Search

Emerging evidence suggests that contact tracing has had limited success in the UK in reducing the R number across the COVID-19 pandemic. We investigate potential pitfalls and areas for improvement by extending an existing branching process contact tracing model, adding diagnostic testing and refining parameter estimates. Our results demonstrate that reporting and adherence are the most important predictors of programme impact but tracing coverage and speed plus diagnostic sensitivity also play an important role. We conclude that well-implemented contact tracing could bring small but potentially important benefits to controlling and preventing outbreaks, providing up to a 15% reduction in R. We reaffirm that contact tracing is not currently appropriate as the sole control measure.

Background The COVID-19 epidemic has differentially impacted communities across England, with regional variation in rates of confirmed cases, hospitalisations and deaths. Measurement of this burden changed substantially over the first months, as surveillance was expanded to accommodate the escalating epidemic. Laboratory confirmation was initially restricted to clinical need (“pillar 1”) before expanding to community-wide symptomatics (“pillar 2”). This study aimed to ascertain whether inconsistent measurement of case data resulting from varying testing coverage could be reconciled by drawing inference from COVID-19-related deaths. Methods We fit a Bayesian spatio-temporal model to weekly COVID-19-related deaths per local authority (LTLA) throughout the first wave (1 January 2020–30 June 2020), adjusting for the local epidemic timing and the age, deprivation and ethnic composition of its population. We combined predictions from this model with case data under community-wide, symptomatic testing and infection prevalence estimates from the ONS infection survey, to infer the likely trajectory of infections implied by the deaths in each LTLA. Results A model including temporally- and spatially-correlated random effects was found to best accommodate the observed variation in COVID-19-related deaths, after accounting for local population characteristics. Predicted case counts under community-wide symptomatic testing suggest a total of 275,000–420,000 cases over the first wave - a median of over 100,000 additional to the total confirmed in practice under varying testing coverage. This translates to a peak incidence of around 200,000 total infections per week across England. The extent to which estimated total infections are reflected in confirmed case counts was found to vary substantially across LTLAs, ranging from 7% in Leicester to 96% in Gloucester with a median of 23%. Conclusions Limitations in testing capacity biased the observed trajectory of COVID-19 infections throughout the first wave. Basing inference on COVID-19-related mortality and higher-coverage testing later in the time period, we could explore the extent of this bias more explicitly. Evidence points towards substantial under-representation of initial growth and peak magnitude of infections nationally, to which different parts of the country contribute unequally. ESN and GFM are funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (ESN: OPP1183986, GFM: OPP1184344). OJB and SA are funded by the Wellcome Trust (OJB: 206471/Z/17/Z, SA: 210758/Z/18/Z, TWR: 206250/Z/17/Z). RL is funded by the Royal Society (Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowship). The following funding sources are acknowledged as providing funding for the CMMID Covid-19 working group: This research was partly funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1183986: ESN). This research was partly funded by the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) project ‘RECAP’ managed through RCUK and ESRC (ES/P010873/1: TJ). This research was partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) using UK aid from the UK Government to support global health research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care (Health Protection Research Unit for Modelling Methodology HPRU-2012-10096: TJ). UK MRC (LID DTP MR/N013638/1: QJL; MC_PC_19065: TJ). Authors of this research receive funding from UK Public Health Rapid Support Team funded by the United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Care (TJ). Wellcome Trust (210758/Z/18/Z: SA). The following funding sources are acknowledged as providing funding for the working group authors. Alan Turing Institute (AE). BBSRC LIDP (BB/M009513/1: DS). This research was partly funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-003174: KP, MJ, YL; NTD Modelling Consortium OPP1184344: CABP, GM; OPP1180644: SRP; OPP1191821: KO’R, MA). DFID/Wellcome Trust (Epidemic Preparedness Coronavirus research programme 221303/Z/20/Z: CABP, KvZ). Elrha R2HC/UK DFID/Wellcome Trust/This research was partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) using UK aid from the UK Government to support global health research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care (KvZ). ERC Starting Grant (#757688: CJVA, KEA; #757699: JCE, MQ, RMGJH). This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme—project EpiPose (101003688: KP, MJ, PK, WJE, YL). This research was partly funded by the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) project ‘RECAP’ managed through RCUK and ESRC (ES/P010873/1: AG, CIJ). HDR UK (MR/S003975/1: RME). Nakajima Foundation (AE). NIHR (16/137/109: BJQ, CD, FYS, MJ, YL; Health Protection Research Unit for Modelling Methodology HPRU-2012-10096: NGD; PR-OD-1017-20002: AR). Royal Society (Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowship: RL; RP\EA\180004: PK). UK DHSC/UK Aid/NIHR (ITCRZ 03010: HPG). UK MRC (LID DTP MR/N013638/1: EMR; MC_PC 19065: RME; MR/P014658/1: GMK). Wellcome Trust (206250/Z/17/Z: AJK, TWR; 208812/Z/17/Z: SC, SFlasche; 210758/Z/18/Z: JDM, JH, NIB, SFunk, SRM). No funding (AKD, AMF, DCT, SH) Peer Reviewed CMMID Covid-19 Working Group: Rachel Lowe, Graham F. Medley & Oliver J. Brady

The dynamics of immunity are crucial to understanding the long-term patterns of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Several cases of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 have been documented 48–142 days after the initial infection and immunity to seasonal circulating coronaviruses is estimated to be shorter than 1 year. Using an age-structured, deterministic model, we explore potential immunity dynamics using contact data from the UK population. In the scenario where immunity to SARS-CoV-2 lasts an average of three months for non-hospitalized individuals, a year for hospitalized individuals, and the effective reproduction number after lockdown ends is 1.2 (our worst-case scenario), we find that the secondary peak occurs in winter 2020 with a daily maximum of 387 000 infectious individuals and 125 000 daily new cases; threefold greater than in a scenario with permanent immunity. Our models suggest that longitudinal serological surveys to determine if immunity in the population is waning will be most informative when sampling takes place from the end of the lockdown in June until autumn 2020. After this period, the proportion of the population with antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 is expected to increase due to the secondary wave. Overall, our analysis presents considerations for policy makers on the longer-term dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 in the UK and suggests that strategies designed to achieve herd immunity may lead to repeated waves of infection as immunity to reinfection is not permanent.This article is part of the theme issue ‘Modelling that shaped the early COVID-19 pandemic response in the UK’.

Retrospective analyses into the non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) used to combat the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak have highlighted the potential of optimizing interventions. These optimal interventions allow for policymakers to manage NPIs to minimize the epidemiological and human health impacts of both COVID-19 and the intervention itself. Here, we use a susceptible–infectious–recovered (SIR) mathematical model to explore the feasibility of optimizing the duration, magnitude and trigger point of five different NPI scenarios to minimize the peak prevalence or the attack rate of a simulated UK COVID-19 outbreak. An optimal parameter space to minimize the peak prevalence or the attack rate was identified for each intervention scenario, with each scenario differing with regard to how reductions to transmission were modelled. However, we show that these optimal interventions are fragile, sensitive to epidemiological uncertainty and prone to implementation error. We highlight the use of robust, but suboptimal interventions as an alternative, with these interventions capable of mitigating the peak prevalence or the attack rate over a broader, more achievable parameter space, but being less efficacious than theoretically optimal interventions. This work provides an illustrative example of the concept of intervention optimization across a range of different NPI strategies.This article is part of the theme issue ‘Modelling that shaped the early COVID-19 pandemic response in the UK’.

Footrot, including interdigital dermatitis, is caused by Dichelobacter nodosus cause the majority of lameness in sheep in the UK. Lame sheep often have overgrown hoof horn but recent evidence has indicated that trimming overgrown hoof horn increases recovery time, and that routine foot trimming of the flock does not reduce the prevalence or incidence of lameness. The objectives of this study were to investigate the temporal associations between hoof horn length, footrot and climate. Fifty multiparous ewes were monitored for 10 months. On eight occasions hoof horn length, foot lesions and body condition were recorded. At the first examination, ewes were assigned to one of two treatment groups. All ewes that became lame with footrot were treated at one time point per week, either by trimming hoof horn and applying a topical antibiotic spray or with parenteral antibiotic and topical antibiotic spray.Hoof horn length in ewes at pasture varied over the year and was associated with temperature and rainfall. New cases of footrot occurred all year round and were associated with prior prevalence of footrot in the flock and prior temperature and rainfall. Overgrown hoof horn did not precede lameness but occurred once the sheep were lame. One year of prompt treatment of footrot reduced the range in hoof horn length in the sheep in both treatment groups. At the end of the study the hoof lengths of ewes in both groups were not significantly different. On this farm, hoof horn length was self-regulating in both non-lame and treated lame sheep whether trimming was part of the treatment or not and there would have been no benefit from routine foot trimming of this flock.

This study demonstrates that an adoption of a segmenting and shielding strategy could increase the scope to partially exit COVID-19 lockdown while limiting the risk of an overwhelming second wave of infection. We illustrate this using a mathematical model that segments the vulnerable population and their closest contacts, the ‘shielders’. Effects of extending the duration of lockdown and faster or slower transition to post-lockdown conditions and, most importantly, the trade-off between increased protection of the vulnerable segment and fewer restrictions on the general population are explored. Our study shows that the most important determinants of outcome are (i) post-lockdown transmission rates within the general and between the general and vulnerable segments; (ii) fractions of the population in the vulnerable and shielder segments; (iii) adherence to protective measures and (iv) build-up of population immunity. Additionally, we found that effective measures in the shielder segment, e.g. intensive routine screening, allow further relaxations in the general population. We find that the outcome of any future policy is strongly influenced by the contact matrix between segments and the relationships between physical distancing measures and transmission rates. This strategy has potential applications for any infectious disease for which there are defined proportions of the population who cannot be treated or who are at risk of severe outcomes.This article is part of the theme issue ‘Modelling that shaped the early COVID-19 pandemic response in the UK’.

This study demonstrates that an adoption of a segmenting and shielding strategy could increase the scope to partially exit COVID-19 lockdown while limiting the risk of an overwhelming second wave of infection. We illustrate this using a mathematical model that segments the vulnerable population and their closest contacts, the ‘shielders’. Effects of extending the duration of lockdown and faster or slower transition to post-lockdown conditions and, most importantly, the trade-off between increased protection of the vulnerable segment and fewer restrictions on the general population are explored. Our study shows that the most important determinants of outcome are (i) post-lockdown transmission rates within the general and between the general and vulnerable segments; (ii) fractions of the population in the vulnerable and shielder segments; (iii) adherence to protective measures and (iv) build-up of population immunity. Additionally, we found that effective measures in the shielder segment, e.g. intensive routine screening, allow further relaxations in the general population. We find that the outcome of any future policy is strongly influenced by the contact matrix between segments and the relationships between physical distancing measures and transmission rates. This strategy has potential applications for any infectious disease for which there are defined proportions of the population who cannot be treated or who are at risk of severe outcomes.This article is part of the theme issue ‘Modelling that shaped the early COVID-19 pandemic response in the UK’.

Emerging evidence suggests that contact tracing has had limited success in the UK in reducing the R number across the COVID-19 pandemic. We investigate potential pitfalls and areas for improvement by extending an existing branching process contact tracing model, adding diagnostic testing and refining parameter estimates. Our results demonstrate that reporting and adherence are the most important predictors of programme impact but tracing coverage and speed plus diagnostic sensitivity also play an important role. We conclude that well-implemented contact tracing could bring small but potentially important benefits to controlling and preventing outbreaks, providing up to a 15% reduction in R. We reaffirm that contact tracing is not currently appropriate as the sole control measure.