Search

For practical reasons, many forecasts of case, hospitalization, and death counts in the context of the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are issued in the form of central predictive intervals at various levels. This is also the case for the forecasts collected in the COVID-19 Forecast Hub (https://covid19forecasthub.org/). Forecast evaluation metrics like the logarithmic score, which has been applied in several infectious disease forecasting challenges, are then not available as they require full predictive distributions. This article provides an overview of how established methods for the evaluation of quantile and interval forecasts can be applied to epidemic forecasts in this format. Specifically, we discuss the computation and interpretation of the weighted interval score, which is a proper score that approximates the continuous ranked probability score. It can be interpreted as a generalization of the absolute error to probabilistic forecasts and allows for a decomposition into a measure of sharpness and penalties for over- and underprediction. Author summary: During the COVID-19 pandemic, model-based probabilistic forecasts of case, hospitalization, and death numbers can help to improve situational awareness and guide public health interventions. The COVID-19 Forecast Hub (https://covid19forecasthub.org/) collects such forecasts from numerous national and international groups. Systematic and statistically sound evaluation of forecasts is an important prerequisite to revise and improve models and to combine different forecasts into ensemble predictions. We provide an intuitive introduction to scoring methods, which are suitable for the interval/quantile-based format used in the Forecast Hub, and compare them to other commonly used performance measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Forecasts based on epidemiological modelling have played an important role in shaping public policy throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. This modelling combines knowledge about infectious disease dynamics with the subjective opinion of the researcher who develops and refines the model and often also adjusts model outputs. Developing a forecast model is difficult, resource- and time-consuming. It is therefore worth asking what modelling is able to add beyond the subjective opinion of the researcher alone. To investigate this, we analysed different real-time forecasts of cases of and deaths from COVID-19 in Germany and Poland over a 1-4 week horizon submitted to the German and Polish Forecast Hub. We compared crowd forecasts elicited from researchers and volunteers, against a) forecasts from two semi-mechanistic models based on common epidemiological assumptions and b) the ensemble of all other models submitted to the Forecast Hub. We found crowd forecasts, despite being overconfident, to outperform all other methods across all forecast horizons when forecasting cases (weighted interval score relative to the Hub ensemble 2 weeks ahead: 0.89). Forecasts based on computational models performed comparably better when predicting deaths (rel. WIS 1.26), suggesting that epidemiological modelling and human judgement can complement each other in important ways. Author Summary: Mathematical models of COVID-19 have played a key role in informing governments across the world. While mathematical models are informed by our knowledge of infectious disease dynamics, they are ultimately developed and iteratively adjusted by the researchers and shaped by their subjective opinions. To investigate what modelling is able to add beyond the subjective opinion of the researcher alone, we compared human forecasts with model-based predictions of COVID-19 cases and deaths submitted to the so-called German/Polish Forecast Hub (which collates a variety of models from a range of teams). | We found that our human forecasts consistently outperformed an aggregate of all available model-based forecasts when predicting cases, but not when predicting deaths. Our findings suggest that human insight may be most valuable when forecasting highly uncertain quantities, which depend on many factors that are hard to model using equations, while mathematical models may be most useful in settings like predicting deaths, where leading indicators with a clear connection to the target variable are available. This potentially has very relevant policy implications, as agencies informing policy-makers could benefit from routinely eliciting human forecasts in addition to model-based predictions to inform policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The effective reproductive number Rt has taken a central role in the scientific, political, and public discussion during the COVID-19 pandemic, with numerous real-time estimates of this quantity routinely published. Disagreement between estimates can be substantial and may lead to confusion among decision-makers and the general public. In this work, we compare different estimates of the national-level effective reproductive number of COVID-19 in Germany in 2020 and 2021. We consider the agreement between estimates from the same method but published at different time points (within-method agreement) as well as retrospective agreement across eight different approaches (between-method agreement). Concerning the former, estimates from some methods are very stable over time and hardly subject to revisions, while others display considerable fluctuations. To evaluate between-method agreement, we reproduce the estimates generated by different groups using a variety of statistical approaches, standardizing analytical choices to assess how they contribute to the observed disagreement. These analytical choices include the data source, data pre-processing, assumed generation time distribution, statistical tuning parameters, and various delay distributions. We find that in practice, these auxiliary choices in the estimation of Rt may affect results at least as strongly as the selection of the statistical approach. They should thus be communicated transparently along with the estimates. Author summary: The effective reproductive number describes how many new infections an individual infected with a given disease causes on average in a population which is subject to a certain degree of immunity and intervention measures. Public health agencies and researchers commonly attempt to keep track of its value over time using various data sources and statistical methods. In this work we compare estimates produced by different research groups in a case study on COVID-19 in Germany. We find pronounced differences between different estimates and shed light on how these are shaped by varying analytical choices. Our results indicate that the employed statistical method has some influence on results, but surrounding analytical choices including epidemiological parameterizations and tuning parameter choices are at least as influential. As estimates are subject to regular updates, we moreover assess how strongly real-time estimates based on different methods were revised retrospectively. While for some methods hardly any retrospective changes occurred, for others there were strong revisions, often incoherent with the uncertainty intervals provided for previous estimates. Our results will be helpful for analysts aiming to set up estimation schemes for the effective reproductive number, and for users confronted with a multitude of potentially disagreeing estimates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Real-time surveillance is a crucial element in the response to infectious disease outbreaks. However, the interpretation of incidence data is often hampered by delays occurring at various stages of data gathering and reporting. As a result, recent values are biased downward, which obscures current trends. Statistical nowcasting techniques can be employed to correct these biases, allowing for accurate characterization of recent developments and thus enhancing situational awareness. In this paper, we present a preregistered real-time assessment of eight nowcasting approaches, applied by independent research teams to German 7-day hospitalization incidences during the COVID-19 pandemic. This indicator played an important role in the management of the outbreak in Germany and was linked to levels of non-pharmaceutical interventions via certain thresholds. Due to its definition, in which hospitalization counts are aggregated by the date of case report rather than admission, German hospitalization incidences are particularly affected by delays and can take several weeks or months to fully stabilize. For this study, all methods were applied from 22 November 2021 to 29 April 2022, with probabilistic nowcasts produced each day for the current and 28 preceding days. Nowcasts at the national, state, and age-group levels were collected in the form of quantiles in a public repository and displayed in a dashboard. Moreover, a mean and a median ensemble nowcast were generated. We find that overall, the compared methods were able to remove a large part of the biases introduced by delays. Most participating teams underestimated the importance of very long delays, though, resulting in nowcasts with a slight downward bias. The accompanying prediction intervals were also too narrow for almost all methods. Averaged over all nowcast horizons, the best performance was achieved by a model using case incidences as a covariate and taking into account longer delays than the other approaches. For the most recent days, which are often considered the most relevant in practice, a mean ensemble of the submitted nowcasts performed best. We conclude by providing some lessons learned on the definition of nowcasting targets and practical challenges. Author summary: Current trends in epidemiological indicators are often obscured by the fact that recent values are still incomplete. This is due to reporting delays and other types of delays. Statistical nowcasting methods can be used to account for these biases and reveal yet unobserved trends, thereby improving situational awareness and supporting public health decision-making. While numerous methods exist for this purpose, little is known about their behavior in real-time settings and their relative performance. In this paper, we compared eight different nowcasting methods in an application to COVID-19 hospitalization incidences in Germany from November 2021 to April 2022. Additionally, we combined the predictions of these methods to create so-called ensemble nowcasts. Our findings indicate that while all methods yielded practically useful results, some systematic biases in nowcasts occurred and the remaining uncertainty was generally underestimated. Combined ensemble nowcasts showed promising performance relative to individual models and thus represent a promising avenue for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Short-term probabilistic forecasts of the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States have served as a visible and important communication channel between the scientific modeling community and both the general public and decision-makers. Forecasting models provide specific, quantitative, and evaluable predictions that inform short-term decisions such as healthcare staffing needs, school closures, and allocation of medical supplies. Starting in April 2020, the US COVID-19 Forecast Hub (https://covid19forecasthub.org/) collected, disseminated, and synthesized tens of millions of specific predictions from more than 90 different academic, industry, and independent research groups. A multimodel ensemble forecast that combined predictions from dozens of groups every week provided the most consistently accurate probabilistic forecasts of incident deaths due to COVID-19 at the state and national level from April 2020 through October 2021. The performance of 27 individual models that submitted complete forecasts of COVID-19 deaths consistently throughout this year showed high variability in forecast skill across time, geospatial units, and forecast horizons. Two-thirds of the models evaluated showed better accuracy than a naïve baseline model. Forecast accuracy degraded as models made predictions further into the future, with probabilistic error at a 20-wk horizon three to five times larger than when predicting at a 1-wk horizon. This project underscores the role that collaboration and active coordination between governmental public-health agencies, academic modeling teams, and industry partners can play in developing modern modeling capabilities to support local, state, and federal response to outbreaks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]