Search for: All records

The ongoing Russian aggression against Ukraine has forced over eight million people to migrate out of Ukraine. Understanding the dynamics of forced migration is essential for policy-making and for delivering humanitarian assistance. Existing work is hindered by a reliance on observational data which is only available well after the fact. In this work, we study the efficacy of a data-driven agent-based framework motivated by social and behavioral theory in predicting outflow of migrants as a result of conflict events during the initial phase of the Ukraine war. We discuss policy use cases for the proposed framework by demonstrating how it can leverage refugee demographic details to answer pressing policy questions. We also show how to incorporate conflict forecast scenarios to predict future conflict-induced migration flows. Detailed future migration estimates across various conflict scenarios can both help to reduce policymaker uncertainty and improve allocation and staging of limited humanitarian resources in crisis settings.

 

The Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, has displaced more than a quarter of the population. Assessing disease burdens among displaced people is instrumental in informing global public health and humanitarian aid efforts. We estimated the disease burden in Ukrainians displaced both within Ukraine and to other countries by combining a spatiotemporal model of forcible displacement with age- and gender-specific estimates of cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes, cancer, HIV, and tuberculosis (TB) in each of Ukraine’s 629 raions (i.e., districts). Among displaced Ukrainians as of May 13, we estimated that more than 2.63 million have CVDs, at least 615,000 have diabetes, and over 98,500 have cancer. In addition, more than 86,000 forcibly displaced individuals are living with HIV, and approximately 13,500 have TB. We estimated that the disease prevalence among refugees was lower than the national disease prevalence before the invasion. Accounting for internal displacement and healthcare facilities impacted by the conflict, we estimated that the number of people per hospital has increased by more than two-fold in some areas. As regional healthcare systems come under increasing strain, these estimates can inform the allocation of critical resources under shifting disease burdens. 

Brazil has been severely hit by COVID-19, with rapid spatial spread of both cases and deaths. We used daily data on reported cases and deaths to understand, measure, and compare the spatiotemporal pattern of the spread across municipalities. Indicators of clustering, trajectories, speed, and intensity of the movement of COVID-19 to interior areas, combined with indices of policy measures, show that although no single narrative explains the diversity in the spread, an overall failure of implementing prompt, coordinated, and equitable responses in a context of stark local inequalities fueled disease spread. This resulted in high and unequal infection and mortality burdens. With a current surge in cases and deaths and several variants of concern in circulation, failure to mitigate the spread could further aggravate the burden. 

Successful public health regimes for COVID-19 push below unity long-term regionalR_t—the average number of secondary cases caused by an infectious individual. We use a susceptible-infectious-recovered (SIR) model for two coupled populations to make the conceptual point that asynchronous, variable local control, together with movement between populations, elevates long-term regionalR_t, and cumulative cases, and may even prevent disease eradication that is otherwise possible. For effective pandemic mitigation strategies, it is critical that models encompass both spatiotemporal heterogeneity in transmission and movement.

 

Since the emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), unprecedented movement restrictions and social distancing measures have been implemented worldwide. The socioeconomic repercussions have fueled calls to lift these measures. In the absence of population-wide restrictions, isolation of infected individuals is key to curtailing transmission. However, the effectiveness of symptom-based isolation in preventing a resurgence depends on the extent of presymptomatic and asymptomatic transmission. We evaluate the contribution of presymptomatic and asymptomatic transmission based on recent individual-level data regarding infectiousness prior to symptom onset and the asymptomatic proportion among all infections. We found that the majority of incidences may be attributable to silent transmission from a combination of the presymptomatic stage and asymptomatic infections. Consequently, even if all symptomatic cases are isolated, a vast outbreak may nonetheless unfold. We further quantified the effect of isolating silent infections in addition to symptomatic cases, finding that over one-third of silent infections must be isolated to suppress a future outbreak below 1% of the population. Our results indicate that symptom-based isolation must be supplemented by rapid contact tracing and testing that identifies asymptomatic and presymptomatic cases, in order to safely lift current restrictions and minimize the risk of resurgence. 

Abstract Background Global vaccine development efforts have been accelerated in response to the devastating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We evaluated the impact of a 2-dose COVID-19 vaccination campaign on reducing incidence, hospitalizations, and deaths in the United States. Methods We developed an agent-based model of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission and parameterized it with US demographics and age-specific COVID-19 outcomes. Healthcare workers and high-risk individuals were prioritized for vaccination, whereas children under 18 years of age were not vaccinated. We considered a vaccine efficacy of 95% against disease following 2 doses administered 21 days apart achieving 40% vaccine coverage of the overall population within 284 days. We varied vaccine efficacy against infection and specified 10% preexisting population immunity for the base-case scenario. The model was calibrated to an effective reproduction number of 1.2, accounting for current nonpharmaceutical interventions in the United States. Results Vaccination reduced the overall attack rate to 4.6% (95% credible interval [CrI]: 4.3%–5.0%) from 9.0% (95% CrI: 8.4%–9.4%) without vaccination, over 300 days. The highest relative reduction (54%–62%) was observed among individuals aged 65 and older. Vaccination markedly reduced adverse outcomes, with non-intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalizations, ICU hospitalizations, and deaths decreasing by 63.5% (95% CrI: 60.3%–66.7%), 65.6% (95% CrI: 62.2%–68.6%), and 69.3% (95% CrI: 65.5%–73.1%), respectively, across the same period. Conclusions Our results indicate that vaccination can have a substantial impact on mitigating COVID-19 outbreaks, even with limited protection against infection. However, continued compliance with nonpharmaceutical interventions is essential to achieve this impact. 

In the wake of community coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmission in the United States, there is a growing public health concern regarding the adequacy of resources to treat infected cases. Hospital beds, intensive care units (ICUs), and ventilators are vital for the treatment of patients with severe illness. To project the timing of the outbreak peak and the number of ICU beds required at peak, we simulated a COVID-19 outbreak parameterized with the US population demographics. In scenario analyses, we varied the delay from symptom onset to self-isolation, the proportion of symptomatic individuals practicing self-isolation, and the basic reproduction number R 0 . Without self-isolation, when R 0 = 2.5, treatment of critically ill individuals at the outbreak peak would require 3.8 times more ICU beds than exist in the United States. Self-isolation by 20% of cases 24 h after symptom onset would delay and flatten the outbreak trajectory, reducing the number of ICU beds needed at the peak by 48.4% (interquartile range 46.4–50.3%), although still exceeding existing capacity. When R 0 = 2, twice as many ICU beds would be required at the peak of outbreak in the absence of self-isolation. In this scenario, the proportional impact of self-isolation within 24 h on reducing the peak number of ICU beds is substantially higher at 73.5% (interquartile range 71.4–75.3%). Our estimates underscore the inadequacy of critical care capacity to handle the burgeoning outbreak. Policies that encourage self-isolation, such as paid sick leave, may delay the epidemic peak, giving a window of time that could facilitate emergency mobilization to expand hospital capacity.