Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A Bayesian Updating Scheme for Pandemics: Estimating the Infection Dynamics of COVID-19

A Bayesian Updating Scheme for Pandemics: Estimating the Infection Dynamics of COVID-19 A Bayesian Updating Scheme for Pandemics: Estimating the Infection Dynamics of COVID-19 Shuo Wang#, Xian Yang#, Ling Li, Philip Nadler, Rossella Arcucci, Yuan Huang, Zhongzhao Teng, Yike Guo* Mathematical models play a key role in understanding and responding to the emerging COVID-19 pandemic [3]–[5]. Abstract—Epidemic models play a key role in understanding and responding to the emerging COVID-19 pandemic. Widely Compartmental models (e.g. SIR, SIER) and time-since- used compartmental models are static and are of limited use to infection models (i.e. renewal process-based models) are the evaluate intervention strategies with the emerging pandemic. two well-known approaches describing the underlying Applying the technology of data assimilation, we propose a transmission dynamics [6], [7]. The compartmental models Bayesian updating approach for estimating epidemiological describe the transmission among sub-populations while the parameters using observable information for the purpose of renewal process-based approach starts from the inter-individual assessing the impacts of different intervention strategies. We adopt a concise renewal model and propose new parameters by transmission. Despite different nomenclatures and applications, disentangling the reduction of instantaneous reproduction each model contains parameters characterizing the epidemic number 𝑹 into mitigation and suppression factors for quantifying dynamics. One of the most well-known parameters is the intervention impacts at a finer granularity. Then we developed a reproduction number 𝑅, which represents the average number data assimilation framework for estimating these parameters of secondary cases that would be induced by an infected including constructing an observation function and developing a primary case [8]. This key parameter is related to the final Bayesian updating scheme. A statistical analysis framework is then built to quantify the impact of intervention strategies by epidemic size of infectious disease [9]. Intervention measures monitoring the evolution of these estimated parameters. By aim to maintain the reproduction number under one so that the Investigating the impacts of intervention measures of European epidemic can be contained along with time. Thus, estimation of countries, the United States and Wuhan with the framework, we time-varying 𝑅 will reflect the impacts of intervention. reveal the effects of interventions in these countries and the The basic reproduction number 𝑅 is the reproduction resurgence risk in the USA. ! number at the beginning of the epidemic outbreak, when the Index Terms—COVID-19, Data assimilation, Bayesian susceptible population is approximately infinite and without updating, Renewal process, Epidemiology, Non-pharmaceutical intervention measures. When various intervention measures are intervention. being introduced, the instantaneous reproduction number 𝑅 (also called effective reproduction number) is of greater I. INTRODUCTION interest. To gain insights into epidemic evolution, most existing n response to the COVID-19 pandemic, governments have studies such as [3], [10] focus on estimating time-varying taken non-pharmaceutical intervention measures. Common instantaneous reproduction number 𝑅 . 𝑅 is defined as the " " measures include travel restriction, school and non-essential average number of secondary cases that would be generated by business closure and social distancing, as well as early isolation an infected primary case at a time 𝑡 when conditions remained of confirmed patients. Recently, as the first-wave epidemic the same thereafter [8], reflecting the real-time transmission peak has faded away in many countries, the accumulated dynamics. This could help governments to monitor the observations of epidemic growth [1] and corresponding evolution of COVID-19 and update intervention policies intervention policies [2] shed more insights on how the accordingly [11]. interventions worked. Meanwhile, many governments have However, the nowcasting of 𝑅 from reported data is not an switched into the phase to reopen economic and social easy task. Several approaches have been proposed to estimate activities, with attention on tamping down possible resurgences. 𝑅 with different advantages [12]–[14], but the timeliness and However, the recent second-wave outbreak in some countries accuracy are still of concern. Nowcasting results are affected by and regions (e.g. the United States, Hong Kong) alerts us to different factors, such as assumptions of the epidemic models, monitor the epidemic evolution carefully while intervention statistical inference methods and uncertainty of data resources. measures are being relaxed. Inappropriate interpretation or imprecise estimation of 𝑅 are * Corresponding author: Yike Guo (email: yikeguo@hkbu.edu.hk). Ling Li is with the School of Computing, University of Kent, Kent, UK. # Shuo Wang and Xian Yang contribute equally. Yuan Huang and Zhongzhao Teng are with the Department of Pure Shuo Wang, Philip Nadler and Rossella Arcucci are with the Data Science Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics, University of Cambridge, Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK. Cambridge, UK. Xian Yang is with the Department of Computer Science, Hong Kong Baptist Yike Guo is with Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China. University, Hong Kong, China. 2 criticized for providing misleading information [15]. For done in [3] to infer 𝑅 using ‘EpiEstim’ from laboratory- example, the nowcasting from reported confirmed cases will confirmed cases in Wuhan and hence evaluated the impact of fall behind the nowcasting from onset data because there is a non-pharmaceutical public health interventions. The work in delay from symptom onset to case report. We hypothesize that [11] has pointed out that the infection data is usually not more detailed characteristics of the time-varying infectiousness available and death data was used as observation for 𝑅 profile could be estimated from the publicly available reports updating. Instead of simply applying ‘EpiEstim’, they estimated (e.g., death data, confirmed data, onset data and laboratory data) 𝑅 by employing the renewal equation as a latent process to and help better understand and evaluate the efficiency of model infections and connecting the infections to death data via interventions. a generative mechanism. However, the estimated 𝑅 is in a In this study, we propose a comprehensive Bayesian updating piecewise form and the number of changing points was scheme for reliable and timely estimation of parameters in assumed to be determined by the imposed interventions. [19] epidemic models. The transmission dynamics are modelled as estimates 𝑅 from the death data as well while linking the a concise renewal process with time-varying parameters. To disease transmissibility to mobility using the renewal equation. monitor the evolving impacts, more fine-grained modelling of In general, [11] and [19] explicitly formulated the 𝑅 ’s updating the transmission dynamics is required. Instead of the well- function by introducing external factors (e.g. interventions and known 𝑅 , we introduce two complementary parameters, the mobility). Thus, the estimated 𝑅 curve is largely constrained mitigation factor ( 𝑝 ) captures the effect of shielding by the factors that are considered in the model. susceptible population (e.g. through social distancing), and the Data Assimilation [20] lends itself naturally to this problem suppression factor (𝐷 ) captures the effect of isolating the since it provides a framework to enable dynamically updating infected population (e.g. through quarantine) to stop virus the model states and parameters when new observations transmission. We propose a novel method to estimate these become available while also taking into account model and parameters by taking the data assimilation approach of using observation uncertainty. Data assimilation technologies, such Bayesian updating methods. We use daily reports of confirmed as Kalman filter and variational method [21], have been widely cases as the observation. A deconvolution method is used to used in signal tracking, oceanology, environment monitoring build an observation function to estimate the infection cases by and weather forecasting where physical models and observation adjusting the incubation time and report delay. The evolution of data are assimilated to produce accurate prediction. Data the time-varying infectiousness profile (i.e. 𝑝 and 𝐷 ) is assimilation for epidemiological modelling was first proposed " " estimated from the adjusted epidemic curve through a Bayesian in [22] where compartment models were used as the underlying approach of assimilation. Such a fine-grained infectiousness model for assimilation. In [25] and [26], estimating time- profile enables us to quantify the impacts of various varying parameters in the compartment models was further intervention measures in a comprehensive way. investigated. To the authors’ best knowledge, our work is the The paper is structured as follows: We introduce the related first study of applying data assimilation to the renewal process- work in Section II. In section III, we present the overview of a based model. time-varying renewal process model where the two parameters 𝑝 and 𝐷 are proposed. In section IV, we present in detail the III. EPIDEMIC MODELLING OF COVID-19 TRANSMISSION " " Bayesian updating scheme for estimating the dynamic In this section, we propose a time-varying renewal process parameters. In section V, we develop a statistical analysis with two complementary parameters 𝑝 and 𝐷 to model the " " method of assessing the intervention impacts based on the evolving infectiousness profile. We adopted a time-varying estimated results and the report of intervention policies. In renewal process for epidemic modeling. The renewal process section VI, as applications of our approach, we investigate the [8] of infectious disease transmission is: impacts of intervention measures of European countries, the # 𝐼(𝑡) = + 𝐼(𝑡 − 𝜏) 𝛽(𝜏)𝑑𝜏 (1) United States and Wuhan to illustrate the importance of this development. where 𝐼(𝑡) is the incident infection on time 𝑡 and 𝛽(𝜏) is the infectiousness profile. The infectiousness profile means a II. RELATED WORK primary case who was infected 𝜏 time ago (i.e. with the At the beginning of COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China, infection-age 𝜏) can now generate new secondary cases at a rate compartmental models (e.g. SIR, SEIR model) have been used of 𝛽(𝜏) , describing a homogenous mixing process. The to investigate the epidemic dynamics [16]–[18], where the infectiousness profile 𝛽(𝜏) is related to biological, behavioral basic reproductive number was estimated from the models with and environmental factors. We can calculate the reproduction static parameters. With the spread of COVID-19 worldwide, ( ) number 𝑅 as the area under curve of 𝛽 𝜏 , which is the overall renewal process-based models (i.e. time-since-infection model) number of secondary cases infected by a primary case. Further, are also being widely used in the study of COVID-19. The R 𝛽(𝜏) can be rewritten as: package ‘EpiEstim’ [12], [13] is the most widely used in 𝛽(𝜏) = 𝑅 ∙ 𝑤(𝜏) (2) estimating the time-varying 𝑅 with a sliding window. In [10], ( ) where the unit-normalized transmission rate 𝑤 𝜏 is the ‘EpiEstim’ was applied to infer 𝑅 via the discrete renewal probability density function of generation time, i.e. the interval process for policy impact assessment. Similar work has been between the primary infection and the secondary infection. In 3 the early stage without intervention, the infectiousness profile mechanistic details about the evolution of the infectiousness remains time-independent as the baseline 𝛽 (𝜏) which profile. describes the transmission dynamics when the susceptible IV. ADAPTIVE PARAMETER ESTIMATION population is infinite. The corresponding 𝑅 is the well-known basic reproduction number 𝑅 . In reality, the infectiousness We aim to develop a comprehensive framework to estimate profile 𝛽(𝜏) will evolve with time 𝑡 , therefore we introduce parameters of renewal process models using Bayesian updating 𝛽 (𝜏) to address the change in its distribution caused by " approach of data assimilation, especially the three key intervention measures. parameters: <𝑅 , 𝑝 , 𝐷 >. The estimation is essential for " " " To quantify the impacts of intervention measures to the quantify the impacts of different interventions through evolution of 𝑅 , we propose two factors: suppression and " monitoring the evolution of <𝑅 , 𝑝 , 𝐷 >. This framework " " " mitigation to disentangle the intervention effects. Here we use contains building an observation function to map observations two complementary metrics 𝑝 and 𝐷 modelling the " " to model state, modelling and Bayesian updating as shown in suppression and mitigation factors respectively, as illustrated in Figure 2 and 3. By applying the observation function, we Figure 1. reconstruct the number of daily infections from reports of confirmed cases, taking into account the incubation time and report delay with a deconvolution algorithm. Then <𝑅 , 𝑝 , 𝐷 > " " " is estimated through a Bayesian approach of data assimilation. A. Reconstruction of daily infection from reported cases In data assimilation, model states and parameters can be updated using new observation data. It is important for parameter estimation that proper observation is chosen, and an observation function can be built which maps observations to a state variable (usually regarded as the output of the model). In this study, the observations we have chosen are from the reported number of confirmed cases. The model output is daily infection incidence through the renewal process. However, such observations experience an inevitable time delay between the actual infection time and the reporting date (Figure 2). This includes an incubation time (i.e. the period between infection and onset of symptoms) and confirmation period (i.e. the period between onset and officially reported after being tested). The Fig. 1. Disentangling the reduction of reproduction number into mitigation confirmed cases reported on time 𝑡 were actually infected and suppression factors. within a past period and the reported number is the convolution The suppression effects mainly shorten the infectious period result of the historical daily infection. of the infected population, corresponding to the truncation of ( ) 𝛽 𝜏 along the horizontal axis. We use a time-varying parameter 𝐷 to denote the effective infectious window induced by suppression. The mitigation effects attenuate the overall infectiousness by shielding the susceptible population, corresponding to the scaling on the vertical direction. We introduce another time-varying parameter 𝑝 to describe this attenuation effect induced by mitigation. Formally, we parameterize the evolution of the infectiousness profile as: 𝛽 (𝜏) ∙ 𝑝 𝜏 < 𝐷 ! " " ( ) 𝛽 𝜏 = 4 (3) 0 𝜏 ≥ 𝐷 Accordingly, the instantaneous reproductive number 𝑅 can be derived: 𝑅 = 𝑝 ∙ + 𝛽 (𝜏)𝑑𝜏 (4) " " ! Therefore, the impact of intervention measures on 𝑅 reduction is disentangled: mitigation factor 𝑝 attenuates the " " Fig. 2. Reconstruction of daily infection from the confirmed cases using overall infectiousness through shielding the susceptible deconvolution algorithms. The time delay between the infection and onset and report is demonstrated (top). The estimated distribution between infection and population and suppression factor 𝐷 shortens the infectious report is presented which is used for deconvolution (bottom). period through isolating the infected population. It is noted that the 𝑅 can be derived from 𝑝 and 𝐷 which provide more " " " Here, we define an observation function to reconstruct the 4 daily infection instances from the confirmed cases using the deconvolution technique with Richardson-Lucy (RL) iteration method [25]. We use the incubation period calculated by Ferretti et al.[5], which is a lognormal distribution with a mean of 5.5 days and a standard deviation of 2.1 days. We use the confirmation period previously reported by Leung et al. [10], which is a gamma distribution with a mean of 4.9 days and a standard deviation of 3.3 days. Sampling from these two sequential distributions, we estimated the discrete interval distribution 𝑠(𝜏) for 𝜏 ∈ {0, 𝑑} from infection to report (Figure 2). Denoting the epidemic curve of reported infection cases ? ? ? ? 𝐼 = {𝐼 , 𝐼 , … , 𝐼 } and the epidemic curve of confirmed cases %:' % ( " 𝐶 = {𝐶 , 𝐶 , … , 𝐶 } , the reported infection with an %:' % ( " observation process of past infections can be modelled as a Poisson process: 𝐶 ~ 𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑛(𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 = J 𝑠(𝑘)𝐼 ) (5) " ")* Fig. 3. Illustration of the Bayesian updating framework for estimating *+" suppression and mitigation factors. We employ a two-level hierarchical model: Estimate the daily reported infection curve 𝐼 given the %:' For each time step, the low-level model (i.e. renewal process) provides the daily confirmed cases curve 𝐶 and infection-to-confirmed %:' likelihood of 𝑝 , 𝐷 (green). The posterior (orange) is calculated through the ! ! time distribution 𝑠 is an ill-posed deconvolution problem and element product of the likelihood and the prior (blue) from the previous time %:, step. To generate the prior for next time step, we use the high-level model (i.e. can be solved using Richardson-Lucy (RL) iteration method the transformation T) to induce the evolution of parameters. The high-level [25]. The initial guess 𝐼 is the confirmed cases curve 𝐶 %:" %:' model is a piecewise gaussian random walk process where the fluctuations of shifted back by the mode of the infection-to-confirmed time 𝑝 and 𝐷 differ before and after an intervention time. The instantaneous ! ! . . reproduction number 𝑅 can be derived from the posterior distribution of 𝑝 ? ? ! ! distribution. Let 𝐶 = ∑ 𝑠(𝑘)𝐼 be the expected number *+" - ")* and 𝐷 . of confirmed cases on day 𝑖 of iteration 𝑛 , and 𝑞 be the probability that a reported case resulting from infection on day Our updating scheme employs a two-level hierarchical 𝑡 will be observed as defined in [25]. Then the iteration of 𝐼 is model for the inference of time-varying parameters [26]. Let us computed by an expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm as: denote the observed daily incidence of infection till time step 𝑡 ? ? ? ? ? as 𝐼 = {𝐼 , 𝐼 , … , 𝐼 }. Suppose pT𝛉 |𝐼 W is the estimated 𝐼 𝑠(𝑖 − 𝑡)𝐶 %:' % ( " ')% %:')% " " ./% 𝐼 = J (6) 1 distribution of 𝛉 = [𝑝, 𝐷] at time step 𝑡 − 1 . Under the -0" assumption of consistent detection rates, the observed daily A normalized 𝜒 statistics is used as the stop criterion of the incidence 𝐼 also satisfies the renewal process. The low-level iteration: model predicts the observation (i.e. reconstructed daily 1 (𝐶 − 𝐶 ) infection) given a parameter set through the renewal process: - " 𝜒 = J < 1 (7) ")% ? ? ? ( ) pT𝐼 Z𝛉 , 𝐼 W ~ 𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑛(𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 = J 𝛽 𝑘; 𝛉 𝐼 ) (8) ' ' %:')% " ' ")* where 𝑁 is the total number of data points. It is of note that *2% the reported number of confirmed cases constitute the lower where a Poisson process of observing the infected cases is bound of the real infection due to the lack of mass test and the assumed. This describes the likelihood of observing the new existence of asymptomatic cases. However, as long as the incidence data given history observations and parameter value detection rate remains consistent, the scaling of reconstructed 𝛉 . The high-level model describes the evolution of the model data does not affect the following inference of transmission parameters 𝑝 and 𝐷 through transforming the joint " " dynamics. distribution: ? ? pT𝛉 Z𝐼 W = T ∘ pT𝛉 Z𝐼 W (9) B. Bayesian Updating for Parameter Estimation ' %:')% ')% %:')% where T(. ) is a transformation function defining the Following the Bayesian updating approach of data temporal variations of the 𝛉. The prior knowledge of parameter assimilation, we propose an instantaneous estimation method. distribution is transferred to the next time step 𝑡 by the high- For the defined epidemiology renewal process, the daily level model T. Under the scenario without interventions, the incident infection 𝐼 is the state variable and can be assimilated parameters 𝑝 and 𝐷 fluctuate around the baseline values. from the reconstructed infection data from observation. The " " Therefore, we can assume a random walk of 𝛉 in the parameter evolution of the state 𝐼 is governed by the renewal process with space as the high-level model. The update of joint parameter the time-varying infectiousness profile 𝛽 (𝜏) , parameterized distribution is by convoluting with a Gaussian kernel with with 𝑝 and 𝐷 . Here we present a Bayesian framework to " " variance 𝜎 . When the intervention is introduced on time 𝑑, the monitor the evolution of 𝑝 and 𝐷 using the daily reports of " " random walk of 𝛉 is altered where the variance of the Gaussian confirmed cases (Figure 3). kernel will become 𝜎 . The transformation T(. ) is defined as: ( 5 p(𝛉) ∗ K (𝛉) 𝑡 < 𝑑 accumulated confirmed cases less than 1,000 are excluded from T ∘ p(𝛉) = a (10) the analysis. The daily number of onset patients in Wuhan is p(𝛉) ∗ K (𝛉) 𝑡 ≥ 𝑑 adopted from the retrospective study by Pan et al. [3]. where K (𝛉) and K (𝛉) are the Gaussian kernels before 3 3 " # and after the deployment of intervention at time 𝑑. This high- level model includes three hyperparameters: variances before and after intervention: 𝜎 and 𝜎 , and the change-point time 𝑑. % ( Let us denote the hyperparameters 𝜼 = [𝜎 , 𝜎 , 𝑑] . After seen % ( the latest observation 𝐼 , the posterior estimation of 𝛉 is update by the Bayes rule: ? ? ? T ∘ pT𝛉 Z𝐼 W ∙ pT𝐼 Z𝛉 , 𝐼 W ')% %:')% ' ' %:')% pT𝛉 Z𝐼 W = (11) ' %:' ? ? pT𝐼 Z𝐼 W ' %:")% This step reflects the Bayesian principle in the key updating step in Kalman filtering [21]. Unlike the Kalman filtering method where uncertainty is explicitly modelled through a covariance matrix under the Gaussian assumption, we directly use posterior probability to capture the uncertainty of estimation. The posterior is usually intractable but can be approximated through grid-based methods. Given a set of hyperparameters 𝜼 , the hybrid model evidence can be calculated as [26]: Fig. 4. Components of the quantification framework. The evolution of ? ? pT𝐼 Z𝜼 W = + pT𝐼 , 𝛉 Z𝜼 W𝑑𝛉 (12) %:' - %:' ' - ' mitigation and suppression factors are estimated using the infection data reconstructed from the daily reported confirmed cases. Given the history of Finally, the posterior estimation pT𝛉 Z𝐼 W can be averaged ' %:' government responses, the impacts of intervention measures are quantified by across the hyperparameter grids weighted by the hybrid model correlating the inferred epidemic parameters to response levels. evidence. The posterior mean and confidence intervals of 𝑝 The data of intervention measures in European countries are and 𝐷 as well as the corresponding 𝑅 are obtained in a " " collected from the Oxford Coronavirus Government Response dynamic manner. The prior of 𝑅 at the first timestep is set Tracker [2], reporting the overall stringency index 𝑆 of uninformative as a uniform distribution with the pre-set lower intervention measures during the analysis period (accessed on and upper limits (e.g., the upper limit for the European countries th June 9 2020). This overall stringency index is calculated based ( ) is set to 8 in the experiment). The shape of 𝛽 𝜏 is adapted on the policy quantification of eight intervention measures (i.e. from the distribution of generation time interval 𝑤(𝜏) reported School closing, Workplace closing, Cancel public events, by Ferretti et al.[5] We applied the above framework to infer Restrictions on gatherings, Close public transport, Stay-at- the epidemic evolution in 14 European countries, states in the home requirements, Restrictions on internal movement and US and Wuhan city, China in Section VI. The codes of the our International travel controls) and one health measure (i.e. public framework is released as an open-source package info campaigns) to indicate the government response level of (https://github.com/whfairy2007/COVID19_Bayesian). intervention. According to the normalized stringency index by Oxford V. EVALUATION OF INTERVENTION MEASURES report [2], we categorized the dates into five response levels With the estimated results from the above Bayesian updating (Level 0: 𝑆 ≤20%, minimal response for reference; Level 1: scheme, now we can perform statistical analysis between the 20%<𝑆 ≤40%, soft response; Level 2: 40%<𝑆 ≤60%, strong " " evolution of the transmission dynamics and the implementation response; Level 3: 60%< 𝑆 ≤ 80% and Level 4: of intervention measures. The whole framework containing 80%< 𝑆 ≤ 100%, emergent responses). The representative data reconstruction, dynamic modelling, Bayesian updating, intervention measures for each response level were identified statistical analysis is presented in Figure 4. In this section, we based on the contribution to the stringency index 𝑆 . introduce the quantification of intervention measures and the statistical method. B. Calculation of intervention policy indices We categorize the dates within our analysis period in A. Data Source European countries into five different response levels, based on For the observations, we use the aggregated data of publicly the overall stringency index 𝑆 . To identify the representative available daily confirmed cases of 14 Europe countries measures of each response level, we calculate the quantification (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, indices of the eight intervention measures. Descriptions of the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland eight intervention measures and the quantification methods are and the United Kingdom) and 52 states of the United States provided in [2]. For each intervention measure, the Oxford from John Hopkins University database [1]. The data include report provides an ordinal scale quantification 𝑣 of the 4," the time series of confirmed cases from January 22nd to June th th strength of j-th policy implementation and a binary flag 𝑓 8 2020 (accessed on June 9 2020). Six states with 4," 6 representing whether it is implemented in the whole country on and mitigation factors, respectively. The results are time 𝑡. Following similar practice use in the Oxford report, we demonstrated in Table 1. normalize the implementation of each intervention measure as max (0, 𝑣 + 0.5𝑓 − 0.5) VI. RESULTS 4," 4," 𝑃 = × 100% (13) 4," A. Validation on simulated data where 𝑁 is the maximum value of the indicator 𝑃 . To assign 4 4 We simulated an artificial epidemic outbreak with a time- a label of response level to each measure, we calculate the varying infectiousness profile using renewal process. The change of mean policy indices across different response levels. generation time intervals were adapted from Ferretti et al.[5]. The response level with the largest increase is considered as the The simulation period includes 50 days and an intensive level that the measure belongs to (i.e. the measure is a intervention measure is induced on day 35 altering the representative measure of this response level). For example, the transmission dynamics. Before the intervention, the ground- mean index of school closure showed the largest increase from truth 𝑅 followed Gaussian random walk with a mean of 2.5. Level 0 to Level 1, so we consider this is a representative After the intervention (50% 𝑝 reduction and 67% 𝐷 " " measure of Level 1. The representative measures of each reduction), the mean of 𝑅 was reduced to 0.5 (black line). response level are listed in Table 1. C. Regression analysis of the intervention impacts We performed a retrospective analysis of the time-varying transmission dynamics during different response levels in Europe countries. First, the evolution history of 𝑅 and the overall stringency index 𝑆 are obtained using the above framework. The stringency index 𝑆 is categorized into five response levels. We fit a log-linear mixed-effect model, where the logarithm of 𝑅 is the outcome variable and categorical stringency index is the predictor. The logarithm is used to obtain the intervention impacts on the relative change of 𝑅 [27]. We performed a partial-pool analysis by assuming the impacts of intervention measure (slopes) shared across all Fig. 5. Validation of the proposed Bayesian updating scheme. selected European countries while the basic reproduction We validate the effectiveness of our approach in capturing the number 𝑅 (intercept) varies due to environmental and social factors. The regression formula is written as: sudden change of 𝑅 evolution induced by interventions, which is hard to be detected by traditional sliding window-based ln 𝑅 = 𝑏 + J 𝑏 ∗ 𝐷 + 𝛾 + 𝜖 𝑗 = 1,2, … ,14 (14) methods (Figure 5). We compared the results using our 4," ! * 4,* 4 *2% approach (red line with 95% confidence intervals) to the results where 𝑅 is the estimated reproduction number of j-th 4," computed by the R package ‘EpiEstim v2.2’ [12] (blue) which country, 𝑏 is the fixed effect term of ln 𝑅 and 𝑏 is the fixed is a sliding window-based method widely used for 𝑅 ! ! * " effects of interventions in response level 𝑘. 𝐷 is the dummy estimation. We observed that the ground-truth 𝑅 is well 4,* variable that takes the value 1 if and only if the response status estimated within our confidence interval. In particular, the is at Level k. 𝛾 is the random effect term following zero-mean sharp change of 𝑅 caused by the intervention is captured immediately by our approach while there is a lag using the Gaussian which explains the difference of ln 𝑅 across sliding window-based method. countries and 𝜖 is the Gaussian error term. Equation 14 associates the relative changes in 𝑅 to the fixed effects of B. Evaluation of Intervention measures in Europe Countries response levels, and can be rewritten into its marginal form as: In this part, we applied the proposed framework to analyze 𝑅 − 𝑅 ! the epidemic evolution in the 14 European Countries and also ln(1 + ) = J 𝑏 ∗ 𝐷 (15) * * 𝑅 Wuhan. With the inferred <𝑅 , 𝑝 , 𝐷 >, we can then assess the ! " " " *2% impacts of intervention measures. Therefore, the relative change of 𝑅 due to the intervention Figure 6 demonstrates the reconstruction of daily infections measures in k-th response level can be derived from 𝑏 (i.e. in the UK from the reported confirmed cases. The infected-to- ∆𝑅/𝑅 = 𝑒𝑥𝑝(𝑏 ) − 1 ). Country-specific ln 𝑅 can be ! * ! report delay between report and infected time is composed of estimated as 𝑏 + 𝛾 at the Level 0. The statistical analysis is ! 4 the incubation period (a lognormal distribution with a mean of performed using the R package ‘lme4’. The fixed effect is 5.5 days and a standard deviation of 2.1 days [5]) and the onset- considered significant with P value<0.05. The 95% confidence to-report period (a gamma distribution with a mean of 4.9 days intervals (CI) are estimated using bootstrap method. The and a standard deviation of 3.3 days [10]). The blue bars in assumption of normality is checked by inspecting the quantile- Figure 6 indicate the number of confirmed cases. After quantile plot of the residuals. The same procedure is also deconvolving the confirmed numbers using infected-to-report applied to the analysis of 𝐷 and 𝑝 to quantify the suppression " " delay, we got the infected curve, which is colored in red in 7 Figure 6. To check the reliability of the deconvolution results, incremental suppression effect. This observation shows a we convolve the inferred infected curve (in red) with the consistency with the aim of representative intervention infected-to-report delay to recover the confirmed curve (in measures on this level (e.g. cancelling public events, black). We can see that the black curve matches well to the restrictions on gathering and internal movements) to reduce the original blue bars and is much smoother. With the above contact rates among the population. observation, we can see the effectiveness of the infected curve The emergent response (Level 3) shows substantial relative inference. Figure 7 shows the results of estimating 𝑅 of the UK reduction of reproductive number (𝑅 reduction 71%) with " " from the infected curve. The missing values in the infected suppression (𝐷 shortening 37%) and mitigation (𝑝 reduction " " curve are replaced by the average mean of the neighbouring 67%) effects, correlated to the intensive measures (e.g. numbers. green bar is the posterior mean of estimated 𝑅 . workplace closure and stay-at-home requirements). A similar degree of reductions is found for Level 4 (𝑅 reduction 74%; 𝐷 " " shortening 40%; 𝑝 reduction 70%) while the stringency of intervention measures is higher. We find that our estimated evolving patterns of 𝑝 and 𝐷 correspond well to the serial " " strategies taken by some European countries, such as the ‘contain-delay-lockdown’ route taken in the UK. Fig. 6. Reconstruction of daily infections from the report of confirmed cases in UK. The forward convolution on reconstructed data (black line) matches well with actual reported data (blue bars), validating the correctness of the deconvolution method. Fig. 8. Estimated evolution of transmission dynamics in Wuhan. The black line represents the reconstructed daily infection number and the green bar is the posterior mean of estimated 𝑅 . Two major events (city lockdown measure rd nd from Jan 23 and centralized quarantine from Feb 2 ) are annotated with red arrows. Apart from the results of 14 European Countries, Figure 8 also shows the results of applying our method to the data from Wuhan, where the greens bars indicate the posterior mean of 𝑅 during the outbreak of COVID-19. We can see that at the early stage of the pandemic, the 𝑅 levels are above 1. After the Fig. 7. Estimated evolution of transmission dynamics in UK. The black line lockdown intervention has taken effect, 𝑅 has experienced a represents the reconstructed daily infection number and the green bar is the rd posterior mean of estimated 𝑅 . ! sharp decrease from 23 Jan. When the centralized quarantine policy has been enforced from the beginning of February, the To quantitatively show the impacts of different strength th 𝑅 values then largely remain below zero (the spike around 14 levels of interventions, Table 1 summarizes the statistical Feb is due to misreporting). analysis results of 14 European countries. It shows different Figure 9 compares the reductions in < 𝑅 , 𝑝 , 𝐷 > for " " " reduction rates of <𝑅 , 𝑝 , 𝐷 > for different response levels. " " " different response levels between European Countries and The relative reduction of <𝑅 , 𝑝 , 𝐷 > compared to the minimal " " " Wuhan. From the analysis of Wuhan data, the strong impact of response (Level 0 where 𝑅 is set to 𝑅 ) was estimated for each " ! lockdown is clearly demonstrated with the immediate relative response level. With soft response (Level 1), the corresponding reduction of 𝑅 by 58%. We also observed that the combination intervention measures (e.g. school closure, quarantine of of lockdown, centralized quarantine and immediate admission international arrivals from high-risk regions) are correlated with of confirmed patients starting from Feb 2nd in Wuhan was a relative reduction of 𝑅 by 35% showing both strong associated with a more substantial relative reduction of 𝑅 with suppression effect (𝐷 shortening 22%) and mitigation effect strong suppression and mitigation effects. (𝑝 reduction 29%). With strong response (Level 2), the relative reduction of 𝑅 increases to 60% with a strong mitigation effect (𝑝 reduction 56%). But the suppression effect (𝐷 shortening " " 26%) is similar to that of Level 1, indicating marginal 8 TABLE I. THE RELATIVE REDUCTION OF MITIGATION FACTOR AND SUPPRESSION FACTOR UNDER DIFFERENT RESPONSE LEVELS OF 14 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES Representative Impact of measures Suppression effect Mitigation effect Response Measures 𝑅 relative reduction 𝐷 relative reduction 𝑝 relative reduction ! ! ! Level 0 No mandatory restrictions 0 0 0 Minimal response Closing schools, Level 1 35% 22% 29% International travel Soft response CI: [25%, 45%] CI: [17%, 27%] CI: [18%, 38%] controls. Cancel public events, Level 2 Restrictions on gathering, 60% 26% 56% Strong response Restrictions on internal CI: [54%, 65%] CI: [21%, 30%] CI: [50%, 61%] movement. 71% 37% 67% Close workplace, Level 3 CI: [68%, 74%] CI: [35%, 40%] CI: [64%, 70%] Close public transport, Stay-at-home Level 4 74% 40% 70% requirements. Emergent response CI: [71%, 77%] CI: [37%, 42%] CI: [66%, 73%] limitations. Firstly, the reporting protocols and standards of confirmed cases, as well as the detection rates, vary among countries. However, as long as the reporting bias is consistent over time, the inference results of 𝑝 , 𝐷 and 𝑅 should not be " " " affected. We also note that the implementation of multiple intervention measures within a short interval makes it challenging to quantify the impact of a single measure which needs further statistical analysis. VII. CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, we propose a comprehensive Bayesian updating approach to timely estimate parameters of COVID-19 epidemic models. The disease transmission dynamics is modelled by renewal equations with time-varying parameters. Instead of purely focusing on estimating instantaneous Fig. 9. The relative reduction of mitigation factor 𝑝 and suppression factor reproduction number 𝑅 , we introduce two complementary 𝐷 under different response levels compared to minimal response level. parameters, the mitigation factor (𝑝 ) and the suppression factor (𝐷 ), to quantify intervention impacts at a finer granularity. A C. Resurgence risks in United States Bayesian updating scheme is adopted to dynamically infer We also used the proposed framework to estimate the model parameters. By monitoring and analyzing the evolution epidemic evolution in different states of the United States. We of the estimated parameters, impacts of intervention measures st observed that, as of the week ending May 31 , the averaged in different response levels can be quantitatively assessed. We reproduction number 𝑅 in 30 states exceeds 1 (Figure 10). have applied our method to European countries, the United These could be related to the recent lift of government States and Wuhan, and reveal the effects of interventions in restrictions and alert us to take a close monitoring on the these countries and the resurgence risk in the USA. Our work epidemic evolution. opens a promising venue to inform policy for better decision- th At the time of preparing this paper (June 18 2020), 29 out making in response to a possible second-wave outbreak. th of the 30 states we alerted on 9 June 2020 have experienced an increased number of daily confirmed cases compared to that st of May 31 , and 14 states have recorded all-time high after May ACKNOWLEDGMENT st 31 . When we prepare the final version in early August, this We express our sincere thanks to all members of the joint alarming prediction of a second wave outbreak is unfortunately analysis team between Imperial College London, University of proven true for all the states listed. Cambridge and University of Kent and Hong Kong Baptist So far, the application of the framework to many countries University. We thank Yuting Xing for helping collect epidemic and the retrospective impact analysis of intervention measures data in Wuhan and the United States. We thank Siyao Wang in European countries indicate the effectiveness of our and Liqun Wu for their efforts on developing a digital tracing approach in monitoring 𝑅 . This can be further validated by app for validation and visualization. predicting the evolution of 𝑝 , 𝐷 and 𝑅 and projected " " " infections in future study. Our current study has several 9 Fig. 10. The averaged 𝑅 values in different states of the United States. We report the result of averaged 𝑅 in the US during the week ending May 31st 2020, ! ! which is ranked by the averaged 𝑅 value (annotated with green if above 1, left). States with total confirmed cases less than 1,000 are excluded from the analysis. novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia,” N. Engl. J. Med., vol. 382, no. 13, pp. 1199–1207, 2020. [18] J. T. Wu, K. Leung, and G. M. Leung, “Nowcasting and forecasting REFERENCES the potential domestic and international spread of the 2019-nCoV outbreak originating in Wuhan, China: a modelling study,” Lancet, [1] E. Dong, H. Du, and L. Gardner, “An interactive web-based vol. 395, no. 10225, pp. 689–697, 2020. dashboard to track COVID-19 in real time,” Lancet Infect. Dis., vol. [19] P. Nouvellet et al., “Report 26: Reduction in mobility and COVID- 20, no. 5, pp. 533–534, May 2020. 19 transmission.” [2] T. Hale, A. Petherick, T. Phillips, and S. Webster, “Variation in [20] M. Asch, M. Bocquet, and M. Nodet, Data assimilation: methods, government responses to COVID-19,” 2020. algorithms, and applications. 2016. [3] A. Pan et al., “Association of Public Health Interventions With the [21] Z. Chen, “Bayesian filtering: From Kalman filters to particle filters, Epidemiology of the COVID-19 Outbreak in Wuhan, China,” and beyond,” Statistics (Ber)., vol. 182, no. 1, pp. 1–69, 2003. JAMA, vol. 323, no. 19, p. 1915, May 2020. [22] C. J. Rhodes and T. D. Hollingsworth, “Variational data [4] R. Li et al., “Substantial undocumented infection facilitates the assimilation with epidemic models,” J. Theor. Biol., vol. 258, no. 4, rapid dissemination of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV2),” Science pp. 591–602, 2009. (80-. )., vol. 3221, no. March, p. eabb3221, 2020. [23] L. M. A. Bettencourt and R. M. Ribeiro, “Real time bayesian [5] L. Ferretti et al., “Quantifying SARS-CoV-2 transmission suggests estimation of the epidemic potential of emerging infectious epidemic control with digital contact tracing.,” Science, vol. 6936, diseases,” PLoS One, vol. 3, no. 5, p. e2185, 2008. no. March, pp. 1–13, 2020. [24] L. Cobb, A. Krishnamurthy, J. Mandel, and J. D. Beezley, [6] E. Vynnycky and R. White, An introduction to infectious disease “Bayesian tracking of emerging epidemics using ensemble optimal modelling. OUP oxford, 2010. statistical interpolation,” Spat. Spatiotemporal. Epidemiol., vol. 10, [7] N. C. Grassly and C. Fraser, “Mathematical models of infectious pp. 39–48, 2014. disease transmission,” Nat. Rev. Microbiol., vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 477– [25] E. Goldstein, J. Dushoff, M. Junling, J. B. Plotkin, D. J. D. Earn, 487, 2008. and M. Lipsitch, “Reconstructing influenza incidence by [8] C. Fraser, “Estimating individual and household reproduction deconvolution of daily mortality time series,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. numbers in an emerging epidemic,” PLoS One, vol. 2, no. 8, 2007. U. S. A., vol. 106, no. 51, pp. 21825–21829, 2009. [9] J. Ma and D. J. D. Earn, “Generality of the final size formula for an [26] C. Mark, C. Metzner, L. Lautscham, P. L. Strissel, R. Strick, and B. epidemic of a newly invading infectious disease,” Bull. Math. Biol., Fabry, “Bayesian model selection for complex dynamic systems,” vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 679–702, 2006. Nat. Commun., vol. 9, no. 1, 2018. [10] K. Leung, J. T. Wu, D. Liu, and G. M. Leung, “First-wave COVID- [27] A. Agresti, An introduction to categorical data analysis. John Wiley 19 transmissibility and severity in China outside Hubei after control & Sons, 2018. measures, and second-wave scenario planning: a modelling impact assessment,” Lancet, vol. 395, no. 10233, pp. 1382–1393, Apr. [11] S. Flaxman et al., “Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe,” Nature, pp. 1–5, 2020. [12] R. N. Thompson et al., “Improved inference of time-varying reproduction numbers during infectious disease outbreaks,” Epidemics, vol. 29, no. August, 2019. [13] A. Cori, N. M. Ferguson, C. Fraser, and S. Cauchemez, “A new framework and software to estimate time-varying reproduction numbers during epidemics,” Am. J. Epidemiol., vol. 178, no. 9, pp. 1505–1512, 2013. [14] J. Wallinga and P. Teunis, “Different epidemic curves for severe acute respiratory syndrome reveal similar impacts of control measures,” Am. J. Epidemiol., vol. 160, no. 6, pp. 509–516, 2004. [15] D. Adam, “A guide to R-the pandemic’s misunderstood metric.,” Nature, vol. 583, no. 7816, pp. 346–348, 2020. [16] N. Imai, I. Dorigatti, A. Cori, C. Donnelly, S. Riley, and N. Ferguson, “Report 2: Estimating the potential total number of novel Coronavirus cases in Wuhan City, China,” 2020. [17] Q. Li et al., “Early transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China, of http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Quantitative Biology arXiv (Cornell University)

A Bayesian Updating Scheme for Pandemics: Estimating the Infection Dynamics of COVID-19

Download PDF
9 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/arxiv-cornell-university/a-bayesian-updating-scheme-for-pandemics-estimating-the-infection-vOG6x2nptd

References (29)

ISSN
1556-603X
eISSN
ARCH-3345
DOI
10.1109/MCI.2020.3019874
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

A Bayesian Updating Scheme for Pandemics: Estimating the Infection Dynamics of COVID-19 Shuo Wang#, Xian Yang#, Ling Li, Philip Nadler, Rossella Arcucci, Yuan Huang, Zhongzhao Teng, Yike Guo* Mathematical models play a key role in understanding and responding to the emerging COVID-19 pandemic [3]–[5]. Abstract—Epidemic models play a key role in understanding and responding to the emerging COVID-19 pandemic. Widely Compartmental models (e.g. SIR, SIER) and time-since- used compartmental models are static and are of limited use to infection models (i.e. renewal process-based models) are the evaluate intervention strategies with the emerging pandemic. two well-known approaches describing the underlying Applying the technology of data assimilation, we propose a transmission dynamics [6], [7]. The compartmental models Bayesian updating approach for estimating epidemiological describe the transmission among sub-populations while the parameters using observable information for the purpose of renewal process-based approach starts from the inter-individual assessing the impacts of different intervention strategies. We adopt a concise renewal model and propose new parameters by transmission. Despite different nomenclatures and applications, disentangling the reduction of instantaneous reproduction each model contains parameters characterizing the epidemic number 𝑹 into mitigation and suppression factors for quantifying dynamics. One of the most well-known parameters is the intervention impacts at a finer granularity. Then we developed a reproduction number 𝑅, which represents the average number data assimilation framework for estimating these parameters of secondary cases that would be induced by an infected including constructing an observation function and developing a primary case [8]. This key parameter is related to the final Bayesian updating scheme. A statistical analysis framework is then built to quantify the impact of intervention strategies by epidemic size of infectious disease [9]. Intervention measures monitoring the evolution of these estimated parameters. By aim to maintain the reproduction number under one so that the Investigating the impacts of intervention measures of European epidemic can be contained along with time. Thus, estimation of countries, the United States and Wuhan with the framework, we time-varying 𝑅 will reflect the impacts of intervention. reveal the effects of interventions in these countries and the The basic reproduction number 𝑅 is the reproduction resurgence risk in the USA. ! number at the beginning of the epidemic outbreak, when the Index Terms—COVID-19, Data assimilation, Bayesian susceptible population is approximately infinite and without updating, Renewal process, Epidemiology, Non-pharmaceutical intervention measures. When various intervention measures are intervention. being introduced, the instantaneous reproduction number 𝑅 (also called effective reproduction number) is of greater I. INTRODUCTION interest. To gain insights into epidemic evolution, most existing n response to the COVID-19 pandemic, governments have studies such as [3], [10] focus on estimating time-varying taken non-pharmaceutical intervention measures. Common instantaneous reproduction number 𝑅 . 𝑅 is defined as the " " measures include travel restriction, school and non-essential average number of secondary cases that would be generated by business closure and social distancing, as well as early isolation an infected primary case at a time 𝑡 when conditions remained of confirmed patients. Recently, as the first-wave epidemic the same thereafter [8], reflecting the real-time transmission peak has faded away in many countries, the accumulated dynamics. This could help governments to monitor the observations of epidemic growth [1] and corresponding evolution of COVID-19 and update intervention policies intervention policies [2] shed more insights on how the accordingly [11]. interventions worked. Meanwhile, many governments have However, the nowcasting of 𝑅 from reported data is not an switched into the phase to reopen economic and social easy task. Several approaches have been proposed to estimate activities, with attention on tamping down possible resurgences. 𝑅 with different advantages [12]–[14], but the timeliness and However, the recent second-wave outbreak in some countries accuracy are still of concern. Nowcasting results are affected by and regions (e.g. the United States, Hong Kong) alerts us to different factors, such as assumptions of the epidemic models, monitor the epidemic evolution carefully while intervention statistical inference methods and uncertainty of data resources. measures are being relaxed. Inappropriate interpretation or imprecise estimation of 𝑅 are * Corresponding author: Yike Guo (email: yikeguo@hkbu.edu.hk). Ling Li is with the School of Computing, University of Kent, Kent, UK. # Shuo Wang and Xian Yang contribute equally. Yuan Huang and Zhongzhao Teng are with the Department of Pure Shuo Wang, Philip Nadler and Rossella Arcucci are with the Data Science Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics, University of Cambridge, Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK. Cambridge, UK. Xian Yang is with the Department of Computer Science, Hong Kong Baptist Yike Guo is with Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China. University, Hong Kong, China. 2 criticized for providing misleading information [15]. For done in [3] to infer 𝑅 using ‘EpiEstim’ from laboratory- example, the nowcasting from reported confirmed cases will confirmed cases in Wuhan and hence evaluated the impact of fall behind the nowcasting from onset data because there is a non-pharmaceutical public health interventions. The work in delay from symptom onset to case report. We hypothesize that [11] has pointed out that the infection data is usually not more detailed characteristics of the time-varying infectiousness available and death data was used as observation for 𝑅 profile could be estimated from the publicly available reports updating. Instead of simply applying ‘EpiEstim’, they estimated (e.g., death data, confirmed data, onset data and laboratory data) 𝑅 by employing the renewal equation as a latent process to and help better understand and evaluate the efficiency of model infections and connecting the infections to death data via interventions. a generative mechanism. However, the estimated 𝑅 is in a In this study, we propose a comprehensive Bayesian updating piecewise form and the number of changing points was scheme for reliable and timely estimation of parameters in assumed to be determined by the imposed interventions. [19] epidemic models. The transmission dynamics are modelled as estimates 𝑅 from the death data as well while linking the a concise renewal process with time-varying parameters. To disease transmissibility to mobility using the renewal equation. monitor the evolving impacts, more fine-grained modelling of In general, [11] and [19] explicitly formulated the 𝑅 ’s updating the transmission dynamics is required. Instead of the well- function by introducing external factors (e.g. interventions and known 𝑅 , we introduce two complementary parameters, the mobility). Thus, the estimated 𝑅 curve is largely constrained mitigation factor ( 𝑝 ) captures the effect of shielding by the factors that are considered in the model. susceptible population (e.g. through social distancing), and the Data Assimilation [20] lends itself naturally to this problem suppression factor (𝐷 ) captures the effect of isolating the since it provides a framework to enable dynamically updating infected population (e.g. through quarantine) to stop virus the model states and parameters when new observations transmission. We propose a novel method to estimate these become available while also taking into account model and parameters by taking the data assimilation approach of using observation uncertainty. Data assimilation technologies, such Bayesian updating methods. We use daily reports of confirmed as Kalman filter and variational method [21], have been widely cases as the observation. A deconvolution method is used to used in signal tracking, oceanology, environment monitoring build an observation function to estimate the infection cases by and weather forecasting where physical models and observation adjusting the incubation time and report delay. The evolution of data are assimilated to produce accurate prediction. Data the time-varying infectiousness profile (i.e. 𝑝 and 𝐷 ) is assimilation for epidemiological modelling was first proposed " " estimated from the adjusted epidemic curve through a Bayesian in [22] where compartment models were used as the underlying approach of assimilation. Such a fine-grained infectiousness model for assimilation. In [25] and [26], estimating time- profile enables us to quantify the impacts of various varying parameters in the compartment models was further intervention measures in a comprehensive way. investigated. To the authors’ best knowledge, our work is the The paper is structured as follows: We introduce the related first study of applying data assimilation to the renewal process- work in Section II. In section III, we present the overview of a based model. time-varying renewal process model where the two parameters 𝑝 and 𝐷 are proposed. In section IV, we present in detail the III. EPIDEMIC MODELLING OF COVID-19 TRANSMISSION " " Bayesian updating scheme for estimating the dynamic In this section, we propose a time-varying renewal process parameters. In section V, we develop a statistical analysis with two complementary parameters 𝑝 and 𝐷 to model the " " method of assessing the intervention impacts based on the evolving infectiousness profile. We adopted a time-varying estimated results and the report of intervention policies. In renewal process for epidemic modeling. The renewal process section VI, as applications of our approach, we investigate the [8] of infectious disease transmission is: impacts of intervention measures of European countries, the # 𝐼(𝑡) = + 𝐼(𝑡 − 𝜏) 𝛽(𝜏)𝑑𝜏 (1) United States and Wuhan to illustrate the importance of this development. where 𝐼(𝑡) is the incident infection on time 𝑡 and 𝛽(𝜏) is the infectiousness profile. The infectiousness profile means a II. RELATED WORK primary case who was infected 𝜏 time ago (i.e. with the At the beginning of COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China, infection-age 𝜏) can now generate new secondary cases at a rate compartmental models (e.g. SIR, SEIR model) have been used of 𝛽(𝜏) , describing a homogenous mixing process. The to investigate the epidemic dynamics [16]–[18], where the infectiousness profile 𝛽(𝜏) is related to biological, behavioral basic reproductive number was estimated from the models with and environmental factors. We can calculate the reproduction static parameters. With the spread of COVID-19 worldwide, ( ) number 𝑅 as the area under curve of 𝛽 𝜏 , which is the overall renewal process-based models (i.e. time-since-infection model) number of secondary cases infected by a primary case. Further, are also being widely used in the study of COVID-19. The R 𝛽(𝜏) can be rewritten as: package ‘EpiEstim’ [12], [13] is the most widely used in 𝛽(𝜏) = 𝑅 ∙ 𝑤(𝜏) (2) estimating the time-varying 𝑅 with a sliding window. In [10], ( ) where the unit-normalized transmission rate 𝑤 𝜏 is the ‘EpiEstim’ was applied to infer 𝑅 via the discrete renewal probability density function of generation time, i.e. the interval process for policy impact assessment. Similar work has been between the primary infection and the secondary infection. In 3 the early stage without intervention, the infectiousness profile mechanistic details about the evolution of the infectiousness remains time-independent as the baseline 𝛽 (𝜏) which profile. describes the transmission dynamics when the susceptible IV. ADAPTIVE PARAMETER ESTIMATION population is infinite. The corresponding 𝑅 is the well-known basic reproduction number 𝑅 . In reality, the infectiousness We aim to develop a comprehensive framework to estimate profile 𝛽(𝜏) will evolve with time 𝑡 , therefore we introduce parameters of renewal process models using Bayesian updating 𝛽 (𝜏) to address the change in its distribution caused by " approach of data assimilation, especially the three key intervention measures. parameters: <𝑅 , 𝑝 , 𝐷 >. The estimation is essential for " " " To quantify the impacts of intervention measures to the quantify the impacts of different interventions through evolution of 𝑅 , we propose two factors: suppression and " monitoring the evolution of <𝑅 , 𝑝 , 𝐷 >. This framework " " " mitigation to disentangle the intervention effects. Here we use contains building an observation function to map observations two complementary metrics 𝑝 and 𝐷 modelling the " " to model state, modelling and Bayesian updating as shown in suppression and mitigation factors respectively, as illustrated in Figure 2 and 3. By applying the observation function, we Figure 1. reconstruct the number of daily infections from reports of confirmed cases, taking into account the incubation time and report delay with a deconvolution algorithm. Then <𝑅 , 𝑝 , 𝐷 > " " " is estimated through a Bayesian approach of data assimilation. A. Reconstruction of daily infection from reported cases In data assimilation, model states and parameters can be updated using new observation data. It is important for parameter estimation that proper observation is chosen, and an observation function can be built which maps observations to a state variable (usually regarded as the output of the model). In this study, the observations we have chosen are from the reported number of confirmed cases. The model output is daily infection incidence through the renewal process. However, such observations experience an inevitable time delay between the actual infection time and the reporting date (Figure 2). This includes an incubation time (i.e. the period between infection and onset of symptoms) and confirmation period (i.e. the period between onset and officially reported after being tested). The Fig. 1. Disentangling the reduction of reproduction number into mitigation confirmed cases reported on time 𝑡 were actually infected and suppression factors. within a past period and the reported number is the convolution The suppression effects mainly shorten the infectious period result of the historical daily infection. of the infected population, corresponding to the truncation of ( ) 𝛽 𝜏 along the horizontal axis. We use a time-varying parameter 𝐷 to denote the effective infectious window induced by suppression. The mitigation effects attenuate the overall infectiousness by shielding the susceptible population, corresponding to the scaling on the vertical direction. We introduce another time-varying parameter 𝑝 to describe this attenuation effect induced by mitigation. Formally, we parameterize the evolution of the infectiousness profile as: 𝛽 (𝜏) ∙ 𝑝 𝜏 < 𝐷 ! " " ( ) 𝛽 𝜏 = 4 (3) 0 𝜏 ≥ 𝐷 Accordingly, the instantaneous reproductive number 𝑅 can be derived: 𝑅 = 𝑝 ∙ + 𝛽 (𝜏)𝑑𝜏 (4) " " ! Therefore, the impact of intervention measures on 𝑅 reduction is disentangled: mitigation factor 𝑝 attenuates the " " Fig. 2. Reconstruction of daily infection from the confirmed cases using overall infectiousness through shielding the susceptible deconvolution algorithms. The time delay between the infection and onset and report is demonstrated (top). The estimated distribution between infection and population and suppression factor 𝐷 shortens the infectious report is presented which is used for deconvolution (bottom). period through isolating the infected population. It is noted that the 𝑅 can be derived from 𝑝 and 𝐷 which provide more " " " Here, we define an observation function to reconstruct the 4 daily infection instances from the confirmed cases using the deconvolution technique with Richardson-Lucy (RL) iteration method [25]. We use the incubation period calculated by Ferretti et al.[5], which is a lognormal distribution with a mean of 5.5 days and a standard deviation of 2.1 days. We use the confirmation period previously reported by Leung et al. [10], which is a gamma distribution with a mean of 4.9 days and a standard deviation of 3.3 days. Sampling from these two sequential distributions, we estimated the discrete interval distribution 𝑠(𝜏) for 𝜏 ∈ {0, 𝑑} from infection to report (Figure 2). Denoting the epidemic curve of reported infection cases ? ? ? ? 𝐼 = {𝐼 , 𝐼 , … , 𝐼 } and the epidemic curve of confirmed cases %:' % ( " 𝐶 = {𝐶 , 𝐶 , … , 𝐶 } , the reported infection with an %:' % ( " observation process of past infections can be modelled as a Poisson process: 𝐶 ~ 𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑛(𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 = J 𝑠(𝑘)𝐼 ) (5) " ")* Fig. 3. Illustration of the Bayesian updating framework for estimating *+" suppression and mitigation factors. We employ a two-level hierarchical model: Estimate the daily reported infection curve 𝐼 given the %:' For each time step, the low-level model (i.e. renewal process) provides the daily confirmed cases curve 𝐶 and infection-to-confirmed %:' likelihood of 𝑝 , 𝐷 (green). The posterior (orange) is calculated through the ! ! time distribution 𝑠 is an ill-posed deconvolution problem and element product of the likelihood and the prior (blue) from the previous time %:, step. To generate the prior for next time step, we use the high-level model (i.e. can be solved using Richardson-Lucy (RL) iteration method the transformation T) to induce the evolution of parameters. The high-level [25]. The initial guess 𝐼 is the confirmed cases curve 𝐶 %:" %:' model is a piecewise gaussian random walk process where the fluctuations of shifted back by the mode of the infection-to-confirmed time 𝑝 and 𝐷 differ before and after an intervention time. The instantaneous ! ! . . reproduction number 𝑅 can be derived from the posterior distribution of 𝑝 ? ? ! ! distribution. Let 𝐶 = ∑ 𝑠(𝑘)𝐼 be the expected number *+" - ")* and 𝐷 . of confirmed cases on day 𝑖 of iteration 𝑛 , and 𝑞 be the probability that a reported case resulting from infection on day Our updating scheme employs a two-level hierarchical 𝑡 will be observed as defined in [25]. Then the iteration of 𝐼 is model for the inference of time-varying parameters [26]. Let us computed by an expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm as: denote the observed daily incidence of infection till time step 𝑡 ? ? ? ? ? as 𝐼 = {𝐼 , 𝐼 , … , 𝐼 }. Suppose pT𝛉 |𝐼 W is the estimated 𝐼 𝑠(𝑖 − 𝑡)𝐶 %:' % ( " ')% %:')% " " ./% 𝐼 = J (6) 1 distribution of 𝛉 = [𝑝, 𝐷] at time step 𝑡 − 1 . Under the -0" assumption of consistent detection rates, the observed daily A normalized 𝜒 statistics is used as the stop criterion of the incidence 𝐼 also satisfies the renewal process. The low-level iteration: model predicts the observation (i.e. reconstructed daily 1 (𝐶 − 𝐶 ) infection) given a parameter set through the renewal process: - " 𝜒 = J < 1 (7) ")% ? ? ? ( ) pT𝐼 Z𝛉 , 𝐼 W ~ 𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑛(𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 = J 𝛽 𝑘; 𝛉 𝐼 ) (8) ' ' %:')% " ' ")* where 𝑁 is the total number of data points. It is of note that *2% the reported number of confirmed cases constitute the lower where a Poisson process of observing the infected cases is bound of the real infection due to the lack of mass test and the assumed. This describes the likelihood of observing the new existence of asymptomatic cases. However, as long as the incidence data given history observations and parameter value detection rate remains consistent, the scaling of reconstructed 𝛉 . The high-level model describes the evolution of the model data does not affect the following inference of transmission parameters 𝑝 and 𝐷 through transforming the joint " " dynamics. distribution: ? ? pT𝛉 Z𝐼 W = T ∘ pT𝛉 Z𝐼 W (9) B. Bayesian Updating for Parameter Estimation ' %:')% ')% %:')% where T(. ) is a transformation function defining the Following the Bayesian updating approach of data temporal variations of the 𝛉. The prior knowledge of parameter assimilation, we propose an instantaneous estimation method. distribution is transferred to the next time step 𝑡 by the high- For the defined epidemiology renewal process, the daily level model T. Under the scenario without interventions, the incident infection 𝐼 is the state variable and can be assimilated parameters 𝑝 and 𝐷 fluctuate around the baseline values. from the reconstructed infection data from observation. The " " Therefore, we can assume a random walk of 𝛉 in the parameter evolution of the state 𝐼 is governed by the renewal process with space as the high-level model. The update of joint parameter the time-varying infectiousness profile 𝛽 (𝜏) , parameterized distribution is by convoluting with a Gaussian kernel with with 𝑝 and 𝐷 . Here we present a Bayesian framework to " " variance 𝜎 . When the intervention is introduced on time 𝑑, the monitor the evolution of 𝑝 and 𝐷 using the daily reports of " " random walk of 𝛉 is altered where the variance of the Gaussian confirmed cases (Figure 3). kernel will become 𝜎 . The transformation T(. ) is defined as: ( 5 p(𝛉) ∗ K (𝛉) 𝑡 < 𝑑 accumulated confirmed cases less than 1,000 are excluded from T ∘ p(𝛉) = a (10) the analysis. The daily number of onset patients in Wuhan is p(𝛉) ∗ K (𝛉) 𝑡 ≥ 𝑑 adopted from the retrospective study by Pan et al. [3]. where K (𝛉) and K (𝛉) are the Gaussian kernels before 3 3 " # and after the deployment of intervention at time 𝑑. This high- level model includes three hyperparameters: variances before and after intervention: 𝜎 and 𝜎 , and the change-point time 𝑑. % ( Let us denote the hyperparameters 𝜼 = [𝜎 , 𝜎 , 𝑑] . After seen % ( the latest observation 𝐼 , the posterior estimation of 𝛉 is update by the Bayes rule: ? ? ? T ∘ pT𝛉 Z𝐼 W ∙ pT𝐼 Z𝛉 , 𝐼 W ')% %:')% ' ' %:')% pT𝛉 Z𝐼 W = (11) ' %:' ? ? pT𝐼 Z𝐼 W ' %:")% This step reflects the Bayesian principle in the key updating step in Kalman filtering [21]. Unlike the Kalman filtering method where uncertainty is explicitly modelled through a covariance matrix under the Gaussian assumption, we directly use posterior probability to capture the uncertainty of estimation. The posterior is usually intractable but can be approximated through grid-based methods. Given a set of hyperparameters 𝜼 , the hybrid model evidence can be calculated as [26]: Fig. 4. Components of the quantification framework. The evolution of ? ? pT𝐼 Z𝜼 W = + pT𝐼 , 𝛉 Z𝜼 W𝑑𝛉 (12) %:' - %:' ' - ' mitigation and suppression factors are estimated using the infection data reconstructed from the daily reported confirmed cases. Given the history of Finally, the posterior estimation pT𝛉 Z𝐼 W can be averaged ' %:' government responses, the impacts of intervention measures are quantified by across the hyperparameter grids weighted by the hybrid model correlating the inferred epidemic parameters to response levels. evidence. The posterior mean and confidence intervals of 𝑝 The data of intervention measures in European countries are and 𝐷 as well as the corresponding 𝑅 are obtained in a " " collected from the Oxford Coronavirus Government Response dynamic manner. The prior of 𝑅 at the first timestep is set Tracker [2], reporting the overall stringency index 𝑆 of uninformative as a uniform distribution with the pre-set lower intervention measures during the analysis period (accessed on and upper limits (e.g., the upper limit for the European countries th June 9 2020). This overall stringency index is calculated based ( ) is set to 8 in the experiment). The shape of 𝛽 𝜏 is adapted on the policy quantification of eight intervention measures (i.e. from the distribution of generation time interval 𝑤(𝜏) reported School closing, Workplace closing, Cancel public events, by Ferretti et al.[5] We applied the above framework to infer Restrictions on gatherings, Close public transport, Stay-at- the epidemic evolution in 14 European countries, states in the home requirements, Restrictions on internal movement and US and Wuhan city, China in Section VI. The codes of the our International travel controls) and one health measure (i.e. public framework is released as an open-source package info campaigns) to indicate the government response level of (https://github.com/whfairy2007/COVID19_Bayesian). intervention. According to the normalized stringency index by Oxford V. EVALUATION OF INTERVENTION MEASURES report [2], we categorized the dates into five response levels With the estimated results from the above Bayesian updating (Level 0: 𝑆 ≤20%, minimal response for reference; Level 1: scheme, now we can perform statistical analysis between the 20%<𝑆 ≤40%, soft response; Level 2: 40%<𝑆 ≤60%, strong " " evolution of the transmission dynamics and the implementation response; Level 3: 60%< 𝑆 ≤ 80% and Level 4: of intervention measures. The whole framework containing 80%< 𝑆 ≤ 100%, emergent responses). The representative data reconstruction, dynamic modelling, Bayesian updating, intervention measures for each response level were identified statistical analysis is presented in Figure 4. In this section, we based on the contribution to the stringency index 𝑆 . introduce the quantification of intervention measures and the statistical method. B. Calculation of intervention policy indices We categorize the dates within our analysis period in A. Data Source European countries into five different response levels, based on For the observations, we use the aggregated data of publicly the overall stringency index 𝑆 . To identify the representative available daily confirmed cases of 14 Europe countries measures of each response level, we calculate the quantification (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, indices of the eight intervention measures. Descriptions of the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland eight intervention measures and the quantification methods are and the United Kingdom) and 52 states of the United States provided in [2]. For each intervention measure, the Oxford from John Hopkins University database [1]. The data include report provides an ordinal scale quantification 𝑣 of the 4," the time series of confirmed cases from January 22nd to June th th strength of j-th policy implementation and a binary flag 𝑓 8 2020 (accessed on June 9 2020). Six states with 4," 6 representing whether it is implemented in the whole country on and mitigation factors, respectively. The results are time 𝑡. Following similar practice use in the Oxford report, we demonstrated in Table 1. normalize the implementation of each intervention measure as max (0, 𝑣 + 0.5𝑓 − 0.5) VI. RESULTS 4," 4," 𝑃 = × 100% (13) 4," A. Validation on simulated data where 𝑁 is the maximum value of the indicator 𝑃 . To assign 4 4 We simulated an artificial epidemic outbreak with a time- a label of response level to each measure, we calculate the varying infectiousness profile using renewal process. The change of mean policy indices across different response levels. generation time intervals were adapted from Ferretti et al.[5]. The response level with the largest increase is considered as the The simulation period includes 50 days and an intensive level that the measure belongs to (i.e. the measure is a intervention measure is induced on day 35 altering the representative measure of this response level). For example, the transmission dynamics. Before the intervention, the ground- mean index of school closure showed the largest increase from truth 𝑅 followed Gaussian random walk with a mean of 2.5. Level 0 to Level 1, so we consider this is a representative After the intervention (50% 𝑝 reduction and 67% 𝐷 " " measure of Level 1. The representative measures of each reduction), the mean of 𝑅 was reduced to 0.5 (black line). response level are listed in Table 1. C. Regression analysis of the intervention impacts We performed a retrospective analysis of the time-varying transmission dynamics during different response levels in Europe countries. First, the evolution history of 𝑅 and the overall stringency index 𝑆 are obtained using the above framework. The stringency index 𝑆 is categorized into five response levels. We fit a log-linear mixed-effect model, where the logarithm of 𝑅 is the outcome variable and categorical stringency index is the predictor. The logarithm is used to obtain the intervention impacts on the relative change of 𝑅 [27]. We performed a partial-pool analysis by assuming the impacts of intervention measure (slopes) shared across all Fig. 5. Validation of the proposed Bayesian updating scheme. selected European countries while the basic reproduction We validate the effectiveness of our approach in capturing the number 𝑅 (intercept) varies due to environmental and social factors. The regression formula is written as: sudden change of 𝑅 evolution induced by interventions, which is hard to be detected by traditional sliding window-based ln 𝑅 = 𝑏 + J 𝑏 ∗ 𝐷 + 𝛾 + 𝜖 𝑗 = 1,2, … ,14 (14) methods (Figure 5). We compared the results using our 4," ! * 4,* 4 *2% approach (red line with 95% confidence intervals) to the results where 𝑅 is the estimated reproduction number of j-th 4," computed by the R package ‘EpiEstim v2.2’ [12] (blue) which country, 𝑏 is the fixed effect term of ln 𝑅 and 𝑏 is the fixed is a sliding window-based method widely used for 𝑅 ! ! * " effects of interventions in response level 𝑘. 𝐷 is the dummy estimation. We observed that the ground-truth 𝑅 is well 4,* variable that takes the value 1 if and only if the response status estimated within our confidence interval. In particular, the is at Level k. 𝛾 is the random effect term following zero-mean sharp change of 𝑅 caused by the intervention is captured immediately by our approach while there is a lag using the Gaussian which explains the difference of ln 𝑅 across sliding window-based method. countries and 𝜖 is the Gaussian error term. Equation 14 associates the relative changes in 𝑅 to the fixed effects of B. Evaluation of Intervention measures in Europe Countries response levels, and can be rewritten into its marginal form as: In this part, we applied the proposed framework to analyze 𝑅 − 𝑅 ! the epidemic evolution in the 14 European Countries and also ln(1 + ) = J 𝑏 ∗ 𝐷 (15) * * 𝑅 Wuhan. With the inferred <𝑅 , 𝑝 , 𝐷 >, we can then assess the ! " " " *2% impacts of intervention measures. Therefore, the relative change of 𝑅 due to the intervention Figure 6 demonstrates the reconstruction of daily infections measures in k-th response level can be derived from 𝑏 (i.e. in the UK from the reported confirmed cases. The infected-to- ∆𝑅/𝑅 = 𝑒𝑥𝑝(𝑏 ) − 1 ). Country-specific ln 𝑅 can be ! * ! report delay between report and infected time is composed of estimated as 𝑏 + 𝛾 at the Level 0. The statistical analysis is ! 4 the incubation period (a lognormal distribution with a mean of performed using the R package ‘lme4’. The fixed effect is 5.5 days and a standard deviation of 2.1 days [5]) and the onset- considered significant with P value<0.05. The 95% confidence to-report period (a gamma distribution with a mean of 4.9 days intervals (CI) are estimated using bootstrap method. The and a standard deviation of 3.3 days [10]). The blue bars in assumption of normality is checked by inspecting the quantile- Figure 6 indicate the number of confirmed cases. After quantile plot of the residuals. The same procedure is also deconvolving the confirmed numbers using infected-to-report applied to the analysis of 𝐷 and 𝑝 to quantify the suppression " " delay, we got the infected curve, which is colored in red in 7 Figure 6. To check the reliability of the deconvolution results, incremental suppression effect. This observation shows a we convolve the inferred infected curve (in red) with the consistency with the aim of representative intervention infected-to-report delay to recover the confirmed curve (in measures on this level (e.g. cancelling public events, black). We can see that the black curve matches well to the restrictions on gathering and internal movements) to reduce the original blue bars and is much smoother. With the above contact rates among the population. observation, we can see the effectiveness of the infected curve The emergent response (Level 3) shows substantial relative inference. Figure 7 shows the results of estimating 𝑅 of the UK reduction of reproductive number (𝑅 reduction 71%) with " " from the infected curve. The missing values in the infected suppression (𝐷 shortening 37%) and mitigation (𝑝 reduction " " curve are replaced by the average mean of the neighbouring 67%) effects, correlated to the intensive measures (e.g. numbers. green bar is the posterior mean of estimated 𝑅 . workplace closure and stay-at-home requirements). A similar degree of reductions is found for Level 4 (𝑅 reduction 74%; 𝐷 " " shortening 40%; 𝑝 reduction 70%) while the stringency of intervention measures is higher. We find that our estimated evolving patterns of 𝑝 and 𝐷 correspond well to the serial " " strategies taken by some European countries, such as the ‘contain-delay-lockdown’ route taken in the UK. Fig. 6. Reconstruction of daily infections from the report of confirmed cases in UK. The forward convolution on reconstructed data (black line) matches well with actual reported data (blue bars), validating the correctness of the deconvolution method. Fig. 8. Estimated evolution of transmission dynamics in Wuhan. The black line represents the reconstructed daily infection number and the green bar is the posterior mean of estimated 𝑅 . Two major events (city lockdown measure rd nd from Jan 23 and centralized quarantine from Feb 2 ) are annotated with red arrows. Apart from the results of 14 European Countries, Figure 8 also shows the results of applying our method to the data from Wuhan, where the greens bars indicate the posterior mean of 𝑅 during the outbreak of COVID-19. We can see that at the early stage of the pandemic, the 𝑅 levels are above 1. After the Fig. 7. Estimated evolution of transmission dynamics in UK. The black line lockdown intervention has taken effect, 𝑅 has experienced a represents the reconstructed daily infection number and the green bar is the rd posterior mean of estimated 𝑅 . ! sharp decrease from 23 Jan. When the centralized quarantine policy has been enforced from the beginning of February, the To quantitatively show the impacts of different strength th 𝑅 values then largely remain below zero (the spike around 14 levels of interventions, Table 1 summarizes the statistical Feb is due to misreporting). analysis results of 14 European countries. It shows different Figure 9 compares the reductions in < 𝑅 , 𝑝 , 𝐷 > for " " " reduction rates of <𝑅 , 𝑝 , 𝐷 > for different response levels. " " " different response levels between European Countries and The relative reduction of <𝑅 , 𝑝 , 𝐷 > compared to the minimal " " " Wuhan. From the analysis of Wuhan data, the strong impact of response (Level 0 where 𝑅 is set to 𝑅 ) was estimated for each " ! lockdown is clearly demonstrated with the immediate relative response level. With soft response (Level 1), the corresponding reduction of 𝑅 by 58%. We also observed that the combination intervention measures (e.g. school closure, quarantine of of lockdown, centralized quarantine and immediate admission international arrivals from high-risk regions) are correlated with of confirmed patients starting from Feb 2nd in Wuhan was a relative reduction of 𝑅 by 35% showing both strong associated with a more substantial relative reduction of 𝑅 with suppression effect (𝐷 shortening 22%) and mitigation effect strong suppression and mitigation effects. (𝑝 reduction 29%). With strong response (Level 2), the relative reduction of 𝑅 increases to 60% with a strong mitigation effect (𝑝 reduction 56%). But the suppression effect (𝐷 shortening " " 26%) is similar to that of Level 1, indicating marginal 8 TABLE I. THE RELATIVE REDUCTION OF MITIGATION FACTOR AND SUPPRESSION FACTOR UNDER DIFFERENT RESPONSE LEVELS OF 14 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES Representative Impact of measures Suppression effect Mitigation effect Response Measures 𝑅 relative reduction 𝐷 relative reduction 𝑝 relative reduction ! ! ! Level 0 No mandatory restrictions 0 0 0 Minimal response Closing schools, Level 1 35% 22% 29% International travel Soft response CI: [25%, 45%] CI: [17%, 27%] CI: [18%, 38%] controls. Cancel public events, Level 2 Restrictions on gathering, 60% 26% 56% Strong response Restrictions on internal CI: [54%, 65%] CI: [21%, 30%] CI: [50%, 61%] movement. 71% 37% 67% Close workplace, Level 3 CI: [68%, 74%] CI: [35%, 40%] CI: [64%, 70%] Close public transport, Stay-at-home Level 4 74% 40% 70% requirements. Emergent response CI: [71%, 77%] CI: [37%, 42%] CI: [66%, 73%] limitations. Firstly, the reporting protocols and standards of confirmed cases, as well as the detection rates, vary among countries. However, as long as the reporting bias is consistent over time, the inference results of 𝑝 , 𝐷 and 𝑅 should not be " " " affected. We also note that the implementation of multiple intervention measures within a short interval makes it challenging to quantify the impact of a single measure which needs further statistical analysis. VII. CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, we propose a comprehensive Bayesian updating approach to timely estimate parameters of COVID-19 epidemic models. The disease transmission dynamics is modelled by renewal equations with time-varying parameters. Instead of purely focusing on estimating instantaneous Fig. 9. The relative reduction of mitigation factor 𝑝 and suppression factor reproduction number 𝑅 , we introduce two complementary 𝐷 under different response levels compared to minimal response level. parameters, the mitigation factor (𝑝 ) and the suppression factor (𝐷 ), to quantify intervention impacts at a finer granularity. A C. Resurgence risks in United States Bayesian updating scheme is adopted to dynamically infer We also used the proposed framework to estimate the model parameters. By monitoring and analyzing the evolution epidemic evolution in different states of the United States. We of the estimated parameters, impacts of intervention measures st observed that, as of the week ending May 31 , the averaged in different response levels can be quantitatively assessed. We reproduction number 𝑅 in 30 states exceeds 1 (Figure 10). have applied our method to European countries, the United These could be related to the recent lift of government States and Wuhan, and reveal the effects of interventions in restrictions and alert us to take a close monitoring on the these countries and the resurgence risk in the USA. Our work epidemic evolution. opens a promising venue to inform policy for better decision- th At the time of preparing this paper (June 18 2020), 29 out making in response to a possible second-wave outbreak. th of the 30 states we alerted on 9 June 2020 have experienced an increased number of daily confirmed cases compared to that st of May 31 , and 14 states have recorded all-time high after May ACKNOWLEDGMENT st 31 . When we prepare the final version in early August, this We express our sincere thanks to all members of the joint alarming prediction of a second wave outbreak is unfortunately analysis team between Imperial College London, University of proven true for all the states listed. Cambridge and University of Kent and Hong Kong Baptist So far, the application of the framework to many countries University. We thank Yuting Xing for helping collect epidemic and the retrospective impact analysis of intervention measures data in Wuhan and the United States. We thank Siyao Wang in European countries indicate the effectiveness of our and Liqun Wu for their efforts on developing a digital tracing approach in monitoring 𝑅 . This can be further validated by app for validation and visualization. predicting the evolution of 𝑝 , 𝐷 and 𝑅 and projected " " " infections in future study. Our current study has several 9 Fig. 10. The averaged 𝑅 values in different states of the United States. We report the result of averaged 𝑅 in the US during the week ending May 31st 2020, ! ! which is ranked by the averaged 𝑅 value (annotated with green if above 1, left). States with total confirmed cases less than 1,000 are excluded from the analysis. novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia,” N. Engl. J. Med., vol. 382, no. 13, pp. 1199–1207, 2020. [18] J. T. Wu, K. Leung, and G. M. Leung, “Nowcasting and forecasting REFERENCES the potential domestic and international spread of the 2019-nCoV outbreak originating in Wuhan, China: a modelling study,” Lancet, [1] E. Dong, H. Du, and L. Gardner, “An interactive web-based vol. 395, no. 10225, pp. 689–697, 2020. dashboard to track COVID-19 in real time,” Lancet Infect. Dis., vol. [19] P. Nouvellet et al., “Report 26: Reduction in mobility and COVID- 20, no. 5, pp. 533–534, May 2020. 19 transmission.” [2] T. Hale, A. Petherick, T. Phillips, and S. Webster, “Variation in [20] M. Asch, M. Bocquet, and M. Nodet, Data assimilation: methods, government responses to COVID-19,” 2020. algorithms, and applications. 2016. [3] A. Pan et al., “Association of Public Health Interventions With the [21] Z. Chen, “Bayesian filtering: From Kalman filters to particle filters, Epidemiology of the COVID-19 Outbreak in Wuhan, China,” and beyond,” Statistics (Ber)., vol. 182, no. 1, pp. 1–69, 2003. JAMA, vol. 323, no. 19, p. 1915, May 2020. [22] C. J. Rhodes and T. D. Hollingsworth, “Variational data [4] R. Li et al., “Substantial undocumented infection facilitates the assimilation with epidemic models,” J. Theor. Biol., vol. 258, no. 4, rapid dissemination of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV2),” Science pp. 591–602, 2009. (80-. )., vol. 3221, no. March, p. eabb3221, 2020. [23] L. M. A. Bettencourt and R. M. Ribeiro, “Real time bayesian [5] L. Ferretti et al., “Quantifying SARS-CoV-2 transmission suggests estimation of the epidemic potential of emerging infectious epidemic control with digital contact tracing.,” Science, vol. 6936, diseases,” PLoS One, vol. 3, no. 5, p. e2185, 2008. no. March, pp. 1–13, 2020. [24] L. Cobb, A. Krishnamurthy, J. Mandel, and J. D. Beezley, [6] E. Vynnycky and R. White, An introduction to infectious disease “Bayesian tracking of emerging epidemics using ensemble optimal modelling. OUP oxford, 2010. statistical interpolation,” Spat. Spatiotemporal. Epidemiol., vol. 10, [7] N. C. Grassly and C. Fraser, “Mathematical models of infectious pp. 39–48, 2014. disease transmission,” Nat. Rev. Microbiol., vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 477– [25] E. Goldstein, J. Dushoff, M. Junling, J. B. Plotkin, D. J. D. Earn, 487, 2008. and M. Lipsitch, “Reconstructing influenza incidence by [8] C. Fraser, “Estimating individual and household reproduction deconvolution of daily mortality time series,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. numbers in an emerging epidemic,” PLoS One, vol. 2, no. 8, 2007. U. S. A., vol. 106, no. 51, pp. 21825–21829, 2009. [9] J. Ma and D. J. D. Earn, “Generality of the final size formula for an [26] C. Mark, C. Metzner, L. Lautscham, P. L. Strissel, R. Strick, and B. epidemic of a newly invading infectious disease,” Bull. Math. Biol., Fabry, “Bayesian model selection for complex dynamic systems,” vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 679–702, 2006. Nat. Commun., vol. 9, no. 1, 2018. [10] K. Leung, J. T. Wu, D. Liu, and G. M. Leung, “First-wave COVID- [27] A. Agresti, An introduction to categorical data analysis. John Wiley 19 transmissibility and severity in China outside Hubei after control & Sons, 2018. measures, and second-wave scenario planning: a modelling impact assessment,” Lancet, vol. 395, no. 10233, pp. 1382–1393, Apr. [11] S. Flaxman et al., “Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe,” Nature, pp. 1–5, 2020. [12] R. N. Thompson et al., “Improved inference of time-varying reproduction numbers during infectious disease outbreaks,” Epidemics, vol. 29, no. August, 2019. [13] A. Cori, N. M. Ferguson, C. Fraser, and S. Cauchemez, “A new framework and software to estimate time-varying reproduction numbers during epidemics,” Am. J. Epidemiol., vol. 178, no. 9, pp. 1505–1512, 2013. [14] J. Wallinga and P. Teunis, “Different epidemic curves for severe acute respiratory syndrome reveal similar impacts of control measures,” Am. J. Epidemiol., vol. 160, no. 6, pp. 509–516, 2004. [15] D. Adam, “A guide to R-the pandemic’s misunderstood metric.,” Nature, vol. 583, no. 7816, pp. 346–348, 2020. [16] N. Imai, I. Dorigatti, A. Cori, C. Donnelly, S. Riley, and N. Ferguson, “Report 2: Estimating the potential total number of novel Coronavirus cases in Wuhan City, China,” 2020. [17] Q. Li et al., “Early transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China, of

Journal

Quantitative Biology – arXiv (Cornell University)

Published: Jun 19, 2020

There are no references for this article.