Imperial College London

Professor Christl Donnelly CBE FMedSci FRS

Faculty of MedicineSchool of Public Health

Visiting Professor
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

c.donnelly Website

 
 
//

Location

 

School of Public HealthWhite City Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Publication Type
Year
to

530 results found

Thompson RN, Hollingsworth TD, Isham V, Arribas-Bel D, Ashby B, Britton T, Challenor P, Chappell LHK, Clapham H, Cunniffe NJ, Dawid AP, Donnelly CA, Eggo RM, Funk S, Gilbert N, Glendinning P, Gog JR, Hart WS, Heesterbeek H, House T, Keeling M, Kiss IZ, Kretzschmar ME, Lloyd AL, McBryde ES, McCaw JM, McKinley TJ, Miller JC, Morris M, O'Neill PD, Parag K, Pearson CAB, Pellis L, Pulliam JRC, Ross J, Tomba GS, Silverman BW, Struchiner CJ, Tildesley MJ, Trapman P, Webb CR, Mollison D, Restif Oet al., 2020, Key questions for modelling COVID-19 exit strategies, PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, Vol: 287, ISSN: 0962-8452

Journal article

Riley S, Ainslie KEC, Eales O, Walters CE, Wang H, Atchison C, Diggle PJ, Ashby D, Donnelly CA, Cooke G, Barclay W, Ward H, Darzi A, Elliott Pet al., 2020, Transient dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 as England exited national lockdown

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Control of the COVID-19 pandemic requires a detailed understanding of prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 virus in the population. Case-based surveillance is necessarily biased towards symptomatic individuals and sensitive to varying patterns of reporting in space and time. The real-time assessment of community transmission antigen study (REACT-1) is designed to overcome these limitations by obtaining prevalence data based on a nose and throat swab RT-PCR test among a representative community-based sample in England, including asymptomatic individuals. Here, we describe results comparing rounds 1 and 2 carried out during May and mid June / early July 2020 respectively across 315 lower tier local authority areas. In round 1 we found 159 positive samples from 120,620 tested swabs while round 2 there were 123 positive samples from 159,199 tested swabs, indicating a downwards trend in prevalence from 0.13% (95% CI, 0.11%, 0.15%) to 0.077% (0.065%, 0.092%), a halving time of 38 (28, 58) days, and an R of 0.89 (0.86, 0.93). The proportion of swab-positive participants who were asymptomatic at the time of sampling increased from 69% (61%, 76%) in round 1 to 81% (73%, 87%) in round 2. Although health care and care home workers were infected far more frequently than other workers in round 1, the odds were markedly reduced in round 2. Age patterns of infection changed between rounds, with a reduction by a factor of five in prevalence in 18 to 24 year olds. Our data were suggestive of increased risk of infection in Black and Asian (mainly South Asian) ethnicities. Using regional and detailed case location data, we detected increased infection intensity in and near London. Under multiple sensitivity analyses, our results were robust to the possibility of false positives. At the end of the initial lockdown in England, we found continued decline in prevalence and a shift in the pattern of infection by age and occupation. Community-b

Working paper

Parag KV, Donnelly CA, Jha R, Thompson RNet al., 2020, An exact method for quantifying the reliability of end-of-epidemic declarations in real time

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>We derive and validate a novel and analytic method for estimating the probability that an epidemic has been eliminated (i.e. that no future local cases will emerge) in real time. When this probability crosses 0.95 an outbreak can be declared over with 95% confidence. Our method is easy to compute, only requires knowledge of the incidence curve and the serial interval distribution, and evaluates the statistical lifetime of the outbreak of interest. Using this approach, we rigorously show how the time-varying under-reporting of infected cases will artificially inflate the inferred probability of elimination and hence lead to early (false-positive) end-of-epidemic declarations. Contrastingly, we prove that incorrectly identifying imported cases as local will deceptively decrease this probability, resulting in late (false-negative) declarations. Failing to sustain intensive surveillance during the later phases of an epidemic can therefore substantially mislead policymakers on when it is safe to remove travel bans or relax quarantine and social distancing advisories. World Health Organisation guidelines recommend fixed (though disease-specific) waiting times for end-of-epidemic declarations that cannot accommodate these variations. Consequently, there is an unequivocal need for more active and specialised metrics for reliably identifying the conclusion of an epidemic.</jats:p>

Working paper

Unwin HJT, Mishra S, Bradley VC, Gandy A, Mellan TA, Coupland H, Ish-Horowicz J, Vollmer MAC, Whittaker C, Filippi SL, Xi X, Monod M, Ratmann O, Hutchinson M, Valka F, Zhu H, Hawryluk I, Milton P, Ainslie KEC, Baguelin M, Boonyasiri A, Brazeau NF, Cattarino L, Cucunuba Z, Cuomo-Dannenburg G, Dorigatti I, Eales OD, Eaton JW, van Elsland SL, FitzJohn RG, Gaythorpe KAM, Green W, Hinsley W, Jeffrey B, Knock E, Laydon DJ, Lees J, Nedjati-Gilani G, Nouvellet P, Okell L, Parag KV, Siveroni I, Thompson HA, Walker P, Walters CE, Watson OJ, Whittles LK, Ghani AC, Ferguson NM, Riley S, Donnelly CA, Bhatt S, Flaxman Set al., 2020, State-level tracking of COVID-19 in the United States

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>As of 1st June 2020, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 104,232 confirmed or probable COVID-19-related deaths in the US. This was more than twice the number of deaths reported in the next most severely impacted country. We jointly modelled the US epidemic at the state-level, using publicly available death data within a Bayesian hierarchical semi-mechanistic framework. For each state, we estimate the number of individuals that have been infected, the number of individuals that are currently infectious and the time-varying reproduction number (the average number of secondary infections caused by an infected person). We used changes in mobility to capture the impact that non-pharmaceutical interventions and other behaviour changes have on the rate of transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Nationally, we estimated 3.7% [3.4%-4.0%] of the population had been infected by 1st June 2020, with wide variation between states, and approximately 0.01% of the population was infectious. We also demonstrated that good model forecasts of deaths for the next 3 weeks with low error and good coverage of our credible intervals.</jats:p>

Working paper

Riley S, Ainslie KEC, Eales O, Jeffrey B, Walters CE, Atchison C, Diggle PJ, Ashby D, Donnelly CA, Cooke G, Barclay W, Ward H, Taylor G, Darzi A, Elliott Pet al., 2020, Community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 virus in England during May 2020: REACT study

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>England has experienced one of the highest rates of confirmed COVID-19 mortality in the world. SARS-CoV-2 virus has circulated in hospitals, care homes and the community since January 2020. Our current epidemiological knowledge is largely informed by clinical cases with far less understanding of community transmission.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>The REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission (REACT) study is a nationally representative prevalence survey of SARS-CoV-2 virus swab-positivity in the community in England. We recruited participants regardless of symptom status.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>We found 159 positives from 120,610 swabs giving an average prevalence of 0.13% (95% CI: 0.11%,0.15%) from 1st May to 1st June 2020. We showed decreasing prevalence with a halving time of 8.6 (6.2, 13.6) days, implying an overall reproduction number R of 0.57 (0.45, 0.72). Adults aged 18 to 24 yrs had the highest swab-positivity rates, while those &gt;64 yrs had the lowest. Of the 126 participants who tested positive with known symptom status in the week prior to their swab, 39 reported symptoms while 87 did not, giving an estimate that 69% (61%,76%) of people were symptom-free for the 7 days prior testing positive in our community sample. Symptoms strongly associated with swab-positivity were: nausea and/or vomiting, diarrhoea, blocked nose, loss of smell, loss of taste, headache, chills and severe fatigue. Recent contact with a known COVID-19 case was associated with odds of 24 (16, 38) for swab-positivity. Compared with non-key workers, odds of swab-positivity were 7.7 (2.4, 25) among care home (long-term care facilities) workers and 5.2 (2.9, 9.3) among health care workers. However, some

Working paper

Miguel E, Grosbois V, Caron A, Pople D, Roche B, Donnelly Cet al., 2020, A systemic approach to assess the potential and risks of wildlife culling for infectious disease control, Communications Biology, Vol: 3, ISSN: 2399-3642

The maintenance of infectious diseases requires a sufficient number of susceptible hosts. Host culling is a potential control strategy for animal diseases. However, the reduction in biodiversity and increasing public concerns regarding the involved ethical issues have progressively challenged the use of wildlife culling. Here, we assess the potential of wildlife culling as an epidemiologically sound management tool, by examining the host ecology, pathogen characteristics, eco-sociological contexts, and field work constraints. We also discuss alternative solutions and make recommendations for the appropriate implementation of culling for disease control.

Journal article

Fu H, Xi X, Wang H, Boonyasiri A, Wang Y, Hinsley W, Fraser K, McCabe R, Olivera Mesa D, Skarp J, Ledda A, Dewe T, Dighe A, Winskill P, van Elsland S, Ainslie K, Baguelin M, Bhatt S, Boyd O, Brazeau N, Cattarino L, Charles G, Coupland H, Cucunuba Perez Z, Cuomo-Dannenburg G, Donnelly C, Dorigatti I, Green W, Hamlet A, Hauck K, Haw D, Jeffrey B, Laydon D, Lees J, Mellan T, Mishra S, Nedjati Gilani G, Nouvellet P, Okell L, Parag K, Ragonnet-Cronin M, Riley S, Schmit N, Thompson H, Unwin H, Verity R, Vollmer M, Volz E, Walker P, Walters C, Watson O, Whittaker C, Whittles L, Imai N, Bhatia S, Ferguson Net al., 2020, Report 30: The COVID-19 epidemic trends and control measures in mainland China

Report

Prete CA, Buss L, Porto VB, Candido DDS, Ghilardi F, Dighe A, Donnelly CA, Pybus OG, Brady O, Croda JHR, Faria NR, Sabino EC, Nascimento VHet al., 2020, Serial Interval Distribution of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Brazil, Journal of Travel Medicine, ISSN: 1195-1982

<jats:p>Using 65 transmission pairs of SARS-CoV-2 reported to the Brazilian Ministry of Health we estimate the mean and standard deviation for the serial interval to be 2.97 and 3.29 days respectively. We also present a model for the serial interval probability distribution using only two parameters.</jats:p>

Journal article

Parag K, Donnelly C, 2020, Using information theory to optimise epidemic models for real-time prediction and estimation, PLoS Computational Biology, Vol: 16, ISSN: 1553-734X

The effective reproduction number, Rt, is a key time-varying prognostic for the growth rate of any infectious disease epidemic. Significant changes in Rt can forewarn about new transmissions within a population or predict the efficacy of interventions. Inferring Rt reliably and in real-time from observed time-series of infected (demographic) data is an important problem in population dynamics. The renewal or branching process model is a popular solution that has been applied to Ebola and Zika virus disease outbreaks, among others, and is currently being used to investigate the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This model estimates Rt using a heuristically chosen piecewise function. While this facilitates real-time detection of statistically significant Rt changes, inference is highly sensitive to the function choice. Improperly chosen piecewise models might ignore meaningful changes or over-interpret noise-induced ones, yet produce visually reasonable estimates. No principled piecewise selection scheme exists. We develop a practical yet rigorous scheme using the accumulated prediction error (APE) metric from information theory, which deems the model capable of describing the observed data using the fewest bits as most justified. We derive exact posterior prediction distributions for infected population size and integrate these within an APE framework to obtain an exact and reliable method for identifying the piecewise function best supported by available epidemic data. We find that this choice optimises short-term prediction accuracy and can rapidly detect salient fluctuations in Rt, and hence the infected population growth rate, in real-time over the course of an unfolding epidemic. Moreover, we emphasise the need for formal selection by exposing how common heuristic choices, which seem sensible, can be misleading. Our APE-based method is easily computed and broadly applicable to statistically similar models found in phylogenetics and macroevolution, for example. Our resu

Journal article

Okell LC, Verity R, Watson OJ, Mishra S, Walker P, Whittaker C, Katzourakis A, Donnelly CA, Riley S, Ghani AC, Gandy A, Flaxman S, Ferguson NM, Bhatt Set al., 2020, Have deaths from COVID-19 in Europe plateaued due to herd immunity?, LANCET, Vol: 395, Pages: E110-E111, ISSN: 0140-6736

Journal article

Forchini G, Lochen A, Hallett T, Aylin P, White P, Donnelly C, Ghani A, Ferguson N, Hauck Ket al., 2020, Report 28: Excess non-COVID-19 deaths in England and Wales between 29th February and 5th June 2020

There were 189,403 deaths from any cause reported in England from 29th February to 5th June 2020 inclusive, and 11,278 all-cause deaths in Wales over the same period. Of those deaths, 44,736 (23.6%) registered COVID-19 on the death certificate in England, and 2,294 (20.3%) in Wales, while 144,667 (76.4%) were not recorded as having been due to COVID-19 in England, and 8,984 (79.7%) in Wales. However, it could be that some of the ‘non-COVID-19’ deaths have in fact also been caused by COVID-19, either as the direct cause of death, or indirectly through provisions for the pandemic impeding access to care for other conditions. There is uncertainty in how many of the non-COVID-19 deaths were directly or indirectly caused by the pandemic. We estimated the excess deaths that were not recorded as associated with COVID-19 in the death certificate (excess non-COVID-19 deaths) as the deaths for which COVID-19 was not reported as the cause, compared to those we would have expected to occur had the pandemic not happened. Expected deaths were forecast with an analysis of historic trends in deaths between 2010 and April 2020 using data by the Office of National Statistics and a statistical time series model. According to the model, we expected 136,294 (95% CI 133,882 - 138,696) deaths in England, and 8,983 (CI 8,051 - 9,904) in Wales over this period, significantly fewer than the number of deaths reported. This means that there were 8,983 (95% CI 5,971 - 10,785) total excess non-COVID-19 deaths in England. For every 100 COVID-19 deaths during the period from 29th February to 5th June 2020 there were between 13 and 24 cumulative excess non-COVID-19 deaths. The proportion of cumulative excess non-COVID-19 deaths of all reported deaths during this period was 4.4% (95% CI 3.2% - 5.7%) in England, with small regional variations. Excess deaths were highest in the South East at 2,213 (95% CI 327 - 4,047) and in London at 1,937 (95% CI 896 - 3,010), respectively. There is no e

Report

Bhatia S, Imai N, Cuomo-Dannenburg G, Baguelin M, Boonyasiri A, Cori A, Cucunuba Perez Z, Dorigatti I, Fitzjohn R, Fu H, Gaythorpe K, Ghani A, Hamlet A, Hinsley W, Laydon D, Nedjati Gilani G, Okell L, Riley S, Thompson H, van Elsland S, Volz E, Wang H, Wang Y, Whittaker C, Xi X, Donnelly CA, Ferguson NMet al., 2020, Estimating the number of undetected COVID-19 cases among travellers from mainland China, Publisher: F1000 Research Ltd

Background: Since the start of the COVID-19 epidemic in late 2019, there have been more than 152 affected regions and countries with over 110,000 confirmed cases outside mainland China.Methods: We analysed COVID-19 cases among travellers from mainland China to different regions and countries, comparing the region- and country-specific rates of detected and confirmed cases per flight volume to estimate the relative sensitivity of surveillance in different regions and countries.Results: Although travel restrictions from Wuhan City and other cities across China may have reduced the absolute number of travellers to and from China, we estimated that more than two thirds (70%, 95% CI: 54% - 80%, compared to Singapore; 75%, 95% CI: 66% - 82%, compared to multiple countries) of cases exported from mainland China have remained undetected.Conclusions: These undetected cases potentially resulted in multiple chains of human-to-human transmission outside mainland China.

Working paper

Forna A, Nouvellet P, Dorigatti I, Donnelly Cet al., 2020, Case fatality ratio estimates for the 2013 – 2016 West African Ebola epidemic: application of Boosted Regression Trees for imputation, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Vol: 70, Pages: 2476-2483, ISSN: 1058-4838

BackgroundThe 2013-2016 West African Ebola epidemic has been the largest to date with more than 11,000 deaths in the affected countries. The data collected have provided more insight than ever before into the case fatality ratio (CFR) and how it varies with age and other characteristics. However, the accuracy and precision of the naïve CFR remain limited because 44% of survival outcomes were unreported.MethodsUsing a Boosted Regression Tree (BRT) model, we imputed survival outcomes (i.e. survival or death) when unreported, corrected for model imperfection to estimate the CFR without imputation, with imputation and adjusted with imputation. The method allowed us to further identify and explore relevant clinical and demographic predictors of the CFR.ResultsThe out-of-sample performances of our model were good: sensitivity=69.7% (95% CI 52.5%-75.6%), specificity=69.8% (95% CI 54.1%-75.6%), percentage correctly classified=69.9% (95% CI 53.7%-75.5%) and area under the ROC curve= 76.0% (95% CI 56.8%-82.1%). The adjusted CFR estimates for the 2013-2016 West African epidemic were 82.8% (95% CI 45%.6-85.6%) overall and 89.1% (95% CI 40.8%-91.6%) , 65.6% (95% CI 61.3%-69.6%) and 79.2% (95% CI 45.4-84.1) for Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia, respectively. We found that district, hospitalisation status, age, case classification and quarter explained 93.6% of the variance in the naïve CFR.ConclusionsThe adjusted CFR estimates improved the naïve CFR estimates obtained without imputation and were more representative. Used in conjunction with other resources, adjusted estimates will inform public health contingency planning for future Ebola epidemic, and help better allocate resources and evaluate the effectiveness of future inventions.

Journal article

Walker PGT, Whittaker C, Watson OJ, Baguelin M, Winskill P, Hamlet A, Djafaara BA, Cucunubá Z, Olivera Mesa D, Green W, Thompson H, Nayagam S, Ainslie KEC, Bhatia S, Bhatt S, Boonyasiri A, Boyd O, Brazeau NF, Cattarino L, Cuomo-Dannenburg G, Dighe A, Donnelly CA, Dorigatti I, van Elsland SL, FitzJohn R, Fu H, Gaythorpe KAM, Geidelberg L, Grassly N, Haw D, Hayes S, Hinsley W, Imai N, Jorgensen D, Knock E, Laydon D, Mishra S, Nedjati-Gilani G, Okell LC, Unwin HJ, Verity R, Vollmer M, Walters CE, Wang H, Wang Y, Xi X, Lalloo DG, Ferguson NM, Ghani ACet al., 2020, The impact of COVID-19 and strategies for mitigation and suppression in low- and middle-income countries, Science, Vol: 369, Pages: 413-422, ISSN: 0036-8075

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic poses a severe threat to public health worldwide. We combine data on demography, contact patterns, disease severity, and health care capacity and quality to understand its impact and inform strategies for its control. Younger populations in lower income countries may reduce overall risk but limited health system capacity coupled with closer inter-generational contact largely negates this benefit. Mitigation strategies that slow but do not interrupt transmission will still lead to COVID-19 epidemics rapidly overwhelming health systems, with substantial excess deaths in lower income countries due to the poorer health care available. Of countries that have undertaken suppression to date, lower income countries have acted earlier. However, this will need to be maintained or triggered more frequently in these settings to keep below available health capacity, with associated detrimental consequences for the wider health, well-being and economies of these countries.

Journal article

Nouvellet P, Bhatia S, Cori A, Ainslie K, Baguelin M, Bhatt S, Boonyasiri A, Brazeau N, Cattarino L, Cooper L, Coupland H, Cucunuba Perez Z, Cuomo-Dannenburg G, Dighe A, Djaafara A, Dorigatti I, Eales O, van Elsland S, Nscimento F, Fitzjohn R, Gaythorpe K, Geidelberg L, Grassly N, Green W, Hamlet A, Hauck K, Hinsley W, Imai N, Jeffrey B, Knock E, Laydon D, Lees J, Mangal T, Mellan T, Nedjati Gilani G, Parag K, Pons Salort M, Ragonnet-Cronin M, Riley S, Unwin H, Verity R, Vollmer M, Volz E, Walker P, Walters C, Wang H, Watson O, Whittaker C, Whittles L, Xi X, Ferguson N, Donnelly Cet al., 2020, Report 26: Reduction in mobility and COVID-19 transmission

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, countries have sought to control transmission of SARS-CoV-2by restricting population movement through social distancing interventions, reducing the number ofcontacts.Mobility data represent an important proxy measure of social distancing. Here, we develop aframework to infer the relationship between mobility and the key measure of population-level diseasetransmission, the reproduction number (R). The framework is applied to 53 countries with sustainedSARS-CoV-2 transmission based on two distinct country-specific automated measures of humanmobility, Apple and Google mobility data.For both datasets, the relationship between mobility and transmission was consistent within andacross countries and explained more than 85% of the variance in the observed variation intransmissibility. We quantified country-specific mobility thresholds defined as the reduction inmobility necessary to expect a decline in new infections (R<1).While social contacts were sufficiently reduced in France, Spain and the United Kingdom to controlCOVID-19 as of the 10th of May, we find that enhanced control measures are still warranted for themajority of countries. We found encouraging early evidence of some decoupling of transmission andmobility in 10 countries, a key indicator of successful easing of social-distancing restrictions.Easing social-distancing restrictions should be considered very carefully, as small increases in contactrates are likely to risk resurgence even where COVID-19 is apparently under control. Overall, strongpopulation-wide social-distancing measures are effective to control COVID-19; however gradualeasing of restrictions must be accompanied by alternative interventions, such as efficient contacttracing, to ensure control.

Report

Verity R, Okell LC, Dorigatti I, Winskill P, Whittaker C, Imai N, Cuomo-Dannenburg G, Thompson H, Walker PGT, Fu H, Dighe A, Griffin JT, Baguelin M, Bhatia S, Boonyasiri A, Cori A, Cucunubá Z, FitzJohn R, Gaythorpe K, Green W, Hamlet A, Hinsley W, Laydon D, Nedjati-Gilani G, Riley S, van Elsland S, Volz E, Wang H, Wang Y, Xi X, Donnelly CA, Ghani AC, Ferguson NMet al., 2020, Estimates of the severity of coronavirus disease 2019: a model-based analysis., Lancet Infectious Diseases, Vol: 20, Pages: 669-677, ISSN: 1473-3099

BACKGROUND: In the face of rapidly changing data, a range of case fatality ratio estimates for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been produced that differ substantially in magnitude. We aimed to provide robust estimates, accounting for censoring and ascertainment biases. METHODS: We collected individual-case data for patients who died from COVID-19 in Hubei, mainland China (reported by national and provincial health commissions to Feb 8, 2020), and for cases outside of mainland China (from government or ministry of health websites and media reports for 37 countries, as well as Hong Kong and Macau, until Feb 25, 2020). These individual-case data were used to estimate the time between onset of symptoms and outcome (death or discharge from hospital). We next obtained age-stratified estimates of the case fatality ratio by relating the aggregate distribution of cases to the observed cumulative deaths in China, assuming a constant attack rate by age and adjusting for demography and age-based and location-based under-ascertainment. We also estimated the case fatality ratio from individual line-list data on 1334 cases identified outside of mainland China. Using data on the prevalence of PCR-confirmed cases in international residents repatriated from China, we obtained age-stratified estimates of the infection fatality ratio. Furthermore, data on age-stratified severity in a subset of 3665 cases from China were used to estimate the proportion of infected individuals who are likely to require hospitalisation. FINDINGS: Using data on 24 deaths that occurred in mainland China and 165 recoveries outside of China, we estimated the mean duration from onset of symptoms to death to be 17·8 days (95% credible interval [CrI] 16·9-19·2) and to hospital discharge to be 24·7 days (22·9-28·1). In all laboratory confirmed and clinically diagnosed cases from mainland China (n=70 117), we estimated a crude case fatality ratio (adjusted for cen

Journal article

Jeffrey B, Walters C, Ainslie K, Eales O, Ciavarella C, Bhatia S, Hayes S, Baguelin M, Boonyasiri A, Brazeau N, Cuomo-Dannenburg G, Fitzjohn R, Gaythorpe K, Green W, Imai N, Mellan T, Mishra S, Nouvellet P, Unwin H, Verity R, Vollmer M, Whittaker C, Ferguson N, Donnelly C, Riley Set al., 2020, Report 24: Mobility data from mobile phones suggests that initial compliance with COVID-19 social distancing interventions was high and geographically consistent across the UK, 24

Since early March 2020, the COVID-19 epidemic across the United Kingdom has led to a range of socialdistancing policies, which have resulted in reduced mobility across different regions. Crowd level dataon mobile phone usage can be used as a proxy for actual population mobility patterns and provide away of quantifying the impact of social distancing measures on changes in mobility. Here, we use twomobile phone-based datasets (anonymised and aggregated crowd level data from O2 and from theFacebook app on mobile phones) to assess changes in average mobility, both overall and broken downinto high and low population density areas, and changes in the distribution of journey lengths. Weshow that there was a substantial overall reduction in mobility with the most rapid decline on the 24thMarch 2020, the day after the Prime Minister’s announcement of an enforced lockdown. Thereduction in mobility was highly synchronized across the UK. Although mobility has remained low since26th March 2020, we detect a gradual increase since that time. We also show that the two differentdatasets produce similar trends, albeit with some location-specific differences. We see slightly largerreductions in average mobility in high-density areas than in low-density areas, with greater variationin mobility in the high-density areas: some high-density areas eliminated almost all mobility. We areonly able to observe populations living in locations where sufficient number of people use Facebookor a device connected to the relevant provider’s network such that no individual is identifiable. Theseanalyses form a baseline with which to monitor changes in behaviour in the UK as social distancing iseased.

Report

Dighe A, Cattarino L, Cuomo-Dannenburg G, Skarp J, Imai N, Bhatia S, Gaythorpe K, Ainslie K, Baguelin M, Bhatt S, Boonyasiri A, Boyd O, Brazeau N, Charles G, Cooper L, Coupland H, Cucunuba Perez Z, Djaafara A, Dorigatti I, Eales O, Eaton J, van Elsland S, Ferreira Do Nascimento F, Fitzjohn R, Flaxman S, Fraser K, Geidelberg L, Green W, Hallett T, Hamlet A, Hauck K, Haw D, Hinsley W, Jeffrey B, Knock E, Laydon D, Lees J, Mellan T, Mishra S, Nedjati Gilani G, Nouvellet P, Okell L, Parag K, Pons Salort M, Ragonnet-Cronin M, Thompson H, Unwin H, Verity R, Whittaker C, Whittles L, Xi X, Ghani A, Donnelly C, Ferguson N, Riley Set al., 2020, Report 25: Response to COVID-19 in South Korea and implications for lifting stringent interventions, 25

While South Korea experienced a sharp growth in COVID-19 cases early in the global pandemic, it has since rapidly reduced rates of infection and now maintains low numbers of daily new cases. Despite using less stringent “lockdown” measures than other affected countries, strong social distancing measures have been advised in high incidence areas and a 38% national decrease in movement occurred voluntarily between February 24th - March 1st. Suspected and confirmed cases were isolated quickly even during the rapid expansion of the epidemic and identification of the Shincheonji cluster. South Korea swiftly scaled up testing capacity and was able to maintain case-based interventions throughout. However, individual case-based contact tracing, not associated with a specific cluster, was a relatively minor aspect of their control program, with cluster investigations accounting for a far higher proportion of cases: the underlying epidemic was driven by a series of linked clusters, with 48% of all cases in the Shincheonji cluster and 20% in other clusters. Case-based contacts currently account for only 11% of total cases. The high volume of testing and low number of deaths suggests that South Korea experienced a small epidemic of infections relative to other countries. Therefore, caution is needed in attempting to duplicate the South Korean response in settings with larger more generalized epidemics. Finding, testing and isolating cases that are linked to clusters may be more difficult in such settings.

Report

ODriscoll M, Harry C, Donnelly CA, Cori A, Dorigatti Iet al., 2020, A comparative analysis of statistical methods to estimate the reproduction number in emerging epidemics with implications for the current COVID-19 pandemic

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>As the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues its rapid global spread, quantification of local transmission patterns has been, and will continue to be, critical for guiding pandemic response. Understanding the accuracy and limitations of statistical methods to estimate the reproduction number, R<jats:sub>0</jats:sub>, in the context of emerging epidemics is therefore vital to ensure appropriate interpretation of results and the subsequent implications for control efforts. Using simulated epidemic data we assess the performance of 6 commonly-used statistical methods to estimate R<jats:sub>0</jats:sub> as they would be applied in a real-time outbreak analysis scenario – fitting to an increasing number of data points over time and with varying levels of random noise in the data. Method comparison was also conducted on empirical outbreak data, using Zika surveillance data from the 2015–2016 epidemic in Latin America and the Caribbean. We find that all methods considered here frequently over-estimate R0 in the early stages of epidemic growth on simulated data, the magnitude of which decreases when fitted to an increasing number of time points. This trend of decreasing bias over time can easily lead to incorrect conclusions about the course of the epidemic or the need for control efforts. We show that true changes in pathogen transmissibility can be difficult to disentangle from changes in methodological accuracy and precision, particularly for data with significant over-dispersion. As localised epidemics of SARS-CoV-2 take hold around the globe, awareness of this trend will be important for appropriately cautious interpretation of results and subsequent guidance for control efforts.</jats:p><jats:sec><jats:title>Significance Statement</jats:title><jats:p>In line with a real-time outbreak analysis we use simulated epidemic data to assess the performance of 6

Working paper

Winskill P, Whittaker C, Walker P, Watson O, Laydon D, Imai N, Cuomo-Dannenburg G, Ainslie K, Baguelin M, Bhatt S, Boonyasiri A, Cattarino L, Ciavarella C, Cooper L, Coupland H, Cucunuba Perez Z, van Elsland S, Fitzjohn R, Flaxman S, Gaythorpe K, Green W, Hallett T, Hamlet A, Hinsley W, Knock E, Lees J, Mellan T, Mishra S, Nedjati Gilani G, Nouvellet P, Okell L, Parag K, Thompson H, Unwin H, Wang Y, Whittles L, Xi X, Ferguson N, Donnelly C, Ghani Aet al., 2020, Report 22: Equity in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: an assessment of the direct and indirect impacts on disadvantaged and vulnerable populations in low- and lower middle-income countries, 22

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in low-income settings is likely to be more severe due to limited healthcare capacity. Within these settings, however, there exists unfair or avoidable differences in health among different groups in society – health inequities – that mean that some groups are particularly at risk from the negative direct and indirect consequences of COVID-19. The structural determinants of these are often reflected in differences by income strata, with the poorest populations having limited access to preventative measures such as handwashing. Their more fragile income status will also mean that they are likely to be employed in occupations that are not amenable to social-distancing measures, thereby further reducing their ability to protect themselves from infection. Furthermore, these populations may also lack access to timely healthcare on becoming ill. We explore these relationships by using large-scale household surveys to quantify the differences in handwashing access, occupation and hospital access with respect to wealth status in low-income settings. We use a COVID-19 transmission model to demonstrate the impact of these differences. Our results demonstrate clear trends that the probability of death from COVID-19 increases with increasing poverty. On average, we estimate a 32.0% (2.5th-97.5th centile 8.0%-72.5%) increase in the probability of death in the poorest quintile compared to the wealthiest quintile from these three factors alone. We further explore how risk mediators and the indirect impacts of COVID-19 may also hit these same disadvantaged and vulnerable the hardest. We find that larger, inter-generational households that may hamper efforts to protect the elderly if social distancing are associated with lower-income countries and, within LMICs, lower wealth status. Poorer populations are also more susceptible to food security issues - with these populations having the highest levels under-nourishment whilst also being

Report

Mellan T, Hoeltgebaum H, Mishra S, Whittaker C, Schnekenberg R, Gandy A, Unwin H, Vollmer M, Coupland H, Hawryluk I, Rodrigues Faria N, Vesga J, Zhu H, Hutchinson M, Ratmann O, Monod M, Ainslie K, Baguelin M, Bhatia S, Boonyasiri A, Brazeau N, Charles G, Cooper L, Cucunuba Perez Z, Cuomo-Dannenburg G, Dighe A, Djaafara A, Eaton J, van Elsland S, Fitzjohn R, Fraser K, Gaythorpe K, Green W, Hayes S, Imai N, Jeffrey B, Knock E, Laydon D, Lees J, Mangal T, Mousa A, Nedjati Gilani G, Nouvellet P, Olivera Mesa D, Parag K, Pickles M, Thompson H, Verity R, Walters C, Wang H, Wang Y, Watson O, Whittles L, Xi X, Okell L, Dorigatti I, Walker P, Ghani A, Riley S, Ferguson N, Donnelly C, Flaxman S, Bhatt Set al., 2020, Report 21: Estimating COVID-19 cases and reproduction number in Brazil

Brazil is an epicentre for COVID-19 in Latin America. In this report we describe the Brazilian epidemicusing three epidemiological measures: the number of infections, the number of deaths and the reproduction number. Our modelling framework requires sufficient death data to estimate trends, and wetherefore limit our analysis to 16 states that have experienced a total of more than fifty deaths. Thedistribution of deaths among states is highly heterogeneous, with 5 states—São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro,Ceará, Pernambuco and Amazonas—accounting for 81% of deaths reported to date. In these states, weestimate that the percentage of people that have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 ranges from 3.3% (95%CI: 2.8%-3.7%) in São Paulo to 10.6% (95% CI: 8.8%-12.1%) in Amazonas. The reproduction number (ameasure of transmission intensity) at the start of the epidemic meant that an infected individual wouldinfect three or four others on average. Following non-pharmaceutical interventions such as school closures and decreases in population mobility, we show that the reproduction number has dropped substantially in each state. However, for all 16 states we study, we estimate with high confidence that thereproduction number remains above 1. A reproduction number above 1 means that the epidemic isnot yet controlled and will continue to grow. These trends are in stark contrast to other major COVID19 epidemics in Europe and Asia where enforced lockdowns have successfully driven the reproductionnumber below 1. While the Brazilian epidemic is still relatively nascent on a national scale, our resultssuggest that further action is needed to limit spread and prevent health system overload.

Report

Vollmer M, Mishra S, Unwin H, Gandy A, Melan T, Bradley V, Zhu H, Coupland H, Hawryluk I, Hutchinson M, Ratmann O, Monod M, Walker P, Whittaker C, Cattarino L, Ciavarella C, Cilloni L, Ainslie K, Baguelin M, Bhatia S, Boonyasiri A, Brazeau N, Charles G, Cooper L, Cucunuba Perez Z, Cuomo-Dannenburg G, Dighe A, Djaafara A, Eaton J, van Elsland S, Fitzjohn R, Gaythorpe K, Green W, Hayes S, Imai N, Jeffrey B, Knock E, Laydon D, Lees J, Mangal T, Mousa A, Nedjati Gilani G, Nouvellet P, Olivera Mesa D, Parag K, Pickles M, Thompson H, Verity R, Walters C, Wang H, Wang Y, Watson O, Whittles L, Xi X, Ghani A, Riley S, Okell L, Donnelly C, Ferguson N, Dorigatti I, Flaxman S, Bhatt Set al., 2020, Report 20: A sub-national analysis of the rate of transmission of Covid-19 in Italy

Italy was the first European country to experience sustained local transmission of COVID-19. As of 1st May 2020, the Italian health authorities reported 28; 238 deaths nationally. To control the epidemic, the Italian government implemented a suite of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), including school and university closures, social distancing and full lockdown involving banning of public gatherings and non essential movement. In this report, we model the effect of NPIs on transmission using data on average mobility. We estimate that the average reproduction number (a measure of transmission intensity) is currently below one for all Italian regions, and significantly so for the majority of the regions. Despite the large number of deaths, the proportion of population that has been infected by SARS-CoV-2 (the attack rate) is far from the herd immunity threshold in all Italian regions, with the highest attack rate observed in Lombardy (13.18% [10.66%-16.70%]). Italy is set to relax the currently implemented NPIs from 4th May 2020. Given the control achieved by NPIs, we consider three scenarios for the next 8 weeks: a scenario in which mobility remains the same as during the lockdown, a scenario in which mobility returns to pre-lockdown levels by 20%, and a scenario in which mobility returns to pre-lockdown levels by 40%. The scenarios explored assume that mobility is scaled evenly across all dimensions, that behaviour stays the same as before NPIs were implemented, that no pharmaceutical interventions are introduced, and it does not include transmission reduction from contact tracing, testing and the isolation of confirmed or suspected cases. We find that, in the absence of additional interventions, even a 20% return to pre-lockdown mobility could lead to a resurgence in the number of deaths far greater than experienced in the current wave in several regions. Future increases in the number of deaths will lag behind the increase in transmission intensity and so a

Report

Ainslie KEC, Walters CE, Fu H, Bhatia S, Wang H, Xi X, Baguelin M, Bhatt S, Boonyasiri A, Boyd O, Cattarino L, Ciavarella C, Cucunuba Z, Cuomo-Dannenburg G, Dighe A, Dorigatti I, van Elsland SL, FitzJohn R, Gaythorpe K, Ghani AC, Green W, Hamlet A, Hinsley W, Imai N, Jorgensen D, Knock E, Laydon D, Nedjati-Gilani G, Okell LC, Siveroni I, Thompson HA, Unwin HJT, Verity R, Vollmer M, Walker PGT, Wang Y, Watson OJ, Whittaker C, Winskill P, Donnelly CA, Ferguson NM, Riley Set al., 2020, Evidence of initial success for China exiting COVID-19 social distancing policy after achieving containment [version 1; peer review: 2 approved], Wellcome Open Res, Vol: 5, ISSN: 2398-502X

Background: The COVID-19 epidemic was declared a Global Pandemic by WHO on 11 March 2020. By 24 March 2020, over 440,000 cases and almost 20,000 deaths had been reported worldwide. In response to the fast-growing epidemic, which began in the Chinese city of Wuhan, Hubei, China imposed strict social distancing in Wuhan on 23 January 2020 followed closely by similar measures in other provinces. These interventions have impacted economic productivity in China, and the ability of the Chinese economy to resume without restarting the epidemic was not clear. Methods: Using daily reported cases from mainland China and Hong Kong SAR, we estimated transmissibility over time and compared it to daily within-city movement, as a proxy for economic activity. Results: Initially, within-city movement and transmission were very strongly correlated in the five mainland provinces most affected by the epidemic and Beijing. However, that correlation decreased rapidly after the initial sharp fall in transmissibility. In general, towards the end of the study period, the correlation was no longer apparent, despite substantial increases in within-city movement. A similar analysis for Hong Kong shows that intermediate levels of local activity were maintained while avoiding a large outbreak. At the very end of the study period, when China began to experience the re-introduction of a small number of cases from Europe and the United States, there is an apparent up-tick in transmission. Conclusions: Although these results do not preclude future substantial increases in incidence, they suggest that after very intense social distancing (which resulted in containment), China successfully exited its lockdown to some degree. Elsewhere, movement data are being used as proxies for economic activity to assess the impact of interventions. The results presented here illustrate how the eventual decorrelation between transmission and movement is likely a key feature of successful COVID-19 exit strategies.

Journal article

Grassly N, Pons Salort M, Parker E, White P, Ainslie K, Baguelin M, Bhatt S, Boonyasiri A, Boyd O, Brazeau N, Cattarino L, Ciavarella C, Cooper L, Coupland H, Cucunuba Perez Z, Cuomo-Dannenburg G, Dighe A, Djaafara A, Donnelly C, Dorigatti I, van Elsland S, Ferreira Do Nascimento F, Fitzjohn R, Fu H, Gaythorpe K, Geidelberg L, Green W, Hallett T, Hamlet A, Hayes S, Hinsley W, Imai N, Jorgensen D, Knock E, Laydon D, Lees J, Mangal T, Mellan T, Mishra S, Nedjati Gilani G, Nouvellet P, Okell L, Ower A, Parag K, Pickles M, Ragonnet-Cronin M, Stopard I, Thompson H, Unwin H, Verity R, Vollmer M, Volz E, Walker P, Walters C, Wang H, Wang Y, Watson O, Whittaker C, Whittles L, Winskill P, Xi X, Ferguson Net al., 2020, Report 16: Role of testing in COVID-19 control

The World Health Organization has called for increased molecular testing in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but different countries have taken very different approaches. We used a simple mathematical model to investigate the potential effectiveness of alternative testing strategies for COVID-19 control. Weekly screening of healthcare workers (HCWs) and other at-risk groups using PCR or point-of-care tests for infection irrespective of symptoms is estimated to reduce their contribution to transmission by 25-33%, on top of reductions achieved by self-isolation following symptoms. Widespread PCR testing in the general population is unlikely to limit transmission more than contact-tracing and quarantine based on symptoms alone, but could allow earlier release of contacts from quarantine. Immunity passports based on tests for antibody or infection could support return to work but face significant technical, legal and ethical challenges. Testing is essential for pandemic surveillance but its direct contribution to the prevention of transmission is likely to be limited to patients, HCWs and other high-risk groups.

Report

Christen P, D'Aeth J, Lochen A, McCabe R, Rizmie D, Schmit N, Nayagam AS, Miraldo M, White P, Aylin P, Bottle R, Perez Guzman PN, Donnelly C, Ghani A, Ferguson N, Hauck Ket al., 2020, Report 15: Strengthening hospital capacity for the COVID-19 pandemic

Planning for extreme surges in demand for hospital care of patients requiring urgent life-saving treatment for COVID-19, and other conditions, is one of the most challenging tasks facing healthcare commissioners and care providers during the pandemic. Due to uncertainty in expected patient numbers requiring care, as well as evolving needs day by day, planning hospital capacity is challenging. Health systems that are well prepared for the pandemic can better cope with large and sudden changes in demand by implementing strategies to ensure adequate access to care. Thereby the burden of the pandemic can be mitigated, and many lives saved. This report presents the J-IDEA pandemic planner, a hospital planning tool to calculate how much capacity in terms of beds, staff and ventilators is obtained by implementing healthcare provision interventions affecting the management of patient care in hospitals. We show how to assess baseline capacity, and then calculate how much capacity is gained by various healthcare interventions using impact estimates that are generated as part of this study. Interventions are informed by a rapid review of policy decisions implemented or being considered in 12 European countries over the past few months , an evaluation of the impact of the interventions on capacity using a variety of research methods, and by a review of key parameters in the care of COVID-19 patients.The J-IDEA planner is publicly available, interactive and adaptable to different and changing circumstances and newly emerging evidence. The planner estimates the additional number of beds, medical staff and crucial medical equipment obtained under various healthcare interventions using flexible inputs on assumptions of existing capacities, the number of hospitalisations, beds-to-staff ratios, and staff absences due to COVID-19. A detailed user guide accompanies the planner. The planner was developed rapidly and has limitations which we will address in future iterations. It support

Report

Dean NE, Gsell P-S, Brookmeyer R, Crawford FW, Donnelly CA, Ellenberg SS, Fleming TR, Halloran ME, Horby P, Jaki T, Krause PR, Longini IM, Mulangu S, Muyembe-Tamfum J-J, Nason MC, Smith PG, Wang R, Henao-Restrepo AM, De Gruttola Vet al., 2020, Creating a framework for conducting randomized clinical trials during disease outbreaks., New England Journal of Medicine, Vol: 382, Pages: 1366-1369, ISSN: 0028-4793

Journal article

Forna A, Dorigatti I, Nouvellet P, Donnelly Cet al., 2020, Spatiotemporal variability in case fatality ratios for 2013–2016 Ebola epidemic in West Africa, International Journal of Infectious Diseases, Vol: 93, Pages: 48-55, ISSN: 1201-9712

Background: For the 2013–2016 Ebola epidemic in West Africa, the largest Ebola virus disease (EVD)epidemic to date, we aim to analyse the patient mix in detail to characterise key sources ofspatiotemporal heterogeneity in the case fatality ratios (CFR).Methods: We applied a non-parametric Boosted Regression Trees (BRT) imputation approach for patientswith missing survival outcomes and adjusted for model imperfection. Semivariogram analysis andkriging were used to investigate spatiotemporal heterogeneities.Results: CFR estimates varied significantly between districts and over time over the course of theepidemic. BRT modelling accounted for most of the spatiotemporal variation and interactions in CFR, butmoderate spatial autocorrelation remained for distances up to approximately 90 km. Combining districtlevel CFR estimates and kriged district-level residuals provided the best linear unbiased predicted map ofCFR accounting for the both explained and unexplained spatial variation. Temporal autocorrelation wasnot observed in the district-level residuals from the BRT estimates.Conclusions: This study provides new insight into the epidemiology of the 2013–2016 West African Ebolaepidemic with a view of informing future public health contingency planning, resource allocation andimpact assessment. The analytical framework developed in this analysis, coupled with key domainknowledge, could be deployed in real time to support the response to ongoing and future outbreaks.

Journal article

Ainslie K, Walters C, Fu H, Bhatia S, Wang H, Baguelin M, Bhatt S, Boonyasiri A, Boyd O, Cattarino L, Ciavarella C, Cucunuba Perez Z, Cuomo-Dannenburg G, Dighe A, Dorigatti I, van Elsland S, Fitzjohn R, Gaythorpe K, Geidelberg L, Ghani A, Green W, Hamlet A, Hinsley W, Imai N, Jorgensen D, Knock E, Laydon D, Nedjati Gilani G, Okell L, Siveroni I, Thompson H, Unwin H, Verity R, Vollmer M, Walker P, Wang Y, Watson O, Whittaker C, Winskill P, Xi X, Donnelly C, Ferguson N, Riley Set al., 2020, Report 11: Evidence of initial success for China exiting COVID-19 social distancing policy after achieving containment

The COVID-19 epidemic was declared a Global Pandemic by WHO on 11 March 2020. As of 20 March 2020, over 254,000 cases and 10,000 deaths had been reported worldwide. The outbreak began in the Chinese city of Wuhan in December 2019. In response to the fast-growing epidemic, China imposed strict social distancing in Wuhan on 23 January 2020 followed closely by similar measures in other provinces. At the peak of the outbreak in China (early February), there were between 2,000 and 4,000 new confirmed cases per day. For the first time since the outbreak began there have been no new confirmed cases caused by local transmission in China reported for five consecutive days up to 23 March 2020. This is an indication that the social distancing measures enacted in China have led to control of COVID-19 in China. These interventions have also impacted economic productivity in China, and the ability of the Chinese economy to resume without restarting the epidemic is not yet clear. Here, we estimate transmissibility from reported cases and compare those estimates with daily data on within-city movement, as a proxy for economic activity. Initially, within-city movement and transmission were very strongly correlated in the 5 provinces most affected by the epidemic and Beijing. However, that correlation is no longer apparent even though within-city movement has started to increase. A similar analysis for Hong Kong shows that intermediate levels of local activity can be maintained while avoiding a large outbreak. These results do not preclude future epidemics in China, nor do they allow us to estimate the maximum proportion of previous within-city activity that will be recovered in the medium term. However, they do suggest that after very intense social distancing which resulted in containment, China has successfully exited their stringent social distancing policy to some degree. Globally, China is at a more advanced stage of the pandemic. Policies implemented to reduce the spread of CO

Report

Ferguson N, Laydon D, Nedjati Gilani G, Imai N, Ainslie K, Baguelin M, Bhatia S, Boonyasiri A, Cucunuba Perez Z, Cuomo-Dannenburg G, Dighe A, Dorigatti I, Fu H, Gaythorpe K, Green W, Hamlet A, Hinsley W, Okell L, van Elsland S, Thompson H, Verity R, Volz E, Wang H, Wang Y, Walker P, Walters C, Winskill P, Whittaker C, Donnelly C, Riley S, Ghani Aet al., 2020, Report 9: Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID19 mortality and healthcare demand

The global impact of COVID-19 has been profound, and the public health threat it represents is the most serious seen in a respiratory virus since the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic. Here we present the results of epidemiological modelling which has informed policymaking in the UK and other countries in recent weeks. In the absence of a COVID-19 vaccine, we assess the potential role of a number of public health measures – so-called non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) – aimed at reducing contact rates in the population and thereby reducing transmission of the virus. In the results presented here, we apply a previously published microsimulation model to two countries: the UK (Great Britain specifically) and the US. We conclude that the effectiveness of any one intervention in isolation is likely to be limited, requiring multiple interventions to be combined to have a substantial impact on transmission. Two fundamental strategies are possible: (a) mitigation, which focuses on slowing but not necessarily stopping epidemic spread – reducing peak healthcare demand while protecting those most at risk of severe disease from infection, and (b) suppression, which aims to reverse epidemic growth, reducing case numbers to low levels and maintaining that situation indefinitely. Each policy has major challenges. We find that that optimal mitigation policies (combining home isolation of suspect cases, home quarantine of those living in the same household as suspect cases, and social distancing of the elderly and others at most risk of severe disease) might reduce peak healthcare demand by 2/3 and deaths by half. However, the resulting mitigated epidemic would still likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems (most notably intensive care units) being overwhelmed many times over. For countries able to achieve it, this leaves suppression as the preferred policy option. We show that in the UK and US context, suppression will minimally requi

Report

Gaythorpe K, Imai N, Cuomo-Dannenburg G, Baguelin M, Bhatia S, Boonyasiri A, Cori A, Cucunuba Perez Z, Dighe A, Dorigatti I, Fitzjohn R, Fu H, Green W, Hamlet A, Hinsley W, Laydon D, Nedjati Gilani G, Okell L, Riley S, Thompson H, van Elsland S, Volz E, Wang H, Wang Y, Whittaker C, Xi X, Donnelly C, Ghani A, Ferguson Net al., 2020, Report 8: Symptom progression of COVID-19

The COVID-19 epidemic was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) by WHO on 30th January 2020 [1]. As of 8 March 2020, over 107,000 cases had been reported. Here, we use published and preprint studies of clinical characteristics of cases in mainland China as well as case studies of individuals from Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore and South Korea to examine the proportional occurrence of symptoms and the progression of symptoms through time.We find that in mainland China, where specific symptoms or disease presentation are reported, pneumonia is the most frequently mentioned, see figure 1. We found a more varied spectrum of severity in cases outside mainland China. In Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore and South Korea, fever was the most frequently reported symptom. In this latter group, presentation with pneumonia is not reported as frequently although it is more common in individuals over 60 years old. The average time from reported onset of first symptoms to the occurrence of specific symptoms or disease presentation, such as pneumonia or the use of mechanical ventilation, varied substantially. The average time to presentation with pneumonia is 5.88 days, and may be linked to testing at hospitalisation; fever is often reported at onset (where the mean time to develop fever is 0.77 days).

Report

This data is extracted from the Web of Science and reproduced under a licence from Thomson Reuters. You may not copy or re-distribute this data in whole or in part without the written consent of the Science business of Thomson Reuters.

Request URL: http://wlsprd.imperial.ac.uk:80/respub/WEB-INF/jsp/search-html.jsp Request URI: /respub/WEB-INF/jsp/search-html.jsp Query String: id=00308903&limit=30&person=true&page=7&respub-action=search.html