| Literature DB >> 36248679 |
Morten Guldborg Johnsen1, Lasse Engbo Christiansen2, Kaare Græsbøll1.
Abstract
From march 2020 to march 2022 covid-19 has shown a consistent pattern of increasing infections during the Winter and low infection numbers during the Summer. Understanding the effects of seasonal variation on covid-19 spread is crucial for future epidemic modelling and management. In this study, seasonal variation in the transmission rate of covid-19, was estimated based on an epidemic population model of covid-19 in Denmark, which included changes in national restrictions and introduction of the α -variant covid-19 strain, in the period March 2020 - March 2021. Seasonal variation was implemented as a logistic temperature dependent scaling of the transmission rate, and parameters for the logistic relationship was estimated through rejection-based approximate bayesian computation (ABC). The likelihoods used in the ABC were based on national hospital admission data and seroprevalence data stratified into nine and two age groups, respectively. The seasonally induced reduction in the transmission rate of covid-19 in Denmark was estimated to be 27 % , (95% CI [ 24 % ; 31 % ]), when moving from peak Winter to peak Summer. The reducing effect of seasonality on transmission rate per + 1 ∘ C in daily average temperature were shown to vary based on temperature, and were estimated to be - 2.2 % [ - 2.8 % ; - 1.7 % ] pr. 1 ∘ C around 2 ∘ C; 2 % [ - 2.3 % ; - 1.7 % ] pr. 1 ∘ C around 7 ∘ C; and 1.7 % [ - 2.0 % ; - 1.5 % ] pr. 1 ∘ C around a daily average temperature of 11 ∘ C.Entities:
Keywords: 00-01; 99-00; Covid-19; SARS-CoV-2; Seasonal variation; Seasonality; Temperature
Year: 2022 PMID: 36248679 PMCID: PMC9546506 DOI: 10.1016/j.mran.2022.100235
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microb Risk Anal ISSN: 2352-3522
Fig. 1New covid-19 hospital admissions pr. day in Denmark.
Parameter values used in the differential equation model.
| Value | Units | |
|---|---|---|
| Changes over time with restrictions | ||
| Estimated through maximum likelihood parameter estimation | 1 | |
| [ | 1 | |
| [ | 1 | |
| [ | ||
Fig. 3Development in the dominant eigenvalue of over time compared to dates with restriction changes in the Danish society.
Priors and posteriors for the seasonality function parameters, proportion of registered cases and the estimated seasonal variation. Seasonality indicate the estimated relative change in transmission rate when transitioning from Winter to Summer.
| Parameter | Prior | Posterior mode | 95% Credible Interval |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | U | 0.79 | [0.61; 1.0] |
| b | U | 0.77 | [0.62; 1.3] |
| c | U | 0.09 | [0.07; 0.15] |
| d | U | 0.5 | [0.42; 0.62] |
| Proportion of registered cases | U | 49% | [35%; 67%] |
| Seasonality: | [11%; 52%] | 27% | [24%; 31%] |
Fig. 4Posterior distribution (grey histogram) for each parameter (a, b, c, d) in equation (17), and the resulting estimated seasonal variation associated with these parameter values (equation (18)). The posterior distribution for the estimated proportion of registered out of total cases is also shown. The red line indicate the estimated density (using biweight kernel density estimation (KDE)) of the posterior distributions. Here we see that the posterior distribution for the seasonal variation is well-defined, and yield a seasonal variation estimate of 27% (95% CI: [24%; 31%]).
Fig. 5New admissions and seroprevalence fit of the population models from the ABC-rejection algorithm. The shaded area for new hospital admissions indicate the 95% negative binomial distribution confidence interval which were used for the likelihood evaluation of the model. The vaccination programme in Denmark was initiated in December 2020 in the older age groups, and thus the risk of hospital admission in these age groups were reduced compared to predicted during the Spring. Additionally, as a consequence of the vaccination programme initiation, seroprevalence data was not available beyond December 2020. The displayed 5% best models spans seasonality estimates of 27%-29%; and the 5%-95% quantile estimates spans seasonality magnitudes from 24%-31% (i.e. the 95% CI for seasonality)
Fig. A.1The population model without implementation of seasonal effect, but with the optimised hospital admission risk.
Fig. A.2Long term simulation of the population model, without implementation of seasonal variation. Although this population model is based on the population model published by SSI in May 2020 SSI (2020a), this figure cannot in any way be considered as a long term prediction from May 2020, as it was well-known at that time, that a seasonal effect was present, which would cause a decrease in infections during the summer, and the model was at that time not suited for, nor capable of long term simulations. Thus the inclusion of this figure is for the sole purpose of showing the drastic effects of introduction of a seasonal variation, and how it contributed to reducing the amount of infections in the Spring of 2020.
Sundhedsstyrelsen (2021).
| Target Group | Description |
|---|---|
| 1 | Residents at nursery homes. |
| 2 | |
| 3 | Citizens |
| 4 | High risk of exposure personnel in the health care system, elderly care system and parts of social services. |
| 5 | Certain patients with increased risk of severe infection. |
| 6 | Select relatives to persons in high risk of severe infections. |
Fig. 6Estimated monthly development in transmission rate of covid-19 and the used seasonal scaling as a function of temperature. The displayed 5% best models spans seasonality estimates of 27%-29%; and the 5%-95% quantile estimates spans seasonality magnitudes from 24%-31% (i.e. the 95% CI for seasonality)
Fig. A.3An example of the quantitative and qualitative behaviour of the exponential temperature models. Here, it is evident that the exponential models generally are unable to accurately capture the decrease in admissions during the late Winter and Spring of 2021 due to a too drastic response to low temperatures. Additionally, it can be seen that some of the models underestimate the admissions during this period. This is due to the fact that these exponential models aren’t sensitive enough to temperature changes, which enables them to avoid the unrealistic rise in admissions, but simultaneously also cause them to underestimate the influence of seasonality. Consequently, the logistic models shows a more realistic description of the relationship between temperature and covid-19 transmission rate.
Fig. 7Slope of standardised logistic temperature dependency. Shows the impact of temperature on the transmission rate pr. 1 degree Celsius change. Standardisation is based on the averaged coldest monthly temperature through the last thirty years: February, . The displayed 5% best models spans seasonality estimates of 27%-29%; and the 5%-95% quantile estimates spans seasonality magnitudes from 24%-31% (i.e. the 95% CI for seasonality)