29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Demographic science aids in understanding the spread and fatality rates of COVID-19

      brief-report

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Governments around the world must rapidly mobilize and make difficult policy decisions to mitigate the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Because deaths have been concentrated at older ages, we highlight the important role of demography, particularly, how the age structure of a population may help explain differences in fatality rates across countries and how transmission unfolds. We examine the role of age structure in deaths thus far in Italy and South Korea and illustrate how the pandemic could unfold in populations with similar population sizes but different age structures, showing a dramatically higher burden of mortality in countries with older versus younger populations. This powerful interaction of demography and current age-specific mortality for COVID-19 suggests that social distancing and other policies to slow transmission should consider the age composition of local and national contexts as well as intergenerational interactions. We also call for countries to provide case and fatality data disaggregated by age and sex to improve real-time targeted forecasting of hospitalization and critical care needs.

          Related collections

          Most cited references6

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          How will country-based mitigation measures influence the course of the COVID-19 epidemic?

          Governments will not be able to minimise both deaths from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the economic impact of viral spread. Keeping mortality as low as possible will be the highest priority for individuals; hence governments must put in place measures to ameliorate the inevitable economic downturn. In our view, COVID-19 has developed into a pandemic, with small chains of transmission in many countries and large chains resulting in extensive spread in a few countries, such as Italy, Iran, South Korea, and Japan. 1 Most countries are likely to have spread of COVID-19, at least in the early stages, before any mitigation measures have an impact. What has happened in China shows that quarantine, social distancing, and isolation of infected populations can contain the epidemic. 1 This impact of the COVID-19 response in China is encouraging for the many countries where COVID-19 is beginning to spread. However, it is unclear whether other countries can implement the stringent measures China eventually adopted. Singapore and Hong Kong, both of which had severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemics in 2002–03, provide hope and many lessons to other countries. In both places, COVID-19 has been managed well to date, despite early cases, by early government action and through social distancing measures taken by individuals. The course of an epidemic is defined by a series of key factors, some of which are poorly understood at present for COVID-19. The basic reproduction number (R0), which defines the mean number of secondary cases generated by one primary case when the population is largely susceptible to infection, determines the overall number of people who are likely to be infected, or more precisely the area under the epidemic curve. For an epidemic to take hold, the value of R0 must be greater than unity in value. A simple calculation gives the fraction likely to be infected without mitigation. This fraction is roughly 1–1/R0. With R0 values for COVID-19 in China around 2·5 in the early stages of the epidemic, 2 we calculate that approximately 60% of the population would become infected. This is a very worst-case scenario for a number of reasons. We are uncertain about transmission in children, some communities are remote and unlikely to be exposed, voluntary social distancing by individuals and communities will have an impact, and mitigation efforts, such as the measures put in place in China, greatly reduce transmission. As an epidemic progresses, the effective reproduction number (R) declines until it falls below unity in value when the epidemic peaks and then decays, either due to the exhaustion of people susceptible to infection or the impact of control measures. The speed of the initial spread of the epidemic, its doubling time, or the related serial interval (the mean time it takes for an infected person to pass on the infection to others), and the likely duration of the epidemic are determined by factors such as the length of time from infection to when a person is infectious to others and the mean duration of infectiousness. For the 2009 influenza A H1N1 pandemic, in most infected people these epidemiological quantities were short with a day or so to infectiousness and a few days of peak infectiousness to others. 3 By contrast, for COVID-19, the serial interval is estimated at 4·4–7·5 days, which is more similar to SARS. 4 First among the important unknowns about COVID-19 is the case fatality rate (CFR), which requires information on the denominator that defines the number infected. We are unaware of any completed large-scale serology surveys to detect specific antibodies to COVID-19. Best estimates suggest a CFR for COVID-19 of about 0·3–1%, 4 which is higher than the order of 0·1% CFR for a moderate influenza A season. 5 The second unknown is the whether infectiousness starts before onset of symptoms. The incubation period for COVID-19 is about 5–6 days.4, 6 Combining this time with a similar length serial interval suggests there might be considerable presymptomatic infectiousness (appendix 1). For reference, influenza A has a presymptomatic infectiousness of about 1–2 days, whereas SARS had little or no presymptomatic infectiousness. 7 There have been few clinical studies to measure COVID-19 viraemia and how it changes over time in individuals. In one study of 17 patients with COVID-19, peak viraemia seems to be at the end of the incubation period, 8 pointing to the possibility that viraemia might be high enough to trigger transmission for 1–2 days before onset of symptoms. If these patterns are verified by more extensive clinical virological studies, COVID-19 would be expected to be more like influenza A than SARS. For SARS, peak infectiousness took place many days after first symptoms, hence the success of quarantine of patients with SARS soon after symptoms started 7 and the lack of success for this measure for influenza A and possibly for COVID-19. The third uncertainty is whether there are a large number of asymptomatic cases of COVID-19. Estimates suggest that about 80% of people with COVID-19 have mild or asymptomatic disease, 14% have severe disease, and 6% are critically ill, 9 implying that symptom-based control is unlikely to be sufficient unless these cases are only lightly infectious. The fourth uncertainty is the duration of the infectious period for COVID-19. The infectious period is typically short for influenza A, but it seems long for COVID-19 on the basis of the few available clinical virological studies, perhaps lasting for 10 days or more after the incubation period. 8 The reports of a few super-spreading events are a routine feature of all infectious diseases and should not be overinterpreted. 10 What do these comparisons with influenza A and SARS imply for the COVID-19 epidemic and its control? First, we think that the epidemic in any given country will initially spread more slowly than is typical for a new influenza A strain. COVID-19 had a doubling time in China of about 4–5 days in the early phases. 3 Second, the COVID-19 epidemic could be more drawn out than seasonal influenza A, which has relevance for its potential economic impact. Third, the effect of seasons on transmission of COVID-19 is unknown; 11 however, with an R0 of 2–3, the warm months of summer in the northern hemisphere might not necessarily reduce transmission below the value of unity as they do for influenza A, which typically has an R0 of around 1·1–1·5. 12 Closely linked to these factors and their epidemiological determinants is the impact of different mitigation policies on the course of the COVID-19 epidemic. A key issue for epidemiologists is helping policy makers decide the main objectives of mitigation—eg, minimising morbidity and associated mortality, avoiding an epidemic peak that overwhelms health-care services, keeping the effects on the economy within manageable levels, and flattening the epidemic curve to wait for vaccine development and manufacture on scale and antiviral drug therapies. Such mitigation objectives are difficult to achieve by the same interventions, so choices must be made about priorities. 13 For COVID-19, the potential economic impact of self-isolation or mandated quarantine could be substantial, as occurred in China. No vaccine or effective antiviral drug is likely to be available soon. Vaccine development is underway, but the key issues are not if a vaccine can be developed but where phase 3 trials will be done and who will manufacture vaccine at scale. The number of cases of COVID-19 are falling quickly in China, 4 but a site for phase 3 vaccine trials needs to be in a location where there is ongoing transmission of the disease. Manufacturing at scale requires one or more of the big vaccine manufacturers to take up the challenge and work closely with the biotechnology companies who are developing vaccine candidates. This process will take time and we are probably a least 1 year to 18 months away from substantial vaccine production. So what is left at present for mitigation is voluntary plus mandated quarantine, stopping mass gatherings, closure of educational institutes or places of work where infection has been identified, and isolation of households, towns, or cities. Some of the lessons from analyses of influenza A apply for COVID-19, but there are also differences. Social distancing measures reduce the value of the effective reproduction number R. With an early epidemic value of R0 of 2·5, social distancing would have to reduce transmission by about 60% or less, if the intrinsic transmission potential declines in the warm summer months in the northern hemisphere. This reduction is a big ask, but it did happen in China. School closure, a major pillar of the response to pandemic influenza A, 14 is unlikely to be effective given the apparent low rate of infection among children, although data are scarce. Avoiding large gatherings of people will reduce the number of super-spreading events; however, if prolonged contact is required for transmission, this measure might only reduce a small proportion of transmissions. Therefore, broader-scale social distancing is likely to be needed, as was put in place in China. This measure prevents transmission from symptomatic and non-symptomatic cases, hence flattening the epidemic and pushing the peak further into the future. Broader-scale social distancing provides time for the health services to treat cases and increase capacity, and, in the longer term, for vaccines and treatments to be developed. Containment could be targeted to particular areas, schools, or mass gatherings. This approach underway in northern Italy will provide valuable data on the effectiveness of such measures. The greater the reduction in transmission, the longer and flatter the epidemic curve (figure ), with the risk of resurgence when interventions are lifted perhaps to mitigate economic impact. Figure Illustrative simulations of a transmission model of COVID-19 A baseline simulation with case isolation only (red); a simulation with social distancing in place throughout the epidemic, flattening the curve (green), and a simulation with more effective social distancing in place for a limited period only, typically followed by a resurgent epidemic when social distancing is halted (blue). These are not quantitative predictions but robust qualitative illustrations for a range of model choices. The key epidemiological issues that determine the impact of social distancing measures are what proportion of infected individuals have mild symptoms and whether these individuals will self-isolate and to what effectiveness; how quickly symptomatic individuals take to isolate themselves after the onset of symptoms; and the duration of any non-symptomatic infectious period before clear symptoms occur with the linked issue of how transmissible COVID-19 is during this phase. Individual behaviour will be crucial to control the spread of COVID-19. Personal, rather than government action, in western democracies might be the most important issue. Early self-isolation, seeking medical advice remotely unless symptoms are severe, and social distancing are key. Government actions to ban mass gatherings are important, as are good diagnostic facilities and remotely accessed health advice, together with specialised treatment for people with severe disease. Isolating towns or even cities is not yet part of the UK Government action plan. 15 This plan is light on detail, given the early stages of the COVID-19 epidemic and the many uncertainties, but it outlines four phases of action entitled contain, delay, research, and mitigate. 15 The UK has just moved from contain to delay, which aims to flatten the epidemic and lower peak morbidity and mortality. If measures are relaxed after a few months to avoid severe economic impact, a further peak is likely to occur in the autumn (figure). Italy, South Korea, Japan, and Iran are at the mitigate phase and trying to provide the best care possible for a rapidly growing number of people with COVID-19. The known epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 point to urgent priorities. Shortening the time from symptom onset to isolation is vital as it will reduce transmission and is likely to slow the epidemic (appendices 2, 3) However, strategies are also needed for reducing household transmission, supporting home treatment and diagnosis, and dealing with the economic consequences of absence from work. Peak demand for health services could still be high and the extent and duration of presymptomatic or asymptomatic transmission—if this turns out to be a feature of COVID-19 infection—will determine the success of this strategy. 16 Contact tracing is of high importance in the early stages to contain spread, and model-based estimates suggest, with an R0 value of 2·5, that about 70% of contacts will have to be successfully traced to control early spread. 17 Analysis of individual contact patterns suggests that contact tracing can be a successful strategy in the early stages of an outbreak, but that the logistics of timely tracing on average 36 contacts per case will be challenging. 17 Super-spreading events are inevitable, and could overwhelm the contact tracing system, leading to the need for broader-scale social distancing interventions. Data from China, South Korea, Italy, and Iran suggest that the CFR increases sharply with age and is higher in people with COVID-19 and underlying comorbidities. 18 Targeted social distancing for these groups could be the most effective way to reduce morbidity and concomitant mortality. During the outbreak of Ebola virus disease in west Africa in 2014–16, deaths from other causes increased because of a saturated health-care system and deaths of health-care workers. 19 These events underline the importance of enhanced support for health-care infrastructure and effective procedures for protecting staff from infection. In northern countries, there is speculation that changing contact patterns and warmer weather might slow the spread of the virus in the summer. 11 With an R0 of 2·5 or higher, reductions in transmission by social distancing would have to be large; and much of the changes in transmission of pandemic influenza in the summer of 2009 within Europe were thought to be due to school closures, but children are not thought to be driving transmission of COVID-19. Data from the southern hemisphere will assist in evaluating how much seasonality will influence COVID-19 transmission. Model-based predictions can help policy makers make the right decisions in a timely way, even with the uncertainties about COVID-19. Indicating what level of transmission reduction is required for social distancing interventions to mitigate the epidemic is a key activity (figure). However, it is easy to suggest a 60% reduction in transmission will do it or quarantining within 1 day from symptom onset will control transmission, but it is unclear what communication strategies or social distancing actions individuals and governments must put in place to achieve these desired outcomes. A degree of pragmatism will be needed for the implementation of social distancing and quarantine measures. Ongoing data collection and epidemiological analysis are therefore essential parts of assessing the impacts of mitigation strategies, alongside clinical research on how to best manage seriously ill patients with COVID-19. There are difficult decisions ahead for governments. How individuals respond to advice on how best to prevent transmission will be as important as government actions, if not more important. Government communication strategies to keep the public informed of how best to avoid infection are vital, as is extra support to manage the economic downturn.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            [The epidemiological characteristics of an outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus diseases (COVID-19) in China].

            (2020)
            Objective: An outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus diseases (COVID-19) in Wuhan, China has spread quickly nationwide. Here, we report results of a descriptive, exploratory analysis of all cases diagnosed as of February 11, 2020. Methods: All COVID-19 cases reported through February 11, 2020 were extracted from China's Infectious Disease Information System. Analyses included: 1) summary of patient characteristics; 2) examination of age distributions and sex ratios; 3) calculation of case fatality and mortality rates; 4) geo-temporal analysis of viral spread; 5) epidemiological curve construction; and 6) subgroup analysis. Results: A total of 72 314 patient records-44 672 (61.8%) confirmed cases, 16 186 (22.4%) suspected cases, 10567 (14.6%) clinical diagnosed cases (Hubei only), and 889 asymptomatic cases (1.2%)-contributed data for the analysis. Among confirmed cases, most were aged 30-79 years (86.6%), diagnosed in Hubei (74.7%), and considered mild (80.9%). A total of 1 023 deaths occurred among confirmed cases for an overall case-fatality rate of 2.3%. The COVID-19 spread outward from Hubei sometime after December 2019 and by February 11, 2020, 1 386 counties across all 31 provinces were affected. The epidemic curve of onset of symptoms peaked in January 23-26, then began to decline leading up to February 11. A total of 1 716 health workers have become infected and 5 have died (0.3%). Conclusions: The COVID-19 epidemic has spread very quickly. It only took 30 days to expand from Hubei to the rest of Mainland China. With many people returning from a long holiday, China needs to prepare for the possible rebound of the epidemic.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Association of Public Health Interventions With the Epidemiology of the COVID-19 Outbreak in Wuhan, China

              Was there an association of public health interventions with improved control of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China? In this cohort study that included 32 583 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in Wuhan from December 8, 2019, through March 8, 2020, the institution of interventions including cordons sanitaire , traffic restriction, social distancing, home quarantine, centralized quarantine, and universal symptom survey was temporally associated with reduced effective reproduction number of SARS-CoV-2 (secondary transmission) and the number of confirmed cases per day across age groups, sex, and geographic regions. A series of multifaceted public health interventions was temporally associated with improved control of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan and may inform public health policy in other countries and regions. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic, and it is unknown whether a combination of public health interventions can improve control of the outbreak. To evaluate the association of public health interventions with the epidemiological features of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan by 5 periods according to key events and interventions. In this cohort study, individual-level data on 32 583 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases reported between December 8, 2019, and March 8, 2020, were extracted from the municipal Notifiable Disease Report System, including patients’ age, sex, residential location, occupation, and severity classification. Nonpharmaceutical public health interventions including cordons sanitaire , traffic restriction, social distancing, home confinement, centralized quarantine, and universal symptom survey. Rates of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infections (defined as the number of cases per day per million people), across age, sex, and geographic locations were calculated across 5 periods: December 8 to January 9 (no intervention), January 10 to 22 (massive human movement due to the Chinese New Year holiday), January 23 to February 1 ( cordons sanitaire , traffic restriction and home quarantine), February 2 to 16 (centralized quarantine and treatment), and February 17 to March 8 (universal symptom survey). The effective reproduction number of SARS-CoV-2 (an indicator of secondary transmission) was also calculated over the periods. Among 32 583 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases, the median patient age was 56.7 years (range, 0-103; interquartile range, 43.4-66.8) and 16 817 (51.6%) were women. The daily confirmed case rate peaked in the third period and declined afterward across geographic regions and sex and age groups, except for children and adolescents, whose rate of confirmed cases continued to increase. The daily confirmed case rate over the whole period in local health care workers (130.5 per million people [95% CI, 123.9-137.2]) was higher than that in the general population (41.5 per million people [95% CI, 41.0-41.9]). The proportion of severe and critical cases decreased from 53.1% to 10.3% over the 5 periods. The severity risk increased with age: compared with those aged 20 to 39 years (proportion of severe and critical cases, 12.1%), elderly people (≥80 years) had a higher risk of having severe or critical disease (proportion, 41.3%; risk ratio, 3.61 [95% CI, 3.31-3.95]) while younger people (<20 years) had a lower risk (proportion, 4.1%; risk ratio, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.31-0.70]). The effective reproduction number fluctuated above 3.0 before January 26, decreased to below 1.0 after February 6, and decreased further to less than 0.3 after March 1. A series of multifaceted public health interventions was temporally associated with improved control of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China. These findings may inform public health policy in other countries and regions. This population epidemiology study examines associations between phases of nonpharmaceutical public health interventions (social distancing, centralized quarantine, home confinement, and others) and rates of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection in Wuhan, China, between December 2019 and early March 2020.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
                Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A
                pnas
                pnas
                PNAS
                Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
                National Academy of Sciences
                0027-8424
                1091-6490
                5 May 2020
                16 April 2020
                16 April 2020
                : 117
                : 18
                : 9696-9698
                Affiliations
                [1] aLeverhulme Centre for Demographic Science, Nuffield College, University of Oxford , Oxford OX1 3UQ, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: jennifer.dowd@ 123456sociology.ox.ac.uk or melinda.mills@ 123456nuffield.ox.ac.uk .

                Edited by Douglas S. Massey, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved April 8, 2020 (received for review March 17, 2020)

                Author contributions: J.B.D. and M.C.M. designed research; P.B., X.D., Y.L., and M.C.M. performed research; L.A., D.M.B., and V.R. analyzed data; and J.B.D., V.R., and M.C.M. wrote the paper.

                Article
                202004911
                10.1073/pnas.2004911117
                7211934
                32300018
                7d71dd49-2b09-4fbb-9131-2974b36488cb
                Copyright © 2020 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.

                This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY).

                Page count
                Pages: 3
                Product
                Funding
                Funded by: Leverhulme Trust 501100000275
                Award ID: Large Centre Grant
                Award Recipient : Melinda C Mills
                Funded by: EC | H2020 | H2020 Priority Excellent Science | H2020 European Research Council (ERC) 100010663
                Award ID: 835079
                Award Recipient : Melinda C Mills
                Categories
                524
                530
                Social Sciences
                Social Sciences
                From the Cover
                Brief Report
                Custom metadata
                free

                covid-19,demography,age structure,mortality
                covid-19, demography, age structure, mortality

                Comments

                Comment on this article