Age groups that sustain resurging COVID-19 epidemics in the United States

Age-specific contact How can the resurgent epidemics of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during 2020 be explained? Are they a result of students going back to school? To address this question, Monod et al. created a contact matrix for infection based on data collected in Europe and China and extended it to the United States. Early in the pandemic, before interventions were widely implemented, contacts concentrated among individuals of similar age were the highest among school-aged children, between children and their parents, and between middle-aged adults and the elderly. However, with the advent of nonpharmaceutical interventions, these contact patterns changed substantially. By mid-August 2020, although schools reopening facilitated transmission, the resurgence in the United States was largely driven by adults 20 to 49 years of age. Thus, working adults who need to support themselves and their families have fueled the resurging epidemics in the United States. Science, this issue p. eabe8372 More targeted interventions in the 20-to-49 age group could bring epidemic waves under control and facilitate the safe reopening of schools. INTRODUCTION After initial declines, in mid-2020, a sustained resurgence in the transmission of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) occurred in the United States. Throughout the US epidemic, considerable heterogeneity existed among states, both in terms of overall mortality and infection, but also in the types and stringency of nonpharmaceutical interventions. Despite these stark differences among states, little is known about the relationship between interventions, contact patterns, and infections, or how this varies by age and demographics. A useful tool for studying these dynamics is individual, age-specific mobility data. In this study, we use detailed mobile-phone data from more than 10 million individuals and establish a mechanistic relationship between individual contact patterns and COVID-19 mortality data. RATIONALE As the pandemic progresses, disease control responses are becoming increasingly nuanced and targeted. Understanding fine-scale patterns of how individuals interact with each other is essential to mounting an efficient public health control program. For example, the choice of closing workplaces, closing schools, limiting hospitality sectors, or prioritizing vaccination to certain population groups should be informed by the demographics currently driving and sustaining transmission. To develop the tools to answer such questions, we introduce a new framework that links mobility to mortality through age-specific contact patterns and then use this rich relationship to reconstruct accurate transmission dynamics (see figure panel A). RESULTS We find that as of 29 October 2020, adults aged 20 to 34 and 35 to 49 are the only age groups that have sustained SARS-CoV-2 transmission with reproduction numbers (transmission rates) consistently above one. The high reproduction numbers from adults are linked both to rebounding mobility over the summer and elevated transmission risks per venue visit among adults aged 20 to 49. Before school reopening, we estimate that 75 of 100 COVID-19 infections originated from adults aged 20 to 49, and the share of young adults aged 20 to 34 among COVID-19 infections was highly variable geographically. After school reopening, we reconstruct relatively modest shifts in the age-specific sources of resurgent COVID-19 toward younger individuals, with less than 5% of SARS-CoV-2 transmissions attributable to children aged 0 to 9 and less than 10% attributable to early adolescents and teenagers aged 10 to 19. Thus, adults aged 20 to 49 continue to be the only age groups that contribute disproportionately to COVID-19 spread relative to their size in the population (see figure panel B). However, because children and teenagers seed infections among adults who are more transmission efficient, we estimate that overall, school opening is indirectly associated with a 26% increase in SARS-CoV-2 transmission. CONCLUSION We show that considering transmission through the lens of contact patterns is fundamental to understanding which population groups are driving disease transmission. Over time, the share of age groups among reported deaths has been markedly constant, and the data provide no evidence that transmission shifted to younger age groups before school reopening, and no evidence that young adults aged 20 to 34 were the primary source of resurgent epidemics since the summer of 2020. Our key conclusion is that in locations where novel, highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 lineages have not yet become established, additional interventions among adults aged 20 to 49, such as mass vaccination with transmission-blocking vaccines, could bring resurgent COVID-19 epidemics under control and avert deaths. Model developed to estimate the contribution of age groups to resurgent COVID-19 epidemics in the United States. (A) Model overview. (B) Estimated contribution of age groups to SARS-CoV-2 transmission in October. After initial declines, in mid-2020 a resurgence in transmission of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) occurred in the United States and Europe. As efforts to control COVID-19 disease are reintensified, understanding the age demographics driving transmission and how these affect the loosening of interventions is crucial. We analyze aggregated, age-specific mobility trends from more than 10 million individuals in the United States and link these mechanistically to age-specific COVID-19 mortality data. We estimate that as of October 2020, individuals aged 20 to 49 are the only age groups sustaining resurgent SARS-CoV-2 transmission with reproduction numbers well above one and that at least 65 of 100 COVID-19 infections originate from individuals aged 20 to 49 in the United States. Targeting interventions—including transmission-blocking vaccines—to adults aged 20 to 49 is an important consideration in halting resurgent epidemics and preventing COVID-19–attributable deaths.

[1]  Bgoodri,et al.  ImperialCollegeLondon/covid19model: Age groups that sustain resurging COVID-19 epidemics in the United States (peer-reviewed) , 2021 .

[2]  G. Vogel School risk calculations scrambled by fast-spreading virus strains , 2021 .

[3]  N. Loman,et al.  Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Lineage B.1.1.7 in England: Insights from linking epidemiological and genetic data , 2021, medRxiv.

[4]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  Mobility network models of COVID-19 explain inequities and inform reopening , 2020, Nature.

[5]  Seattle,et al.  Inferring high-resolution human mixing patterns for disease modeling , 2020, Nature communications.

[6]  Sagar,et al.  Characterization of pre-existing and induced SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells , 2020, Nature Medicine.

[7]  Ihme COVID-19 Forecasting Team Modeling COVID-19 scenarios for the United States , 2020, Nature medicine.

[8]  R. Anderson,et al.  Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19, by Age and Race and Ethnicity — United States, January 26–October 3, 2020 , 2020, MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report.

[9]  A. Gundlapalli,et al.  Changing Age Distribution of the COVID-19 Pandemic — United States, May–August 2020 , 2020, MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report.

[10]  R. Viner,et al.  Susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Children and Adolescents Compared With Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. , 2020, JAMA pediatrics.

[11]  S. Yaacoub,et al.  Physical Distancing, Face Masks, and Eye Protection to Prevent Person-to-Person Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2020, Journal of Vascular Surgery.

[12]  Samuel M Brown,et al.  Community and Close Contact Exposures Associated with COVID-19 Among Symptomatic Adults ≥18 Years in 11 Outpatient Health Care Facilities — United States, July 2020 , 2020, MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report.

[13]  S. Ladhani,et al.  Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in children: a prospective multicentre cohort study , 2020, Archives of Disease in Childhood.

[14]  W. Messner,et al.  Variation in COVID-19 outbreaks at the US state and county levels , 2020, Public Health.

[15]  M. Lipsitch,et al.  Reopening Primary Schools during the Pandemic. , 2020, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  Rosalind M Eggo,et al.  Projecting contact matrices in 177 geographical regions: An update and comparison with empirical data for the COVID-19 era , 2020, medRxiv.

[17]  M. Lipsitch,et al.  On the effect of age on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in households, schools and the community , 2020, medRxiv.

[18]  Galit Alter,et al.  Dynamics and significance of the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection , 2020, medRxiv.

[19]  E. Gakidou,et al.  Predictive performance of international COVID-19 mortality forecasting models , 2020, medRxiv.

[20]  Andrew T. Levin,et al.  Assessing the age specificity of infection fatality rates for COVID-19: systematic review, meta-analysis, and public policy implications , 2020, European Journal of Epidemiology.

[21]  S. Bhatt,et al.  Suppression of a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in the Italian municipality of Vo’ , 2020, Nature.

[22]  C. Reed,et al.  Seroprevalence of Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Six Sites in the United States, March 23-May 3, 2020 , 2020, medRxiv.

[23]  L. Fang,et al.  Household secondary attack rate of COVID-19 and associated determinants in Guangzhou, China: a retrospective cohort study , 2020, The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

[24]  Christl A. Donnelly,et al.  Report 26: Reduction in mobility and COVID-19 transmission , 2020 .

[25]  S. Bhatt,et al.  Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe , 2020, Nature.

[26]  N. G. Davies,et al.  Effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 cases, deaths, and demand for hospital services in the UK: a modelling study , 2020, The Lancet Public Health.

[27]  David R. Holtgrave,et al.  Cumulative incidence and diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in New York , 2020, Annals of Epidemiology.

[28]  Christl A. Donnelly,et al.  Report 23: State-level tracking of COVID-19 in the United States , 2020 .

[29]  S. Pei,et al.  Differential Effects of Intervention Timing on COVID-19 Spread in the United States , 2020, Science Advances.

[30]  C. Buckee,et al.  Wrong but Useful - What Covid-19 Epidemiologic Models Can and Cannot Tell Us. , 2020, The New England journal of medicine.

[31]  N. Jewell,et al.  Mobility trends provide a leading indicator of changes in SARS-CoV-2 transmission , 2020, medRxiv.

[32]  A. Vespignani,et al.  Changes in contact patterns shape the dynamics of the COVID-19 outbreak in China , 2020, Science.

[33]  Luke O'Grady,et al.  Incubation period of COVID-19: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of observational research , 2020, BMJ Open.

[34]  S. Bhatt,et al.  Evidence of initial success for China exiting COVID-19 social distancing policy after achieving containment. , 2020, Wellcome open research.

[35]  Yongsheng Wu,et al.  Epidemiology and transmission of COVID-19 in 391 cases and 1286 of their close contacts in Shenzhen, China: a retrospective cohort study , 2020, The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

[36]  Li Li,et al.  Association between age and clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 , 2020, European Respiratory Journal.

[37]  D. Feehan,et al.  Quantifying interpersonal contact in the United States during the spread of COVID-19: first results from the Berkeley Interpersonal Contact Study , 2020, medRxiv.

[38]  Royce J. Wilson,et al.  Google COVID-19 Community Mobility Reports: Anonymization Process Description (version 1.0) , 2020, ArXiv.

[39]  Quentin J. Leclerc,et al.  Quantifying the impact of physical distance measures on the transmission of COVID-19 in the UK , 2020, BMC Medicine.

[40]  C. Whittaker,et al.  Estimates of the severity of coronavirus disease 2019: a model-based analysis , 2020, The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

[41]  N. G. Davies,et al.  Age-dependent effects in the transmission and control of COVID-19 epidemics , 2020, Nature Medicine.

[42]  Qi Jin,et al.  Profiling Early Humoral Response to Diagnose Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) , 2020, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[43]  R. Trimble COVID-19 Dashboard , 2020 .

[44]  E. Dong,et al.  An interactive web-based dashboard to track COVID-19 in real time , 2020, The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

[45]  J. Rocklöv,et al.  The reproductive number of COVID-19 is higher compared to SARS coronavirus , 2020, Journal of travel medicine.

[46]  Jing Zhao,et al.  Early Transmission Dynamics in Wuhan, China, of Novel Coronavirus–Infected Pneumonia , 2020, The New England journal of medicine.

[47]  Niel Hens,et al.  A systematic review of social contact surveys to inform transmission models of close contact infections , 2018, bioRxiv.

[48]  M. Delgado-Rodríguez,et al.  Systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2017, Medicina intensiva.

[49]  Dennis Andersson,et al.  A retrospective cohort study , 2018 .

[50]  Jiqiang Guo,et al.  Stan: A Probabilistic Programming Language. , 2017, Journal of statistical software.

[51]  Kevin G. Stanley,et al.  Design and methods of a social network isolation study for reducing respiratory infection transmission: The eX-FLU cluster randomized trial , 2016, Epidemics.

[52]  Timothy A. Thomas,et al.  Measures of Human Mobility Using Mobile Phone Records Enhanced with GIS Data , 2014, PloS one.

[53]  Marcel Salathé,et al.  How should social mixing be measured: comparing web-based survey and sensor-based methods , 2014, BMC Infectious Diseases.

[54]  C. Fraser,et al.  A New Framework and Software to Estimate Time-Varying Reproduction Numbers During Epidemics , 2013, American journal of epidemiology.

[55]  D. Kalb,et al.  MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SENIOR SERVICES MISSOURI COMMUNITY-BASED HOME VISITING , 2013 .

[56]  Mark S. Handcock,et al.  Estimating Within-School Contact Networks to Understand Influenza Transmission , 2011, The annals of applied statistics.

[57]  Natwar M. Gandhi Government of the District of Columbia , 2010 .

[58]  Concord Nh New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services Division of Public Health Services Nutrition and Health Promotion Section Local Agencies Providing Women, Infant and Children (WIC) and Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) Services in New Hampshire , 2010 .

[59]  B. Perdue,et al.  North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Division of Health Service Regulation Mental Health Licensure and Certification , 2009 .

[60]  R. Mikolajczyk,et al.  Social Contacts and Mixing Patterns Relevant to the Spread of Infectious Diseases , 2008, PLoS medicine.

[61]  C. Fraser,et al.  Epidemiology, transmission dynamics and control of SARS: the 2002-2003 epidemic. , 2004, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[62]  R. L. Hucks,et al.  South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control federal facility agreement. Annual progress report, fiscal year 1995 , 1996 .

[63]  T. Farley New York City Department of Health. , 1966, Public health reports.

[64]  R. Cross The Illinois Department of Public Health. , 1955, The Illinois medical journal.

[65]  Liz Sandals Minister Education Week , 1923 .