Explore the vast range of titles available.

Real-time surveillance is a crucial element in the response to infectious disease outbreaks. However, the interpretation of incidence data is often hampered by delays occurring at various stages of data gathering and reporting. As a result, recent values are biased downward, which obscures current trends. Statistical nowcasting techniques can be employed to correct these biases, allowing for accurate characterization of recent developments and thus enhancing situational awareness. In this paper, we present a preregistered real-time assessment of eight nowcasting approaches, applied by independent research teams to German 7-day hospitalization incidences during the COVID-19 pandemic. This indicator played an important role in the management of the outbreak in Germany and was linked to levels of non-pharmaceutical interventions via certain thresholds. Due to its definition, in which hospitalization counts are aggregated by the date of case report rather than admission, German hospitalization incidences are particularly affected by delays and can take several weeks or months to fully stabilize. For this study, all methods were applied from 22 November 2021 to 29 April 2022, with probabilistic nowcasts produced each day for the current and 28 preceding days. Nowcasts at the national, state, and age-group levels were collected in the form of quantiles in a public repository and displayed in a dashboard. Moreover, a mean and a median ensemble nowcast were generated. We find that overall, the compared methods were able to remove a large part of the biases introduced by delays. Most participating teams underestimated the importance of very long delays, though, resulting in nowcasts with a slight downward bias. The accompanying prediction intervals were also too narrow for almost all methods. Averaged over all nowcast horizons, the best performance was achieved by a model using case incidences as a covariate and taking into account longer delays than the other approaches. For the most recent days, which are often considered the most relevant in practice, a mean ensemble of the submitted nowcasts performed best. We conclude by providing some lessons learned on the definition of nowcasting targets and practical challenges.

In infectious disease surveillance, incidence data are frequently subject to reporting delays and retrospective corrections, making it hard to assess current trends in real time. A variety of probabilistic nowcasting methods have been suggested to correct for the resulting biases. Building upon a recent comparison of eight of these methods in an application to COVID-19 hospitalization data from Germany, the objective of this paper is twofold. Firstly, we investigate how nowcasts from different models can be improved using statistical post-processing methods as employed, e.g., in weather forecasting. Secondly, we assess the potential of weighted ensemble nowcasts, i.e., weighted combinations of different probabilistic nowcasts. These are a natural extension of unweighted nowcast ensembles, which have previously been found to outperform most individual models. Both in post-processing and ensemble building, specific challenges arise from the fact that data are constantly revised, hindering the use of standard approaches. We find that post-processing can improve the individual performance of almost all considered models both in terms of evaluation scores and forecast interval coverage. Improving upon the performance of unweighted ensemble nowcasts via weighting schemes, on the other hand, poses a substantial challenge. Across an array of approaches, we find modest improvement in scores for some and decreased performance for most, with overall more favorable results for simple methods. In terms of forecast interval coverage, however, our methods lead to rather consistent improvements over the unweighted ensembles.

The effective reproductive number R t has taken a central role in the scientific, political, and public discussion during the COVID-19 pandemic, with numerous real-time estimates of this quantity routinely published. Disagreement between estimates can be substantial and may lead to confusion among decision-makers and the general public. In this work, we compare different estimates of the national-level effective reproductive number of COVID-19 in Germany in 2020 and 2021. We consider the agreement between estimates from the same method but published at different time points (within-method agreement) as well as retrospective agreement across eight different approaches (between-method agreement). Concerning the former, estimates from some methods are very stable over time and hardly subject to revisions, while others display considerable fluctuations. To evaluate between-method agreement, we reproduce the estimates generated by different groups using a variety of statistical approaches, standardizing analytical choices to assess how they contribute to the observed disagreement. These analytical choices include the data source, data pre-processing, assumed generation time distribution, statistical tuning parameters, and various delay distributions. We find that in practice, these auxiliary choices in the estimation of R t may affect results at least as strongly as the selection of the statistical approach. They should thus be communicated transparently along with the estimates.

Background During the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a strong interest in forecasts of the short-term development of epidemiological indicators to inform decision makers. In this study we evaluate probabilistic real-time predictions of confirmed cases and deaths from COVID-19 in Germany and Poland for the period from January through April 2021. Methods We evaluate probabilistic real-time predictions of confirmed cases and deaths from COVID-19 in Germany and Poland. These were issued by 15 different forecasting models, run by independent research teams. Moreover, we study the performance of combined ensemble forecasts. Evaluation of probabilistic forecasts is based on proper scoring rules, along with interval coverage proportions to assess calibration. The presented work is part of a pre-registered evaluation study. Results We find that many, though not all, models outperform a simple baseline model up to four weeks ahead for the considered targets. Ensemble methods show very good relative performance. The addressed time period is characterized by rather stable non-pharmaceutical interventions in both countries, making short-term predictions more straightforward than in previous periods. However, major trend changes in reported cases, like the rebound in cases due to the rise of the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) variant in March 2021, prove challenging to predict. Conclusions Multi-model approaches can help to improve the performance of epidemiological forecasts. However, while death numbers can be predicted with some success based on current case and hospitalization data, predictability of case numbers remains low beyond quite short time horizons. Additional data sources including sequencing and mobility data, which were not extensively used in the present study, may help to improve performance. Plain language summary We compare forecasts of weekly case and death numbers for COVID-19 in Germany and Poland based on 15 different modelling approaches. These cover the period from January to April 2021 and address numbers of cases and deaths one and two weeks into the future, along with the respective uncertainties. We find that combining different forecasts into one forecast can enable better predictions. However, case numbers over longer periods were challenging to predict. Additional data sources, such as information about different versions of the SARS-CoV-2 virus present in the population, might improve forecasts in the future. Bracher et al. compare 15 forecasting models of COVID-19 cases and deaths in Germany and Poland between January and mid-April 2021. Many, though not all, models outperform a simple baseline model up to four weeks ahead, with ensemble methods showing very good relative performance.

Short-term forecasts of infectious disease burden can contribute to situational awareness and aid capacity planning. Based on best practice in other fields and recent insights in infectious disease epidemiology, one can maximise the predictive performance of such forecasts if multiple models are combined into an ensemble. Here, we report on the performance of ensembles in predicting COVID-19 cases and deaths across Europe between 08 March 2021 and 07 March 2022. We used open-source tools to develop a public European COVID-19 Forecast Hub. We invited groups globally to contribute weekly forecasts for COVID-19 cases and deaths reported by a standardised source for 32 countries over the next 1-4 weeks. Teams submitted forecasts from March 2021 using standardised quantiles of the predictive distribution. Each week we created an ensemble forecast, where each predictive quantile was calculated as the equally-weighted average (initially the mean and then from 26th July the median) of all individual models' predictive quantiles. We measured the performance of each model using the relative Weighted Interval Score (WIS), comparing models' forecast accuracy relative to all other models. We retrospectively explored alternative methods for ensemble forecasts, including weighted averages based on models' past predictive performance. Over 52 weeks, we collected forecasts from 48 unique models. We evaluated 29 models' forecast scores in comparison to the ensemble model. We found a weekly ensemble had a consistently strong performance across countries over time. Across all horizons and locations, the ensemble performed better on relative WIS than 83% of participating models' forecasts of incident cases (with a total N=886 predictions from 23 unique models), and 91% of participating models' forecasts of deaths (N=763 predictions from 20 models). Across a 1-4 week time horizon, ensemble performance declined with longer forecast periods when forecasting cases, but remained stable over 4 weeks for incident death forecasts. In every forecast across 32 countries, the ensemble outperformed most contributing models when forecasting either cases or deaths, frequently outperforming all of its individual component models. Among several choices of ensemble methods we found that the most influential and best choice was to use a median average of models instead of using the mean, regardless of methods of weighting component forecast models. Our results support the use of combining forecasts from individual models into an ensemble in order to improve predictive performance across epidemiological targets and populations during infectious disease epidemics. Our findings further suggest that median ensemble methods yield better predictive performance more than ones based on means. Our findings also highlight that forecast consumers should place more weight on incident death forecasts than incident case forecasts at forecast horizons greater than 2 weeks. AA, BH, BL, LWa, MMa, PP, SV funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grant 1R01GM109718, NSF BIG DATA Grant IIS-1633028, NSF Grant No.: OAC-1916805, NSF Expeditions in Computing Grant CCF-1918656, CCF-1917819, NSF RAPID CNS-2028004, NSF RAPID OAC-2027541, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 75D30119C05935, a grant from Google, University of Virginia Strategic Investment Fund award number SIF160, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) under Contract No. HDTRA1-19-D-0007, and respectively Virginia Dept of Health Grant VDH-21-501-0141, VDH-21-501-0143, VDH-21-501-0147, VDH-21-501-0145, VDH-21-501-0146, VDH-21-501-0142, VDH-21-501-0148. AF, AMa, GL funded by SMIGE - Modelli statistici inferenziali per governare l'epidemia, FISR 2020-Covid-19 I Fase, FISR2020IP-00156, Codice Progetto: PRJ-0695. AM, BK, FD, FR, JK, JN, JZ, KN, MG, MR, MS, RB funded by Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland with grant 28/WFSN/2021 to the University of Warsaw. BRe, CPe, JLAz funded by Ministerio de Sanidad/ISCIII. BT, PG funded by PERISCOPE European H2020 project, contract number 101016233. CP, DL, EA, MC, SA funded by European Commission - Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology through the contract LC-01485746, and Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovacion y Universidades and FEDER, with the project PGC2018-095456-B-I00. DE., MGu funded by Spanish Ministry of Health / REACT-UE (FEDER). DO, GF, IMi, LC funded by Laboratory Directed Research and Development program of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) under project number 20200700ER. DS, ELR, GG, NGR, NW, YW funded by National Institutes of General Medical Sciences (R35GM119582; the content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NIGMS or the National Institutes of Health). FB, FP funded by InPresa, Lombardy Region, Italy. HG, KS funded by European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. IV funded by Agencia de Qualitat i Avaluacio Sanitaries de Catalunya (AQuAS) through contract 2021-021OE. JDe, SMo, VP funded by Netzwerk Universitatsmedizin (NUM) project egePan (01KX2021). JPB, SH, TH funded by Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF; grant 05M18SIA). KH, MSc, YKh funded by Project SaxoCOV, funded by the German Free State of Saxony. Presentation of data, model results and simulations also funded by the NFDI4Health Task Force COVID-19 (https://www.nfdi4health.de/task-force-covid-19-2) within the framework of a DFG-project (LO-342/17-1). LP, VE funded by Mathematical and Statistical modelling project (MUNI/A/1615/2020), Online platform for real-time monitoring, analysis and management of epidemic situations (MUNI/11/02202001/2020); VE also supported by RECETOX research infrastructure (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic: LM2018121), the CETOCOEN EXCELLENCE (CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/17-043/0009632), RECETOX RI project (CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16-013/0001761). NIB funded by Health Protection Research Unit (grant code NIHR200908). SAb, SF funded by Wellcome Trust (210758/Z/18/Z).

Background Contact behaviour is crucial to assess and predict transmission of respiratory pathogens like SARS-CoV-2. Contact behaviour has traditionally been assessed in cross-sectional surveys and not as part of longitudinal population-based studies which simultaneously measure infection frequency and vaccination coverage. During the COVID-19 pandemic, several studies assessed contact behaviour over longer periods and correlated this to data on immunity. This can inform future dynamic modelling. Here, we assess how contact behaviour varied based on SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination status in two large population-based studies in Germany during 2021. Methods We assessed direct encounters, separated into household and non-household contacts, in participants of MuSPAD ( n  = 12,641), a population-based cohort study, and COVIMOD ( n  = 31,260), a longitudinal contact survey. We calculated mean numbers of reported contacts and fitted negative binomial mixed-effects models to estimate the impact of immunity status, defined by vaccination or previous infection, on contact numbers; logistic mixed-effects models were used to examine the relationship between contact behaviour and seropositivity due to infection. Results Contact numbers varied over the course of the pandemic from 7.6 to 10.8 per 24 h in MuSPAD and 2.1 to 3.1 per 24 h in COVIMOD. The number of non-household contacts was higher in participants who reported previous infections and vaccinations (contact ratio (CR) MuSPAD: 1.22 (95%CI 0.94–1.60); COVIMOD: 1.35 (CI 1.12–1.62)) compared to unvaccinated and uninfected individuals. Non-household contact numbers were also higher in fully vaccinated participants (MUSPAD: CR 1.15 (CI 1.05–1.26); COVIMOD: 1.43 (CI 1.32–1.56)) compared to unvaccinated individuals. Compared to individuals without household contacts, the odds for seropositivity due to infection were higher among MuSPAD individuals with three or more household contacts (odds ratio (OR) 1.54 (CI 1.12–2.13)) and eleven or more non-household contacts (OR 1.29 (CI 1.01–1.65)). Conclusions Different contact behaviours based on infection and/or vaccination status suggest that public health policies targeting immunity status may influence the contact behaviour of those affected. A combined assessment of self-reported contacts, infections, and vaccinations as well as laboratory-confirmed serostatus in the population can support modelling of the spread of infections. This could help target containment policies and evaluate the impact of public health measures.

Divergence functions are measures of distance or dissimilarity between probability distributions that serve various purposes in statistics and applications. We propose decompositions of Wasserstein and Cramér distances\\(-\\)which compare two distributions by integrating over their differences in distribution or quantile functions\\(-\\)into directed shift and dispersion components. These components are obtained by dividing the differences between the quantile functions into contributions arising from shift and dispersion, respectively. Our decompositions add information on how the distributions differ in a condensed form and consequently enhance the interpretability of the underlying divergences. We show that our decompositions satisfy a number of natural properties and are unique in doing so in location-scale families. The decompositions allow to derive sensitivities of the divergence measures to changes in location and dispersion, and they give rise to weak stochastic order relations that are linked to the usual stochastic and the dispersive order. Our theoretical developments are illustrated in two applications, where we focus on forecast evaluation of temperature extremes and on the design of probabilistic surveys in economics.