Search

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the key role that epidemiology and modelling play in analysing infectious threats and supporting decision making in real-time. Motivated by the unprecedented volume and breadth of data generated during the pandemic, we review modern opportunities for analysis to address questions that emerge during a major modern epidemic. Following the broad chronology of insights required — from understanding initial dynamics to retrospective evaluation of interventions, we describe the theoretical foundations of each approach and the underlying intuition. Through a series of case studies, we illustrate real life applications, and discuss implications for future work.

As we emerge from what may be the largest global public health crises of our lives, our community of epidemic modellers is naturally reflecting. What role can modelling play in supporting decision making during epidemics? How could we more effectively interact with policy makers? How should we design future disease surveillance systems? All crucial questions. But who is going to be addressing them in 10 years’ time? With high burnout and poor attrition rates in academia, both magnified in our field by our unprecedented efforts during the pandemic, and with low wages coinciding with inflation at its highest for decades, how do we retain talent? This is a multifaceted challenge, that I argue is underpinned by privilege. In this perspective, I introduce the notion of privilege and highlight how various aspects of privilege (namely gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, language and caring responsibilities) may affect the ability of individuals to access to and progress within academic modelling careers. I propose actions that members of the epidemic modelling research community may take to mitigate these issues and ensure we have a more diverse and equitable workforce going forward.

Tracking pathogen transmissibility during infectious disease outbreaks is essential for assessing the effectiveness of public health measures and planning future control strategies. A key measure of transmissibility is the time-dependent reproduction number, which has been estimated in real-time during outbreaks of a range of pathogens from disease incidence time series data. While commonly used approaches for estimating the time-dependent reproduction number can be reliable when disease incidence is recorded frequently, such incidence data are often aggregated temporally (for example, numbers of cases may be reported weekly rather than daily). As we show, commonly used methods for estimating transmissibility can be unreliable when the timescale of transmission is shorter than the timescale of data recording. To address this, here we develop a simulation-based approach involving Approximate Bayesian Computation for estimating the time-dependent reproduction number from temporally aggregated disease incidence time series data. We first use a simulated dataset representative of a situation in which daily disease incidence data are unavailable and only weekly summary values are reported, demonstrating that our method provides accurate estimates of the time-dependent reproduction number under such circumstances. We then apply our method to two outbreak datasets consisting of weekly influenza case numbers in 2019–20 and 2022–23 in Wales (in the United Kingdom). Our simple-to-use approach will allow accurate estimates of time-dependent reproduction numbers to be obtained from temporally aggregated data during future infectious disease outbreaks.

Background: The serial interval is a key epidemiological measure that quantifies the time between the onset of symptoms in an infector-infectee pair. It indicates how quickly new generations of cases appear, thus informing on the speed of an epidemic. Estimating the serial interval requires to identify pairs of infectors and infectees. Yet, most studies fail to assess the direction of transmission between cases and assume that the order of infections - and thus transmissions - strictly follows the order of symptom onsets, thereby imposing serial intervals to be positive. Because of the long and highly variable incubation period of SARS-CoV-2, this may not always be true (i.e an infectee may show symptoms before their infector) and negative serial intervals may occur. This study aims to estimate the serial interval of different SARS-CoV-2 variants whilst accounting for negative serial intervals. Methods: This analysis included 5 842 symptomatic individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst 2 579 households from September 2020 to August 2022 across England & Wales. We used a Bayesian framework to infer who infected whom by exploring all transmission trees compatible with the observed dates of symptoms, based on a wide range of incubation period and generation time distributions compatible with estimates reported in the literature. Serial intervals were derived from the reconstructed transmission pairs, stratified by variants. Results: We estimated that 22% (95% credible interval (CrI) 8–32%) of serial interval values are negative across all VOC. The mean serial interval was shortest for Omicron BA5 (2.02 days, 1.26–2.84) and longest for Alpha (3.37 days, 2.52–4.04). Conclusions: This study highlights the large proportion of negative serial intervals across SARS-CoV-2 variants. Because the serial interval is widely used to estimate transmissibility and forecast cases, these results may have critical implications for epidemic control.

The evolution of SARS-CoV-2 has demonstrated that emerging variants can set back the global COVID-19 response. The ability to rapidly assess the threat of new variants is critical for timely optimisation of control strategies.We present a novel method to estimate the effective transmission advantage of a new variant compared to a reference variant combining information across multiple locations and over time. Through an extensive simulation study designed to mimic real-time epidemic contexts, we show that our method performs well across a range of scenarios and provide guidance on its optimal use and interpretation of results. We also provide an open-source software implementation of our method. The computational speed of our tool enables users to rapidly explore spatial and temporal variations in the estimated transmission advantage.We estimate that the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant is 1.46 (95% Credible Interval 1.44–1.47) and 1.29 (95% CrI 1.29–1.30) times more transmissible than the wild type, using data from England and France respectively. We further estimate that Delta is 1.77 (95% CrI 1.69–1.85) times more transmissible than Alpha (England data).Our approach can be used as an important first step towards quantifying the threat of emerging or co-circulating variants of infectious pathogens in real-time.

Reliable estimates of human mobility are important for understanding the spatial spread of infectious diseases and the effective targeting of control measures. However, when modelling infectious disease dynamics, data on human mobility at an appropriate temporal or spatial resolution are not always available, leading to the common use of model-derived mobility proxies. In this study we reviewed the different data sources and mobility models that have been used to characterise human movement in Africa. We then conducted a simulation study to better understand the implications of using human mobility proxies when predicting the spatial spread and dynamics of infectious diseases.We found major gaps in the availability of empirical measures of human mobility in Africa, leading to mobility proxies being used in place of data. Empirical data on subnational mobility were only available for 17/54 countries, and in most instances, these data characterised long-term movement patterns, which were unsuitable for modelling the spread of pathogens with short generation times (time between infection of a case and their infector). Results from our simulation study demonstrated that using mobility proxies can have a substantial impact on the predicted epidemic dynamics, with complex and non-intuitive biases. In particular, the predicted times and order of epidemic invasion, and the time of epidemic peak in different locations can be underestimated or overestimated, depending on the types of proxies used and the country of interest.Our work underscores the need for regularly updated empirical measures of population movement within and between countries to aid the prevention and control of infectious disease outbreaks. At the same time, there is a need to establish an evidence base to help understand which types of mobility data are most appropriate for describing the spread of emerging infectious diseases in different settings.

Contact tracing, where exposed individuals are followed up to break ongoing transmission chains, is a key pillar of outbreak response for infectious disease outbreaks. Unfortunately, these systems are not fully effective, and infections can still go undetected as people may not remember all their contacts or contacts may not be traced successfully. A large proportion of undetected infections suggests poor contact tracing and surveillance systems, which could be a potential area of improvement for a disease response. In this paper, we present a method for estimating the proportion of infections that are not detected during an outbreak. Our method uses next generation matrices that are parameterized by linked contact tracing data and case line-lists. We validate the method using simulated data from an individual-based model and then investigate two case studies: the proportion of undetected infections in the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in New Zealand during 2020 and the Ebola epidemic in Guinea during 2014. We estimate that only 5.26% of SARS-CoV-2 infections were not detected in New Zealand during 2020 (95% credible interval: 0.243 – 16.0%) if 80% of contacts were under active surveillance but depending on assumptions about the ratio of contacts not under active surveillance versus contacts under active surveillance 39.0% or 37.7% of Ebola infections were not detected in Guinea (95% credible intervals: 1.69 – 87.0% or 1.70 – 80.9%).

Outbreaks of novel pathogens such as SARS, pandemic influenza and Ebola require substantial investments in reactive interventions, with consequent implementation plans sometimes revised on a weekly basis. Therefore, short-term forecasts of incidence are often of high priority. In light of the recent Ebola epidemic in West Africa, a forecasting exercise was convened by a network of infectious disease modellers. The challenge was to forecast unseen “future” simulated data for four different scenarios at five different time points. In a similar method to that used during the recent Ebola epidemic, we estimated current levels of transmissibility, over variable time-windows chosen in an ad hoc way. Current estimated transmissibility was then used to forecast near-future incidence. We performed well within the challenge and often produced accurate forecasts. A retrospective analysis showed that our subjective method for deciding on the window of time with which to estimate transmissibility often resulted in the optimal choice. However, when near-future trends deviated substantially from exponential patterns, the accuracy of our forecasts was reduced. This exercise highlights the urgent need for infectious disease modellers to develop more robust descriptions of processes – other than the widespread depletion of susceptible individuals – that produce non-exponential patterns of incidence. Keywords: Forecasting, Rapid response, Branching process, Renewal equation, MCMC