Search for: All records

Abstract Despite the global impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the question of whether mandated interventions have similar economic and public health effects as spontaneous behavioural change remains unresolved. Addressing this question, and understanding differential effects across socioeconomic groups, requires building quantitative and fine-grained mechanistic models. Here we introduce a data-driven, granular, agent-based model that simulates epidemic and economic outcomes across industries, occupations and income levels. We validate the model by reproducing key outcomes of the first wave of coronavirus disease 2019 in the New York metropolitan area. The key mechanism coupling the epidemic and economic modules is the reduction in consumption due to fear of infection. In counterfactual experiments, we show that a similar trade-off between epidemic and economic outcomes exists both when individuals change their behaviour due to fear of infection and when non-pharmaceutical interventions are imposed. Low-income workers, who perform in-person occupations in customer-facing industries, face the strongest trade-off. 

Abstract During outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases, internationally connected cities often experience large and early outbreaks, while rural regions follow after some delay. This hierarchical structure of disease spread is influenced primarily by the multiscale structure of human mobility. However, during the COVID-19 epidemic, public health responses typically did not take into consideration the explicit spatial structure of human mobility when designing nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). NPIs were applied primarily at national or regional scales. Here, we use weekly anonymized and aggregated human mobility data and spatially highly resolved data on COVID-19 cases at the municipality level in Mexico to investigate how behavioral changes in response to the pandemic have altered the spatial scales of transmission and interventions during its first wave (March–June 2020). We find that the epidemic dynamics in Mexico were initially driven by exports of COVID-19 cases from Mexico State and Mexico City, where early outbreaks occurred. The mobility network shifted after the implementation of interventions in late March 2020, and the mobility network communities became more disjointed while epidemics in these communities became increasingly synchronized. Our results provide dynamic insights into how to use network science and epidemiological modeling to inform the spatial scale at which interventions are most impactful in mitigating the spread of COVID-19 and infectious diseases in general. 

BackgroundCoronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to cause significant hospitalizations and deaths in the United States. Its continued burden and the impact of annually reformulated vaccines remain unclear. Here, we present projections of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths in the United States for the next 2 years under 2 plausible assumptions about immune escape (20% per year and 50% per year) and 3 possible CDC recommendations for the use of annually reformulated vaccines (no recommendation, vaccination for those aged 65 years and over, vaccination for all eligible age groups based on FDA approval). Methods and findingsThe COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub solicited projections of COVID-19 hospitalization and deaths between April 15, 2023 and April 15, 2025 under 6 scenarios representing the intersection of considered levels of immune escape and vaccination. Annually reformulated vaccines are assumed to be 65% effective against symptomatic infection with strains circulating on June 15 of each year and to become available on September 1. Age- and state-specific coverage in recommended groups was assumed to match that seen for the first (fall 2021) COVID-19 booster. State and national projections from 8 modeling teams were ensembled to produce projections for each scenario and expected reductions in disease outcomes due to vaccination over the projection period.From April 15, 2023 to April 15, 2025, COVID-19 is projected to cause annual epidemics peaking November to January. In the most pessimistic scenario (high immune escape, no vaccination recommendation), we project 2.1 million (90% projection interval (PI) [1,438,000, 4,270,000]) hospitalizations and 209,000 (90% PI [139,000, 461,000]) deaths, exceeding pre-pandemic mortality of influenza and pneumonia. In high immune escape scenarios, vaccination of those aged 65+ results in 230,000 (95% confidence interval (CI) [104,000, 355,000]) fewer hospitalizations and 33,000 (95% CI [12,000, 54,000]) fewer deaths, while vaccination of all eligible individuals results in 431,000 (95% CI: 264,000–598,000) fewer hospitalizations and 49,000 (95% CI [29,000, 69,000]) fewer deaths. ConclusionsCOVID-19 is projected to be a significant public health threat over the coming 2 years. Broad vaccination has the potential to substantially reduce the burden of this disease, saving tens of thousands of lives each year. 

Abstract Accurate forecasts can enable more effective public health responses during seasonal influenza epidemics. For the 2021–22 and 2022–23 influenza seasons, 26 forecasting teams provided national and jurisdiction-specific probabilistic predictions of weekly confirmed influenza hospital admissions for one-to-four weeks ahead. Forecast skill is evaluated using the Weighted Interval Score (WIS), relative WIS, and coverage. Six out of 23 models outperform the baseline model across forecast weeks and locations in 2021–22 and 12 out of 18 models in 2022–23. Averaging across all forecast targets, the FluSight ensemble is the 2^ndmost accurate model measured by WIS in 2021–22 and the 5^thmost accurate in the 2022–23 season. Forecast skill and 95% coverage for the FluSight ensemble and most component models degrade over longer forecast horizons. In this work we demonstrate that while the FluSight ensemble was a robust predictor, even ensembles face challenges during periods of rapid change. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, forecasting COVID-19 trends to support planning and response was a priority for scientists and decision makers alike. In the United States, COVID-19 forecasting was coordinated by a large group of universities, companies, and government entities led by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US COVID-19 Forecast Hub (https://covid19forecasthub.org). We evaluated approximately 9.7 million forecasts of weekly state-level COVID-19 cases for predictions 1–4 weeks into the future submitted by 24 teams from August 2020 to December 2021. We assessed coverage of central prediction intervals and weighted interval scores (WIS), adjusting for missing forecasts relative to a baseline forecast, and used a Gaussian generalized estimating equation (GEE) model to evaluate differences in skill across epidemic phases that were defined by the effective reproduction number. Overall, we found high variation in skill across individual models, with ensemble-based forecasts outperforming other approaches. Forecast skill relative to the baseline was generally higher for larger jurisdictions (e.g., states compared to counties). Over time, forecasts generally performed worst in periods of rapid changes in reported cases (either in increasing or decreasing epidemic phases) with 95% prediction interval coverage dropping below 50% during the growth phases of the winter 2020, Delta, and Omicron waves. Ideally, case forecasts could serve as a leading indicator of changes in transmission dynamics. However, while most COVID-19 case forecasts outperformed a naïve baseline model, even the most accurate case forecasts were unreliable in key phases. Further research could improve forecasts of leading indicators, like COVID-19 cases, by leveraging additional real-time data, addressing performance across phases, improving the characterization of forecast confidence, and ensuring that forecasts were coherent across spatial scales. In the meantime, it is critical for forecast users to appreciate current limitations and use a broad set of indicators to inform pandemic-related decision making.