Search

Quantitative assessments of when infectious disease outbreaks end are crucial, as resources targeted towards outbreak responses typically remain in place until outbreaks are declared over. Recent improvements and innovations in mathematical approaches for determining when outbreaks end provide public health authorities with more confidence when making end-of-outbreak declarations. Although quantitative analyses of outbreaks have a long history, more complex mathematical and statistical methodologies for analysing outbreak data were developed early in the 20th century and continue to be refined. Historically, such methodologies focused primarily on factors affecting the early and middle phases of an outbreak, with less attention given to determining how and when outbreaks end. This review discusses mathematical modelling methods from the last 20 years that have been developed for determining the ends of infectious disease outbreaks, and considers factors that affect the accuracy of such determinations. When disease surveillance systems provide timely and representative data to inform models, the timings of end-of-outbreak declarations can be fine-tuned to allow outbreaks to be declared over quickly and with a low risk of being incorrect. Premature declarations that outbreaks are over can undermine earlier achievements in disease control and may result in a resurgence of cases, but unnecessary delays in declaring outbreaks over can cause significant economic and social harm. Appropriate declarations that balance the benefits of relaxing control measures against the risk of a surge in cases allow public health resources to be conserved (and economic and social pressures to be reduced) while limiting the potential for additional transmission.

Virological tests have now shown conclusively that a novel coronavirus is causing the 2019-2020 atypical pneumonia outbreak in Wuhan, China. We demonstrate that non-virological descriptive characteristics could have determined that the outbreak is caused by a novel pathogen in advance of virological testing. Characteristics of the ongoing outbreak were collected in real time from two medical social media sites. These were compared against characteristics of eleven pathogens that have previously caused cases of atypical pneumonia. The probability that the current outbreak is due to "Disease X" (i.e., previously unknown etiology) as opposed to one of the known pathogens was inferred, and this estimate was updated as the outbreak continued. The probability (expressed as a percentage) that Disease X is driving the outbreak was assessed as over 29% on 31 December 2019, one week before virus identification. After some specific pathogens were ruled out by laboratory tests on 5 January 2020, the inferred probability of Disease X was over 49%. We showed quantitatively that the emerging outbreak of atypical pneumonia cases is consistent with causation by a novel pathogen. The proposed approach, which uses only routinely observed non-virological data, can aid ongoing risk assessments in advance of virological test results becoming available.

Objective: To estimate the serial interval of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) from information on 28 infector-infectee pairs. Methods: We collected dates of illness onset for primary cases (infectors) and secondary cases (infectees) from published research articles and case investigation reports. We subjectively ranked the credibility of the data and performed analyses on both the full dataset (n = 28) and a subset of pairs with highest certainty in reporting (n = 18). In addition, we adjust for right truncation of the data as the epidemic is still in its growth phase. Results: Accounting for right truncation and analyzing all pairs, we estimated the median serial interval at 4.0 days (95% credible interval [CrI]: 3.1, 4.9). Limiting our data to only the most certain pairs, the median serial interval was estimated at 4.6 days (95% CrI: 3.5, 5.9). Conclusions: The serial interval of COVID-19 is close to or shorter than its median incubation period. This suggests that a substantial proportion of secondary transmission may occur prior to illness onset. The COVID-19 serial interval is also shorter than the serial interval of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), indicating that calculations made using the SARS serial interval may introduce bias. (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases.

Objective: To estimate the serial interval of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) from information on 28 infector-infectee pairs. Methods: We collected dates of illness onset for primary cases (infectors) and secondary cases (infectees) from published research articles and case investigation reports. We subjectively ranked the credibility of the data and performed analyses on both the full dataset (n = 28) and a subset of pairs with highest certainty in reporting (n = 18). In addition, we adjust for right truncation of the data as the epidemic is still in its growth phase. Results: Accounting for right truncation and analyzing all pairs, we estimated the median serial interval at 4.0 days (95% credible interval [CrI]: 3.1, 4.9). Limiting our data to only the most certain pairs, the median serial interval was estimated at 4.6 days (95% CrI: 3.5, 5.9). Conclusions: The serial interval of COVID-19 is close to or shorter than its median incubation period. This suggests that a substantial proportion of secondary transmission may occur prior to illness onset. The COVID-19 serial interval is also shorter than the serial interval of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), indicating that calculations made using the SARS serial interval may introduce bias. (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases.

Virological tests have now shown conclusively that a novel coronavirus is causing the 2019-2020 atypical pneumonia outbreak in Wuhan, China. We demonstrate that non-virological descriptive characteristics could have determined that the outbreak is caused by a novel pathogen in advance of virological testing. Characteristics of the ongoing outbreak were collected in real time from two medical social media sites. These were compared against characteristics of eleven pathogens that have previously caused cases of atypical pneumonia. The probability that the current outbreak is due to "Disease X" (i.e., previously unknown etiology) as opposed to one of the known pathogens was inferred, and this estimate was updated as the outbreak continued. The probability (expressed as a percentage) that Disease X is driving the outbreak was assessed as over 29% on 31 December 2019, one week before virus identification. After some specific pathogens were ruled out by laboratory tests on 5 January 2020, the inferred probability of Disease X was over 49%. We showed quantitatively that the emerging outbreak of atypical pneumonia cases is consistent with causation by a novel pathogen. The proposed approach, which uses only routinely observed non-virological data, can aid ongoing risk assessments in advance of virological test results becoming available.