Search

As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spread through the United States in 2020, states began to set up alert systems to inform policy decisions and serve as risk communication tools for the general public. Many of these systems included indicators based on an assessment of trends in numbers of reported cases. However, when cases are indexed by date of disease onset, reporting delays complicate the interpretation of trends. Despite a foundation of statistical literature with which to address this problem, these methods have not been widely applied in practice. In this paper, we develop a Bayesian spatiotemporal nowcasting model for assessing trends in county-level COVID-19 cases in Ohio. We compare the performance of our model with the approach used in Ohio and the approach included in decision support materials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We demonstrate gains in performance while still retaining interpretability using our model. In addition, we are able to fully account for uncertainty in both the time series of cases and the reporting process. While we cannot eliminate all of the uncertainty in public health surveillance and subsequent decision-making, we must use approaches that embrace these challenges and deliver more accurate and honest assessments to policy-makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy responses to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), particularly those related to nonpharmaceutical interventions, are unprecedented in scale and scope. However, evaluations of policy impacts require a complex combination of circumstance, study design, data, statistics, and analysis. Beyond the issues that are faced for any policy, evaluation of COVID-19 policies is complicated by additional challenges related to infectious disease dynamics and a multiplicity of interventions. The methods needed for policy-level impact evaluation are not often used or taught in epidemiology, and they differ in important ways that may not be obvious. Methodological complications of policy evaluations can make it difficult for decision-makers and researchers to synthesize and evaluate the strength of the evidence in COVID-19 health policy papers. Here we 1) introduce the basic suite of policy-impact evaluation designs for observational data, including cross-sectional analyses, pre-/post- analyses, interrupted time-series analysis, and difference-in-differences analysis; 2) demonstrate key ways in which the requirements and assumptions underlying these designs are often violated in the context of COVID-19; and 3) provide decision-makers and reviewers with a conceptual and graphical guide to identifying these key violations. Our overall goal is to help epidemiologists, policy-makers, journal editors, journalists, researchers, and other research consumers understand and weigh the strengths and limitations of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In their recent article, Dimitris et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2022;191(6):980–986) presented a series of challenges modern epidemiology has faced during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, including challenges around the scientific progress, epidemiologic methods, interventions, equity, team science, and training needed to address these issues. Here, 2 social epidemiologists who have been working on COVID-19 inequities reflect on further lessons with an added year of perspective. We focus on 2 key challenges: 1) dominant biomedical individualistic narratives around the production of population health, and 2) the role of profit in policy-making. We articulate a need to consider social epidemiologic approaches, including acknowledging the importance of considering how societal systems lead to health inequities. To address these challenges, future (and current) epidemiologists should be trained in theories of population health distribution and political structures of governance. Last, we close with the need for better investment in public health infrastructure as a crucial step toward achieving population health equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We compared the performance of prognostic tools for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using parameters fitted either at the time of hospital admission or across all time points of an admission. This cohort study used clinical data to model the dynamic change in prognosis of SARS-CoV-2 at a single hospital center in the United Kingdom, including all patients admitted from February 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020, and then followed up for 60 days for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, death, or discharge from the hospital. We incorporated clinical observations and blood tests into 2 time-varying Cox proportional hazards models predicting daily 24- to 48-hour risk of admission to the ICU for those eligible for escalation of care or death for those ineligible for escalation. In developing the model, 491 patients were eligible for ICU escalation and 769 were ineligible for escalation. Our model had good discrimination of daily risk of ICU admission in the validation cohort (n  = 1,141; C statistic: C  = 0.91, 95% confidence interval: 0.89, 0.94) and our score performed better than other scores (National Early Warning Score 2, International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Comprehensive Clinical Characterisation Collaboration score) calculated using only parameters measured on admission, but it overestimated the risk of escalation (calibration slope = 0.7). A bespoke daily SARS-CoV-2 escalation risk prediction score can predict the need for clinical escalation better than a generic early warning score or a single estimation of risk calculated at admission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The worldwide shortage of vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection while the pandemic still remains uncontrolled has led many countries to the dilemma of whether or not to vaccinate previously infected persons. Understanding the level of protection conferred by previous infection compared with that of vaccination is important for policy-making. We analyzed an updated individual-level database of the entire population of Israel to assess the protection provided by both prior infection and vaccination in preventing subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), severe disease, and death due to COVID-19. Outcome data were collected from December 20, 2020, to March 20, 2021. Vaccination was highly protective, with overall estimated effectiveness of 94.5% (95% confidence interval (CI): 94.3, 94.7) for documented infection, 95.8% (95% CI: 95.2, 96.2) for hospitalization, 96.3% (95% CI: 95.7, 96.9) for severe illness, and 96.0% (95% CI: 94.9, 96.9) for death. Similarly, the overall estimated level of protection provided by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection was 94.8% (95% CI: 94.4, 95.1) for documented infection, 94.1% (95% CI: 91.9, 95.7) for hospitalization, and 96.4% (95% CI: 92.5, 98.3) for severe illness. Our results should be considered by policy-makers when deciding whether or not to prioritize vaccination of previously infected adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nonpharmaceutical interventions, such as social distancing and lockdowns, have been essential to control of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In particular, localized lockdowns in small geographic areas have become an important policy intervention for preventing viral spread in cases of resurgence. These localized lockdowns can result in lower social and economic costs compared with larger-scale suppression strategies. Using an integrated data set from Chile (March 3–June 15, 2020) and a novel synthetic control approach, we estimated the effect of localized lockdowns, disentangling its direct and indirect causal effects on transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Our results showed that the effects of localized lockdowns are strongly modulated by their duration and are influenced by indirect effects from neighboring geographic areas. Our estimates suggest that extending localized lockdowns can slow down SARS-CoV-2 transmission; however, localized lockdowns on their own are insufficient to control pandemic growth in the presence of indirect effects from contiguous neighboring areas that do not have lockdowns. These results provide critical empirical evidence about the effectiveness of localized lockdowns in interconnected geographic areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]