ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Pandemic response in low-income countries (LICs) or settings often suffers from scarce epidemic surveillance and constrained mitigation capacity. The drivers of pandemic burden in such settings, and the impact of limited and delayed interventions remain poorly understood. METHODS: We analysed COVID-19 seroprevalence and all-cause excess deaths data from the peri-urban district of Kabwe, Zambia between March 2020 and September 2021 with a novel mathematical model. Data encompassed three consecutive waves caused by the wild-type, Beta and Delta variants. RESULTS: Across all three waves, we estimated a high cumulative attack rate, with 78% (95% credible interval [CrI] 71-85) of the population infected, and a high all-cause excess mortality, at 402 (95% CrI 277-473) deaths per 100,000 people. Ambitiously improving health care to a capacity similar to that in high-income settings could have averted up to 46% (95% CrI 41-53) of accrued excess deaths, if implemented from June 2020 onward. An early and accelerated vaccination rollout could have achieved the highest reductions in deaths. Had vaccination started as in some high-income settings in December 2020 and with the same daily capacity (doses per 100 population), up to 68% (95% CrI 64-71) of accrued excess deaths could have been averted. Slower rollouts would have still averted 62% (95% CrI 58-68), 54% (95% CrI 49-61) or 26% (95% CrI 20-38) of excess deaths if matching the average vaccination capacity of upper-middle-, lower-middle- or LICs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Robust quantitative analyses of pandemic data are of pressing need to inform future global pandemic preparedness commitments.
ABSTRACT
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic both relied and placed significant burdens on the experts involved from research and public health sectors. The sustained high pressure of a pandemic on responders, such as healthcare workers, can lead to lasting psychological impacts including acute stress disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, burnout, and moral injury, which can impact individual wellbeing and productivity. Methods: As members of the infectious disease modelling community, we convened a reflective workshop to understand the professional and personal impacts of response work on our community and to propose recommendations for future epidemic responses. The attendees represented a range of career stages, institutions, and disciplines. This piece was collectively produced by those present at the session based on our collective experiences. Results: Key issues we identified at the workshop were lack of institutional support, insecure contracts, unequal credit and recognition, and mental health impacts. Our recommendations include rewarding impactful work, fostering academia-public health collaboration, decreasing dependence on key individuals by developing teams, increasing transparency in decision-making, and implementing sustainable work practices. Conclusions: Despite limitations in representation, this workshop provided valuable insights into the UK COVID-19 modelling experience and guidance for future public health crises. Recognising and addressing the issues highlighted is crucial, in our view, for ensuring the effectiveness of epidemic response work in the future.
ABSTRACT
Estimating the impact of vaccination and non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 incidence is complicated by several factors, including successive emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and changing population immunity from vaccination and infection. We develop an age-structured multi-strain COVID-19 transmission model and inference framework to estimate vaccination and non-pharmaceutical intervention impact accounting for these factors. We apply this framework to COVID-19 waves in French Polynesia and estimate that the vaccination programme averted 34.8% (95% credible interval: 34.5-35.2%) of 223,000 symptomatic cases, 49.6% (48.7-50.5%) of 5830 hospitalisations and 64.2% (63.1-65.3%) of 1540 hospital deaths that would have occurred in a scenario without vaccination up to May 2022. We estimate the booster campaign contributed 4.5%, 1.9%, and 0.4% to overall reductions in cases, hospitalisations, and deaths. Our results suggest that removing lockdowns during the first two waves would have had non-linear effects on incidence by altering accumulation of population immunity. Our estimates of vaccination and booster impact differ from those for other countries due to differences in age structure, previous exposure levels and timing of variant introduction relative to vaccination, emphasising the importance of detailed analysis that accounts for these factors.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Communicable Disease Control , Polynesia/epidemiology , VaccinationABSTRACT
As the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic progressed, distinct variants emerged and dominated in England. These variants, Wildtype, Alpha, Delta, and Omicron were characterized by variations in transmissibility and severity. We used a robust mathematical model and Bayesian inference framework to analyse epidemiological surveillance data from England. We quantified the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), therapeutics, and vaccination on virus transmission and severity. Each successive variant had a higher intrinsic transmissibility. Omicron (BA.1) had the highest basic reproduction number at 8.3 (95% credible interval (CrI) 7.7-8.8). Varying levels of NPIs were crucial in controlling virus transmission until population immunity accumulated. Immune escape properties of Omicron decreased effective levels of immunity in the population by a third. Furthermore, in contrast to previous studies, we found Alpha had the highest basic infection fatality ratio (2.9%, 95% CrI 2.7-3.2), followed by Delta (2.2%, 95% CrI 2.0-2.4), Wildtype (1.2%, 95% CrI 1.1-1.2), and Omicron (0.7%, 95% CrI 0.6-0.8). Our findings highlight the importance of continued surveillance. Long-term strategies for monitoring and maintaining effective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 are critical to inform the role of NPIs to effectively manage future variants with potentially higher intrinsic transmissibility and severe outcomes.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/epidemiology , England/epidemiologyABSTRACT
In an emergency epidemic response, data providers supply data on a best-faith effort to modellers and analysts who are typically the end user of data collected for other primary purposes such as to inform patient care. Thus, modellers who analyse secondary data have limited ability to influence what is captured. During an emergency response, models themselves are often under constant development and require both stability in their data inputs and flexibility to incorporate new inputs as novel data sources become available. This dynamic landscape is challenging to work with. Here we outline a data pipeline used in the ongoing COVID-19 response in the UK that aims to address these issues. A data pipeline is a sequence of steps to carry the raw data through to a processed and useable model input, along with the appropriate metadata and context. In ours, each data type had an individual processing report, designed to produce outputs that could be easily combined and used downstream. Automated checks were in-built and added as new pathologies emerged. These cleaned outputs were collated at different geographic levels to provide standardised datasets. Finally, a human validation step was an essential component of the analysis pathway and permitted more nuanced issues to be captured. This framework allowed the pipeline to grow in complexity and volume and facilitated the diverse range of modelling approaches employed by researchers. Additionally, every report or modelling output could be traced back to the specific data version that informed it ensuring reproducibility of results. Our approach has been used to facilitate fast-paced analysis and has evolved over time. Our framework and its aspirations are applicable to many settings beyond COVID-19 data, for example for other outbreaks such as Ebola, or where routine and regular analyses are required.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Public Health , Reproducibility of Results , Disease OutbreaksABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The UK was the first country to start national COVID-19 vaccination programmes, initially administering doses 3 weeks apart. However, early evidence of high vaccine effectiveness after the first dose and the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 alpha variant prompted the UK to extend the interval between doses to 12 weeks. In this study, we aimed to quantify the effect of delaying the second vaccine dose in England. METHODS: We used a previously described model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, calibrated to COVID-19 surveillance data from England, including hospital admissions, hospital occupancy, seroprevalence data, and population-level PCR testing data, using a Bayesian evidence-synthesis framework. We modelled and compared the epidemic trajectory in the counterfactual scenario in which vaccine doses were administered 3 weeks apart against the real reported vaccine roll-out schedule of 12 weeks. We estimated and compared the resulting numbers of daily infections, hospital admissions, and deaths. In sensitivity analyses, we investigated scenarios spanning a range of vaccine effectiveness and waning assumptions. FINDINGS: In the period from Dec 8, 2020, to Sept 13, 2021, the number of individuals who received a first vaccine dose was higher under the 12-week strategy than the 3-week strategy. For this period, we estimated that delaying the interval between the first and second COVID-19 vaccine doses from 3 to 12 weeks averted a median (calculated as the median of the posterior sample) of 58 000 COVID-19 hospital admissions (291 000 cumulative hospitalisations [95% credible interval 275 000-319 000] under the 3-week strategy vs 233 000 [229 000-238 000] under the 12-week strategy) and 10 100 deaths (64 800 deaths [60 200-68 900] vs 54 700 [52 800-55 600]). Similarly, we estimated that the 3-week strategy would have resulted in more infections compared with the 12-week strategy. Across all sensitivity analyses the 3-week strategy resulted in a greater number of hospital admissions. In results by age group, the 12-week strategy led to more hospitalisations and deaths in older people in spring 2021, but fewer following the emergence of the delta variant during summer 2021. INTERPRETATION: England's delayed-second-dose vaccination strategy was informed by early real-world data on vaccine effectiveness in the context of limited vaccine supplies in a growing epidemic. Our study shows that rapidly providing partial (single-dose) vaccine-induced protection to a larger proportion of the population was successful in reducing the burden of COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths overall. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research; UK Medical Research Council; Community Jameel; Wellcome Trust; UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; and EU.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , Aged , Infant , Bayes Theorem , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Australia , SARS-CoV-2 , EnglandABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: England's COVID-19 roadmap out of lockdown policy set out the timeline and conditions for the stepwise lifting of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) as vaccination roll-out continued, with step one starting on March 8, 2021. In this study, we assess the roadmap, the impact of the delta (B.1.617.2) variant of SARS-CoV-2, and potential future epidemic trajectories. METHODS: This mathematical modelling study was done to assess the UK Government's four-step process to easing lockdown restrictions in England, UK. We extended a previously described model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to incorporate vaccination and multi-strain dynamics to explicitly capture the emergence of the delta variant. We calibrated the model to English surveillance data, including hospital admissions, hospital occupancy, seroprevalence data, and population-level PCR testing data using a Bayesian evidence synthesis framework, then modelled the potential trajectory of the epidemic for a range of different schedules for relaxing NPIs. We estimated the resulting number of daily infections and hospital admissions, and daily and cumulative deaths. Three scenarios spanning a range of optimistic to pessimistic vaccine effectiveness, waning natural immunity, and cross-protection from previous infections were investigated. We also considered three levels of mixing after the lifting of restrictions. FINDINGS: The roadmap policy was successful in offsetting the increased transmission resulting from lifting NPIs starting on March 8, 2021, with increasing population immunity through vaccination. However, because of the emergence of the delta variant, with an estimated transmission advantage of 76% (95% credible interval [95% CrI] 69-83) over alpha, fully lifting NPIs on June 21, 2021, as originally planned might have led to 3900 (95% CrI 1500-5700) peak daily hospital admissions under our central parameter scenario. Delaying until July 19, 2021, reduced peak hospital admissions by three fold to 1400 (95% CrI 700-1700) per day. There was substantial uncertainty in the epidemic trajectory, with particular sensitivity to the transmissibility of delta, level of mixing, and estimates of vaccine effectiveness. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that the risk of a large wave of COVID-19 hospital admissions resulting from lifting NPIs can be substantially mitigated if the timing of NPI relaxation is carefully balanced against vaccination coverage. However, with the delta variant, it might not be possible to fully lift NPIs without a third wave of hospital admissions and deaths, even if vaccination coverage is high. Variants of concern, their transmissibility, vaccine uptake, and vaccine effectiveness must be carefully monitored as countries relax pandemic control measures. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, and UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Communicable Disease Control/organization & administration , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination Coverage/organization & administration , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/mortality , England/epidemiology , Hospital Mortality/trends , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Models, Theoretical , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
We fitted a model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in care homes and the community to regional surveillance data for England. Compared with other approaches, our model provides a synthesis of multiple surveillance data streams into a single coherent modeling framework, allowing transmission and severity to be disentangled from features of the surveillance system. Of the control measures implemented, only national lockdown brought the reproduction number (Rt eff) below 1 consistently; if introduced 1 week earlier, it could have reduced deaths in the first wave from an estimated 48,600 to 25,600 [95% credible interval (CrI): 15,900 to 38,400]. The infection fatality ratio decreased from 1.00% (95% CrI: 0.85 to 1.21%) to 0.79% (95% CrI: 0.63 to 0.99%), suggesting improved clinical care. The infection fatality ratio was higher in the elderly residing in care homes (23.3%, 95% CrI: 14.7 to 35.2%) than those residing in the community (7.9%, 95% CrI: 5.9 to 10.3%). On 2 December 2020, England was still far from herd immunity, with regional cumulative infection incidence between 7.6% (95% CrI: 5.4 to 10.2%) and 22.3% (95% CrI: 19.4 to 25.4%) of the population. Therefore, any vaccination campaign will need to achieve high coverage and a high degree of protection in vaccinated individuals to allow nonpharmaceutical interventions to be lifted without a resurgence of transmission.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Epidemics , Aged , Communicable Disease Control , England/epidemiology , Humans , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
The worldwide endeavour to develop safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines has been extraordinary, and vaccination is now underway in many countries. However, the doses available in 2021 are likely to be limited. We extend a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission across different country settings to evaluate the public health impact of potential vaccines using WHO-developed target product profiles. We identify optimal vaccine allocation strategies within- and between-countries to maximise averted deaths under constraints on dose supply. We find that the health impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination depends on the cumulative population-level infection incidence when vaccination begins, the duration of natural immunity, the trajectory of the epidemic prior to vaccination, and the level of healthcare available to effectively treat those with disease. Within a country we find that for a limited supply (doses for < 20% of the population) the optimal strategy is to target the elderly. However, with a larger supply, if vaccination can occur while other interventions are maintained, the optimal strategy switches to targeting key transmitters to indirectly protect the vulnerable. As supply increases, vaccines that reduce or block infection have a greater impact than those that prevent disease alone due to the indirect protection provided to high-risk groups. Given a 2 billion global dose supply in 2021, we find that a strategy in which doses are allocated to countries proportional to population size is close to optimal in averting deaths and aligns with the ethical principles agreed in pandemic preparedness planning.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Aged , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Models, Theoretical , Public Health , SARS-CoV-2 , VaccinationABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in substantial mortality worldwide. However, to date, countries in the Middle East and Africa have reported considerably lower mortality rates than in Europe and the Americas. Motivated by reports of an overwhelmed health system, we estimate the likely under-ascertainment of COVID-19 mortality in Damascus, Syria. Using all-cause mortality data, we fit a mathematical model of COVID-19 transmission to reported mortality, estimating that 1.25% of COVID-19 deaths (sensitivity range 1.00% - 3.00%) have been reported as of 2 September 2020. By 2 September, we estimate that 4,380 (95% CI: 3,250 - 5,550) COVID-19 deaths in Damascus may have been missed, with 39.0% (95% CI: 32.5% - 45.0%) of the population in Damascus estimated to have been infected. Accounting for under-ascertainment corroborates reports of exceeded hospital bed capacity and is validated by community-uploaded obituary notifications, which confirm extensive unreported mortality in Damascus.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Mortality/trends , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Pandemics , Population Surveillance/methods , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Survival Rate , Syria/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has placed enormous strain on intensive care units (ICUs) in Europe. Ensuring access to care, irrespective of COVID-19 status, in winter 2020-2021 is essential. METHODS: An integrated model of hospital capacity planning and epidemiological projections of COVID-19 patients is used to estimate the demand for and resultant spare capacity of ICU beds, staff and ventilators under different epidemic scenarios in France, Germany and Italy across the 2020-2021 winter period. The effect of implementing lockdowns triggered by different numbers of COVID-19 patients in ICUs under varying levels of effectiveness is examined, using a 'dual-demand' (COVID-19 and non-COVID-19) patient model. RESULTS: Without sufficient mitigation, we estimate that COVID-19 ICU patient numbers will exceed those seen in the first peak, resulting in substantial capacity deficits, with beds being consistently found to be the most constrained resource. Reactive lockdowns could lead to large improvements in ICU capacity during the winter season, with pressure being most effectively alleviated when lockdown is triggered early and sustained under a higher level of suppression. The success of such interventions also depends on baseline bed numbers and average non-COVID-19 patient occupancy. CONCLUSION: Reductions in capacity deficits under different scenarios must be weighed against the feasibility and drawbacks of further lockdowns. Careful, continuous decision-making by national policymakers will be required across the winter period 2020-2021.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Communicable Disease Control , Europe/epidemiology , France , Germany , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Italy , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, countries have sought to control SARS-CoV-2 transmission by restricting population movement through social distancing interventions, thus reducing the number of contacts. Mobility data represent an important proxy measure of social distancing, and here, we characterise the relationship between transmission and mobility for 52 countries around the world. Transmission significantly decreased with the initial reduction in mobility in 73% of the countries analysed, but we found evidence of decoupling of transmission and mobility following the relaxation of strict control measures for 80% of countries. For the majority of countries, mobility explained a substantial proportion of the variation in transmissibility (median adjusted R-squared: 48%, interquartile range - IQR - across countries [27-77%]). Where a change in the relationship occurred, predictive ability decreased after the relaxation; from a median adjusted R-squared of 74% (IQR across countries [49-91%]) pre-relaxation, to a median adjusted R-squared of 30% (IQR across countries [12-48%]) post-relaxation. In countries with a clear relationship between mobility and transmission both before and after strict control measures were relaxed, mobility was associated with lower transmission rates after control measures were relaxed indicating that the beneficial effects of ongoing social distancing behaviours were substantial.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/transmission , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Algorithms , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Communicable Disease Control/statistics & numerical data , Global Health , Humans , Models, Theoretical , Physical Distancing , Quarantine/methods , SARS-CoV-2/physiologyABSTRACT
Gambiense human African trypanosomiasis (gHAT) is a virulent disease declining in burden but still endemic in West and Central Africa. Although it is targeted for elimination of transmission by 2030, there remain numerous questions about the drivers of infection and how these vary geographically. In this study we focus on the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which accounted for 84% of the global case burden in 2016, to explore changes in transmission across the country and elucidate factors which may have contributed to the persistence of disease or success of interventions in different regions. We present a Bayesian fitting methodology, applied to 168 endemic health zones (â¼100,000 population size), which allows for calibration of a mechanistic gHAT model to case data (from the World Health Organization HAT Atlas) in an adaptive and automated framework. It was found that the model needed to capture improvements in passive detection to match observed trends in the data within former Bandundu and Bas Congo provinces indicating these regions have substantially reduced time to detection. Health zones in these provinces generally had longer burn-in periods during fitting due to additional model parameters. Posterior probability distributions were found for a range of fitted parameters in each health zone; these included the basic reproduction number estimates for pre-1998 (R0) which was inferred to be between 1 and 1.14, in line with previous gHAT estimates, with higher median values typically in health zones with more case reporting in the 2000s. Previously, it was not clear whether a fall in active case finding in the period contributed to the declining case numbers. The modelling here accounts for variable screening and suggests that underlying transmission has also reduced greatly-on average 96% in former Equateur, 93% in former Bas Congo and 89% in former Bandundu-Equateur and Bandundu having had the highest case burdens in 2000. This analysis also sets out a framework to enable future predictions for the country.
Subject(s)
Models, Statistical , Trypanosoma brucei gambiense , Trypanosomiasis, African , Bayes Theorem , Computational Biology , Democratic Republic of the Congo/epidemiology , Humans , Models, Biological , Trypanosomiasis, African/epidemiology , Trypanosomiasis, African/parasitology , Trypanosomiasis, African/transmissionABSTRACT
As of 1st June 2020, the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention reported 104,232 confirmed or probable COVID-19-related deaths in the US. This was more than twice the number of deaths reported in the next most severely impacted country. We jointly model the US epidemic at the state-level, using publicly available death data within a Bayesian hierarchical semi-mechanistic framework. For each state, we estimate the number of individuals that have been infected, the number of individuals that are currently infectious and the time-varying reproduction number (the average number of secondary infections caused by an infected person). We use changes in mobility to capture the impact that non-pharmaceutical interventions and other behaviour changes have on the rate of transmission of SARS-CoV-2. We estimate that Rt was only below one in 23 states on 1st June. We also estimate that 3.7% [3.4%-4.0%] of the total population of the US had been infected, with wide variation between states, and approximately 0.01% of the population was infectious. We demonstrate good 3 week model forecasts of deaths with low error and good coverage of our credible intervals.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/transmission , Humans , Models, Statistical , United States/epidemiology , Virus Diseases/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: After experiencing a sharp growth in COVID-19 cases early in the pandemic, South Korea rapidly controlled transmission while implementing less stringent national social distancing measures than countries in Europe and the USA. This has led to substantial interest in their "test, trace, isolate" strategy. However, it is important to understand the epidemiological peculiarities of South Korea's outbreak and characterise their response before attempting to emulate these measures elsewhere. METHODS: We systematically extracted numbers of suspected cases tested, PCR-confirmed cases, deaths, isolated confirmed cases, and numbers of confirmed cases with an identified epidemiological link from publicly available data. We estimated the time-varying reproduction number, Rt, using an established Bayesian framework, and reviewed the package of interventions implemented by South Korea using our extracted data, plus published literature and government sources. RESULTS: We estimated that after the initial rapid growth in cases, Rt dropped below one in early April before increasing to a maximum of 1.94 (95%CrI, 1.64-2.27) in May following outbreaks in Seoul Metropolitan Region. By mid-June, Rt was back below one where it remained until the end of our study (July 13th). Despite less stringent "lockdown" measures, strong social distancing measures were implemented in high-incidence areas and studies measured a considerable national decrease in movement in late February. Testing the capacity was swiftly increased, and protocols were in place to isolate suspected and confirmed cases quickly; however, we could not estimate the delay to isolation using our data. Accounting for just 10% of cases, individual case-based contact tracing picked up a relatively minor proportion of total cases, with cluster investigations accounting for 66%. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst early adoption of testing and contact tracing is likely to be important for South Korea's successful outbreak control, other factors including regional implementation of strong social distancing measures likely also contributed. The high volume of testing and the low number of deaths suggest that South Korea experienced a small epidemic relative to other countries. Caution is needed in attempting to replicate the South Korean response in populations with larger more geographically widespread epidemics where finding, testing, and isolating cases that are linked to clusters may be more difficult.
Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Contact Tracing/methods , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Quarantine/methods , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Contact Tracing/trends , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Humans , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Quarantine/trends , Republic of Korea/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
Background: The COVID-19 epidemic was declared a Global Pandemic by WHO on 11 March 2020. By 24 March 2020, over 440,000 cases and almost 20,000 deaths had been reported worldwide. In response to the fast-growing epidemic, which began in the Chinese city of Wuhan, Hubei, China imposed strict social distancing in Wuhan on 23 January 2020 followed closely by similar measures in other provinces. These interventions have impacted economic productivity in China, and the ability of the Chinese economy to resume without restarting the epidemic was not clear. Methods: Using daily reported cases from mainland China and Hong Kong SAR, we estimated transmissibility over time and compared it to daily within-city movement, as a proxy for economic activity. Results: Initially, within-city movement and transmission were very strongly correlated in the five mainland provinces most affected by the epidemic and Beijing. However, that correlation decreased rapidly after the initial sharp fall in transmissibility. In general, towards the end of the study period, the correlation was no longer apparent, despite substantial increases in within-city movement. A similar analysis for Hong Kong shows that intermediate levels of local activity were maintained while avoiding a large outbreak. At the very end of the study period, when China began to experience the re-introduction of a small number of cases from Europe and the United States, there is an apparent up-tick in transmission. Conclusions: Although these results do not preclude future substantial increases in incidence, they suggest that after very intense social distancing (which resulted in containment), China successfully exited its lockdown to some degree. Elsewhere, movement data are being used as proxies for economic activity to assess the impact of interventions. The results presented here illustrate how the eventual decorrelation between transmission and movement is likely a key feature of successful COVID-19 exit strategies.
Subject(s)
Air Travel/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19 , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Epidemiological Monitoring , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/statistics & numerical data , China/epidemiology , Epidemiologic Measurements , Humans , International Health Regulations/organization & administration , Prevalence , Travel Medicine/methods , Travel Medicine/trends , United Kingdom/epidemiologyABSTRACT
The burden of malaria is heavily concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) where cases and deaths associated with COVID-19 are rising1. In response, countries are implementing societal measures aimed at curtailing transmission of SARS-CoV-22,3. Despite these measures, the COVID-19 epidemic could still result in millions of deaths as local health facilities become overwhelmed4. Advances in malaria control this century have been largely due to distribution of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs)5, with many SSA countries having planned campaigns for 2020. In the present study, we use COVID-19 and malaria transmission models to estimate the impact of disruption of malaria prevention activities and other core health services under four different COVID-19 epidemic scenarios. If activities are halted, the malaria burden in 2020 could be more than double that of 2019. In Nigeria alone, reducing case management for 6 months and delaying LLIN campaigns could result in 81,000 (44,000-119,000) additional deaths. Mitigating these negative impacts is achievable, and LLIN distributions in particular should be prioritized alongside access to antimalarial treatments to prevent substantial malaria epidemics.
Subject(s)
Antimalarials/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Malaria/epidemiology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/parasitology , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Humans , Insecticides/therapeutic use , Malaria/complications , Malaria/parasitology , Malaria/virology , Mosquito Control , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/parasitology , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Public Health , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses a severe threat to public health worldwide. We combine data on demography, contact patterns, disease severity, and health care capacity and quality to understand its impact and inform strategies for its control. Younger populations in lower-income countries may reduce overall risk, but limited health system capacity coupled with closer intergenerational contact largely negates this benefit. Mitigation strategies that slow but do not interrupt transmission will still lead to COVID-19 epidemics rapidly overwhelming health systems, with substantial excess deaths in lower-income countries resulting from the poorer health care available. Of countries that have undertaken suppression to date, lower-income countries have acted earlier. However, this will need to be maintained or triggered more frequently in these settings to keep below available health capacity, with associated detrimental consequences for the wider health, well-being, and economies of these countries.