiveTo study the short- and long-term impact of an initial 21-day lockdown on the total number of COVID-19 cases in India compared to other less severe non-pharmaceutical interventions using epidemiological forecasting models and Bayesian estimation algorithms; to compare effects of hypothetical durations of lockdown from an epidemiological perspective; to study alternative explanations for slower growth rate of the virus outbreak in India, including exploring the association of the number of cases and average monthly temperature; and finally, to outline the pivotal role of reliable and transparent data, reproducible data science methods, tools and products as we reopen the country and prepare for a post lock-down phase of the pandemic. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsWe use the daily data on the number of COVID-19 cases, of recovered and of deaths from March 1 until April 7, 2020 from the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Visual Dashboard operated by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering (JHU CSSE). Additionally, we use COVID-19 incidence counts data from Kaggle and the monthly average temperature of major cities across the world from Wikipedia. Main Outcome and MeasuresThe current time-series data on daily proportions of cases and removed (recovered and death combined) from India are analyzed using an extended version of the standard SIR (susceptible, infected, and removed) model. The eSIR model incorporates time-varying transmission rates that help us predict the effect of lockdown compared to other hypothetical interventions on the number of cases at future time points. A Markov Chain Monte Carlo implementation of this model provided predicted proportions of the cases at future time points along with credible intervals (CI). ResultsOur predicted cumulative number of COVID-19 cases in India on April 30 assuming a 1-week delay in peoples adherence to a 21-day lockdown (March 25 - April 14) and a gradual, moderate resumption of daily activities after April 14 is 9,181 with upper 95% CI of 72,245. In comparison, the predicted cumulative number of cases under "no intervention" and "social distancing and travel bans without lockdown" are 358 thousand and 46 thousand (upper 95% CI of nearly 2.3 million and 0.3 million) respectively. An effective lockdown can prevent roughly 343 thousand (upper 95% CI 1.8 million) and 2.4 million (upper 95% CI 38.4 million) COVID-19 cases nationwide compared to social distancing alone by May 15 and June 15, respectively. When comparing a 21-day lockdown with a hypothetical lockdown of longer duration, we find that 28-, 42-, and 56-day lockdowns can approximately prevent 238 thousand (upper 95% CI 2.3 million), 622 thousand (upper 95% CI 4.3 million), 781 thousand (upper 95% CI 4.6 million) cases by June 15, respectively. We find some suggestive evidence that the COVID-19 incidence rates worldwide are negatively associated with temperature in a crude unadjusted analysis with Pearson correlation estimates [95% confidence interval] between average monthly temperature and total monthly incidence around the world being -0.185 [-0.548, 0.236] for January, -0.110 [-0.362, 0.157] for February, and -0.173 [-0.314, -0.026] for March. Conclusions and RelevanceThe lockdown, if implemented correctly in the end, has a high chance of reducing the total number of COVID-19 cases in the short term, and buy India invaluable time to prepare its healthcare and disease monitoring system. Our analysis shows we need to have some measures of suppression in place after the lockdown for the best outcome. We cannot heavily rely on the hypothetical prevention governed by meteorological factors such as temperature based on current evidence. From an epidemiological perspective, a longer lockdown between 42-56 days is preferable. However, the lockdown comes at a tremendous price to social and economic health through a contagion process not dissimilar to that of the coronavirus itself. Data can play a defining role as we design post-lockdown testing, reopening and resource allocation strategies. SoftwareOur contribution to data science includes an interactive and dynamic app (covind19.org) with short- and long-term projections updated daily that can help inform policy and practice related to COVID-19 in India. Anyone can visualize the observed data for India and create predictions under hypothetical scenarios with quantification of uncertainties. We make our prediction codes freely available (https://github.com/umich-cphds/cov-ind-19) for reproducible science and for other COVID-19 affected countries to use them for their prediction and data visualization work.
