Why estimating population-based case fatality rates during epidemics may be misleading

A scaling approach to estimate the age-dependent COVID-19 infection fatality ratio from incomplete data

SARS-CoV-2 has disrupted the life of billions of people around the world since the first outbreak was officially declared in China at the beginning of 2020. Yet, important questions such as how deadly it is or its degree of spread within different countries remain unanswered. In this work, we exploit the 'universal' increase of the mortality rate with age observed in different countries since the beginning of their respective outbreaks, combined with the results of the antibody prevalence tests in the population of Spain, to unveil both unknowns. We test these results with an analogous antibody rate survey in the canton of Geneva, Switzerland, showing a good agreement. We also argue that the official number of deaths over 70 years old might be importantly underestimated in most of the countries, and we use the comparison between the official records with the number of deaths mentioning COVID-19 in the death certificates to quantify by how much. Using this information, we estimate the infection fatality ratio (IFR) for the different age segments and the fraction of the population infected in different countries assuming a uniform exposure to the virus in all age segments. We also give estimations for the non-uniform IFR using the sero-epidemiological results of Spain, showing a very similar increase of the fatality ratio with age. Only for Spain, we estimate the probability (if infected) of being identified as a case, being hospitalized or admitted in the intensive care units as function of age. In general, we observe a nearly exponential increase of the fatality ratio with age, which anticipates large differences in total IFR in countries with different demographic distributions, with numbers that range from 1.82% in Italy, to 0.62% in China or even 0.14% in middle Africa.

Mid-Epidemic Forecasts of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths: A Bivariate Model Applied to the UK

BACKGROUND

The evolution of the COVID-19 epidemic has been accompanied by efforts to provide comparable international data on new cases and deaths. There is also accumulating evidence on the epidemiological parameters underlying COVID-19. Hence, there is potential for epidemic models providing mid-term forecasts of the epidemic trajectory using such information. The effectiveness of lockdown or lockdown relaxation can also be assessed by modelling later epidemic stages, possibly using a multiphase epidemic model.

METHODS

Commonly applied methods to analyse epidemic trajectories or make forecasts include phenomenological growth models (e.g., the Richards family of densities) and variants of the susceptible-infected-recovered (SIR) compartment model. Here, we focus on a practical forecasting approach, applied to interim UK COVID data, using a bivariate Reynolds model (for cases and deaths), with implementation based on Bayesian inference. We show the utility of informative priors in developing and estimating the model and compare error densities (Poisson-gamma, Poisson-lognormal, and Poisson-log-Student) for overdispersed data on new cases and deaths. We use cross validation to assess medium-term forecasts. We also consider the longer-term postlockdown epidemic profile to assess epidemic containment, using a two-phase model.

RESULTS

Fit to interim mid-epidemic data show better fit to training data and better cross-validation performance for a Poisson-log-Student model. Estimation of longer-term epidemic data after lockdown relaxation, characterised by protracted slow downturn and then upturn in cases, casts doubt on effective containment.

CONCLUSIONS

Many applications of phenomenological models have been to complete epidemics. However, evaluation of such models based simply on their fit to observed data may give only a partial picture, and cross validation against actual trends is also valuable. Similarly, it may be preferable to model incidence rather than cumulative data, although this raises questions about suitable error densities for modelling often erratic fluctuations. Hence, there may be utility in evaluating alternative error assumptions.

An evaluation of mathematical models for the outbreak of COVID-19

Mathematical modelling performs a vital part in estimating and controlling the recent outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this epidemic, most countries impose severe intervention measures to contain the spread of COVID-19. The policymakers are forced to make difficult decisions to leverage between health and economic development. How and when to make clinical and public health decisions in an epidemic situation is a challenging question. The most appropriate solution is based on scientific evidence, which is mainly dependent on data and models. So one of the most critical problems during this crisis is whether we can develop reliable epidemiological models to forecast the evolution of the virus and estimate the effectiveness of various intervention measures and their impacts on the economy. There are numerous types of mathematical model for epidemiological diseases. In this paper, we present some critical reviews on mathematical models for the outbreak of COVID-19. Some elementary models are presented as an initial formulation for an epidemic. We give some basic concepts, notations, and foundation for epidemiological modelling. More related works are also introduced and evaluated by considering epidemiological features such as disease tendency, latent effects, susceptibility, basic reproduction numbers, asymptomatic infections, herd immunity, and impact of the interventions.

Are official confirmed cases and fatalities counts good enough to study the COVID-19 pandemic dynamics? A critical assessment through the case of Italy

As the COVID-19 outbreak is developing the two most frequently reported statistics seem to be the raw confirmed case and case fatalities counts. Focusing on Italy, one of the hardest hit countries, we look at how these two values could be put in perspective to reflect the dynamics of the virus spread. In particular, we find that merely considering the confirmed case counts would be very misleading. The number of daily tests grows, while the daily fraction of confirmed cases to total tests has a change point. It (depending on region) generally increases with strong fluctuations till (around, depending on region) 15-22 March and then decreases linearly after. Combined with the increasing trend of daily performed tests, the raw confirmed case counts are not representative of the situation and are confounded with the sampling effort. This we observe when regressing on time the logged fraction of positive tests and for comparison the logged raw confirmed count. Hence, calibrating model parameters for this virus's dynamics should not be done based only on confirmed case counts (without rescaling by the number of tests), but take also fatalities and hospitalization count under consideration as variables not prone to be distorted by testing efforts. Furthermore, reporting statistics on the national level does not say much about the dynamics of the disease, which are taking place at the regional level. These findings are based on the official data of total death counts up to 15 April 2020 released by ISTAT and up to 10 May 2020 for the number of cases. In this work, we do not fit models but we rather investigate whether this task is possible at all. This work also informs about a new tool to collect and harmonize official statistics coming from different sources in the form of a package for the R statistical environment and presents the "COVID-19 Data Hub."