Importance: India has taken strong and early public health measures for arresting the spread of the COVID-19 epidemic. With only 536 COVID-19 cases and 11 fatalities, India -a democracy of 1.34 billion people -took the historic decision of a 21-day national lockdown on March 25. The lockdown was further extended to May 3rd, soon after the analysis of this paper was completed.Objective: To study the short-and long-term impact of an initial 21-day lockdown on the total number of COVID-19 cases in India compared to other less severe non-pharmaceutical interventions using epidemiological forecasting models and Bayesian estimation algorithms; to compare effects of hypothetical durations of lockdown from an epidemiological perspective; to study alternative explanations for slower growth rate of the virus outbreak in India, including exploring the association of the number of cases and average monthly temperature; and finally, to outline the pivotal role of reliable and transparent data, reproducible data science methods, tools and products as we reopen the country and prepare for a post lock-down phase of the pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants:We use the daily data on the number of COVID-19 cases, of recovered and of deaths from March 1 until April 7, 2020 from the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Visual Dashboard operated by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering (JHU CSSE). Additionally, we use COVID-19 incidence counts data from Kaggle and the monthly average temperature of major cities across the world from Wikipedia. Main Outcome and Measures:The current time-series data on daily proportions of cases and removed (recovered and death combined) from India are analyzed using an extended version of the standard SIR (susceptible, infected, and removed) model. The eSIR model incorporates timevarying transmission rates that help us predict the effect of lockdown compared to other hypothetical interventions on the number of cases at future time points. A Markov Chain Monte Carlo implementation of this model provided predicted proportions of the cases at future time points along with credible intervals (CI). Results:Our predicted cumulative number of COVID-19 cases in India on April 30 assuming a 1-week delay in people's adherence to a 21-day lockdown (March 25 -April 14) and a gradual, moderate resumption of daily activities after April 14 is 9,181 with upper 95% CI of 72,245. In comparison, the predicted cumulative number of cases under "no intervention" and "social distancing and travel bans without lockdown" are 358 thousand and 46 thousand (upper 95% CI of nearly 2.3 million and 0.3 million) respectively. An effective lockdown can prevent roughly 343 thousand (upper 95% CI 1.8 million) and 2.4 million (upper 95% CI 38.4 million) COVID-19 cases nationwide compared to social distancing alone by May 15 and June 15, respectively. When comparing a 21-day lockdown with a hypothetical lockdown of longer duration, we find that 28-, 42-, and 56-day lockdowns can approximately prevent 238 thousan...

Summary Multi‐compartment models have been playing a central role in modelling infectious disease dynamics since the early 20th century. They are a class of mathematical models widely used for describing the mechanism of an evolving epidemic. Integrated with certain sampling schemes, such mechanistic models can be applied to analyse public health surveillance data, such as assessing the effectiveness of preventive measures (e.g. social distancing and quarantine) and forecasting disease spread patterns. This review begins with a nationwide macromechanistic model and related statistical analyses, including model specification, estimation, inference and prediction. Then, it presents a community‐level micromodel that enables high‐resolution analyses of regional surveillance data to provide current and future risk information useful for local government and residents to make decisions on reopenings of local business and personal travels. r software and scripts are provided whenever appropriate to illustrate the numerical detail of algorithms and calculations. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic surveillance data from the state of Michigan are used for the illustration throughout this paper.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo evaluate the effect of four-phase national lockdown from March 25 to May 31 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in India and unmask the state-wise variations in terms of multiple public health metrics.DesignCohort study (daily time series of case counts).SettingObservational and population based.ParticipantsConfirmed COVID-19 cases nationally and across 20 states that accounted for >99% of the current cumulative case counts in India until 31 May 2020.ExposureLockdown (non-medical intervention).Main outcomes and measuresWe illustrate the masking of state-level trends and highlight the variations across states by presenting evaluative evidence on some aspects of the COVID-19 outbreak: case fatality rates, doubling times of cases, effective reproduction numbers and the scale of testing.ResultsThe estimated effective reproduction number R for India was 3.36 (95% CI 3.03 to 3.71) on 24 March, whereas the average of estimates from 25 May to 31 May stands at 1.27 (95% CI 1.26 to 1.28). Similarly, the estimated doubling time across India was at 3.56 days on 24 March, and the past 7-day average for the same on 31 May is 14.37 days. The average daily number of tests increased from 1717 (19–25 March) to 113 372 (25–31 May) while the test positivity rate increased from 2.1% to 4.2%, respectively. However, various states exhibit substantial departures from these national patterns.ConclusionsPatterns of change over lockdown periods indicate the lockdown has been partly effective in slowing the spread of the virus nationally. However, there exist large state-level variations and identifying these variations can help in both understanding the dynamics of the pandemic and formulating effective public health interventions. Our framework offers a holistic assessment of the pandemic across Indian states and union territories along with a set of interactive visualisation tools that are daily updated at covind19.org.

Introduction India has been under four phases of a national lockdown from March 25 to May 31 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Unmasking the state-wise variation in the effect of the nationwide lockdown on the progression of the pandemic could inform dynamic policy interventions towards containment and mitigation. Methods Using data on confirmed COVID-19 cases across 20 states that accounted for more than 99% of the cumulative case counts in India till May 31, 2020, we illustrate the masking of state-level trends and highlight the variations across states by presenting evaluative evidence on some aspects of the COVID-19 outbreak: case-fatality rates, doubling times of cases, effective reproduction numbers, and the scale of testing. Results The estimated effective reproduction number R for India was 3.36 (95% confidence interval (CI): [3.03, 3.71]) on March 24, whereas the average of estimates from May 25 - May 31 stands at 1.27 (95% CI: [1.26, 1.28]). Similarly, the estimated doubling time across India was at 3.56 days on March 24, and the past 7-day average for the same on May 31 is 14.37 days. The average daily number of tests have increased from 1,717 (March 19-25) to 131,772 (May 25-31) with an estimated testing shortfall of 4.58 million tests nationally by May 31. However, various states exhibit substantial departures from these national patterns. Conclusions Patterns of change over lockdown periods indicate the lockdown has been effective in slowing the spread of the virus nationally. The COVID-19 outbreak in India displays large state-level variations and identifying these variations can help in both understanding the dynamics of the pandemic and formulating effective public health interventions. Our framework offers a holistic assessment of the pandemic across Indian states and union territories along with a set of interactive visualization tools that are daily updated at covind19.org.

Recent media articles have suggested that women-led countries are doing better in terms of their responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. We examine an ensemble of public health metrics to assess the control of COVID-19 epidemic in women- versus men-led countries worldwide based on data available up to June 3. The median of the distribution of median time-varying effective reproduction number for women- and men-led countries were 0.89 and 1.14 respectively with the 95% two-sample bootstrap-based confidence interval for the difference (women - men) being [-0.34, 0.02]. In terms of scale of testing, the median percentage of population tested were 3.28% (women), 1.59% (men) [95% CI: (-1.29%, 3.60%)] with test positive rates of 2.69% (women) and 4.94% (men) respectively. It appears that though statistically not significant, countries led by women have an edge over countries led by men in terms of public health metrics for controlling the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide.

BackgroundMany popular disease transmission models have helped nations respond to the COVID-19 pandemic by informing decisions about pandemic planning, resource allocation, implementation of social distancing measures and other non-pharmaceutical interventions. We study how five epidemiological models forecast and assess the course of the pandemic in India: a baseline model, an extended SIR (eSIR) model, two extended SEIR (SAPHIRE and SEIR-fansy) models, and a semi-mechanistic Bayesian hierarchical model (ICM). MethodsUsing COVID-19 data for India from March 15 to June 18 to train the models, we generate predictions from each of the five models from June 19 to July 18. To compare prediction accuracy with respect to reported cumulative and active case counts and cumulative death counts, we compute the symmetric mean absolute prediction error (SMAPE) for each of the five models. ResultsFor active case counts, SMAPE values are 0.72 (SEIR-fansy) and 33.83 (eSIR). For cumulative case counts, SMAPE values are 1.76 (baseline) 23. (eSIR), 2.07 (SAPHIRE) and 3.20 (SEIR-fansy). For cumulative death counts, the SMAPE values are 7.13 (SEIR-fansy) and 26.30 (eSIR). For cumulative cases and deaths, we compute Pearson’s and Lin’s correlation coefficients to investigate how well the projected and observed reported COVID-counts agree. Three models (SAPHIRE, SEIR-fansy and ICM) return total (sum of reported and unreported) counts as well. We compute underreporting factors as of June 30 and note that the SEIR-fansy model reports the highest underreporting factor for active cases (6.10) and cumulative deaths (3.62), while the SAPHIRE model reports the highest underreporting factor for cumulative cases (27.79).ConclusionsIn this comparative paper we describe five different models used to study full disease transmission of the SARS-Cov-2 disease transmission in India. While simulation studies are the only gold standard way to compare the accuracy of the models, here we were uniquely poised to compare the projected case-counts against observed data on a test period. Prediction of daily active number of cases does show appreciable variation across models. The largest variability across models is observed in predicting the “total” number of infections including reported and unreported cases. The degree of under-reporting has been a major concern in India.

India has seen a surge of SARS-CoV-2 infections and deaths in early part of 2021, despite having controlled the epidemic during 2020. Building on a two-strain, semi-mechanistic model that synthesizes mortality and genomic data, we find evidence that altered epidemiological properties of B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant play an important role in this resurgence in India. Under all scenarios of immune evasion, we find an increased transmissibility advantage for B.1617.2 against all previously circulating strains. Using an extended SIR model accounting for reinfections and wanning immunity, we produce evidence in support of how early public interventions in March 2021 would have helped to control transmission in the country. We argue that enhanced genomic surveillance along with constant assessment of risk associated with increased transmission is critical for pandemic responsiveness.