Estimated transmissibility and impact of SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 in England

Characteristics of the new variant

VOC 202012/01 is defined by 17 mutations (14 non-synonymous point mutations and 3 deletions), of which eight are in the spike protein, which mediates SARS-CoV-2 attachment and entry into human cells. At least three mutations potentially affect viral function. Mutation N501Y is a key contact residue in the receptor binding domain and enhances virus binding affinity to human angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) (3, 4). Mutation P681H is immediately adjacent to the furin cleavage site in spike, a known region of importance for infection and transmission (5, 6). Deletion ΔH69/ΔV70 in spike has arisen in multiple independent lineages of SARS-CoV-2, is linked to immune escape in immunocompromised patients, and enhances viral infectivity in vitro (7, 8). This deletion is also responsible for certain commercial testing kits failing to detect the spike glycoprotein gene, with genomic data confirming these S gene target failures in England are now overwhelmingly due to the new variant (1).

The proportion of COVID-19 cases attributable to VOC 202012/01 is rapidly increasing in all regions of England, following an initial expansion in the South East (Fig. 1A), and is spreading at comparable rates among males and females and across age and socioeconomic strata (Fig. 1B). One potential explanation for the spread of VOC 202012/01 within England is a founder effect: that is, if certain regions had higher levels of transmission as a result of more social interactions, variants that were more prevalent within these regions could become more common overall. Changes in social contact patterns correlate closely with changes in transmission (9) (Fig 1C, D) and with COVID-19 burden in England (10). However, we did not find substantial differences in social interactions between regions of high and low VOC 202012/01 prevalence, as measured by Google mobility (11) and social contact survey data (12) from September to December 2020 (Fig. 1E, F). Therefore, the apparent decoupling between contact rates and transmission in late 2020 may suggest altered transmission characteristics for VOC 202012/01.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig 1. Rapid spread of VOC 202012/01 in England.

(A) Proportion of S gene target failure among positive Pillar 2 community SARS-CoV-2 tests in upper-tier local authorities of England from 1 October 2020–10 January 2021, sorted by latitude. (B) Spread of S gene target failure by age, index of multiple deprivation decile (1 = most deprived), and sex within Greater London. (C, D) Estimates of R₀ from CoMix social contact survey (12) compared to R_t estimates from REACT-1 prevalence survey (9) for England, with 90% CIs. R_t estimates based on single and aggregated REACT-1 survey rounds are shown. (E) Percentage change (95% CI) in Google Mobility indices relative to baseline over time and (F) setting-specific mean contacts (95% CI) from the CoMix study (12) over time and by age for Tier 4 local authorities compared to the rest of England. Tier 4 local authorities are areas within the South East, East of England, and London regions that were placed under stringent restrictions from 20 December 2020 due to high prevalence of VOC 202012/01 and growing case rates. Grey shaded areas show the second national lockdown in England.

Measuring the new variant’s growth rate

VOC 202012/01 appears unmatched in its ability to outcompete other SARS-CoV-2 lineages in England. Analysing the COG-UK dataset (13), which comprises over 150,000 sequenced SARS-CoV-2 samples from across the UK, we found that the relative population growth rate of VOC 202012/01 in the first 31 days following its initial phylogenetic observation was higher than that of all 307 other lineages with enough observations to obtain reliable growth-rate estimates (Fig. 2A, S1). While the relative growth rate of VOC 202012/01 has declined slightly over time, it remains among the highest of any lineage as a function of lineage age (Fig. 2B), and the lineage continues to expand.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig 2. Measuring the growth rate of VOC 202012/01.

(A) Average relativized growth rate, i.e. a measure of variant fitness relative to other variants present during the 31 days following initial phylogenetic observation of a given variant, for all lineages in the COG-UK dataset, highlighting many lineages that have risen to prominence including B.1.177, the lineage with the highest relative abundance during the IPO of VOC 202012/01. The shaded regions show conservative 95% rejection intervals; VOC 202012/01 is the first strain to exceed this threshold of faster relativized growth. While many lineages exhibit above-average rates of growth, VOC 202012/01 has had the highest average relativized growth of any lineage in the history of COG-UK surveillance of SARS-COV-2. (B) Plotting all lineages’ relativized growth rates (ρ (t)) as a function of lineage age with conservative 95% rejection intervals highlights the significantly faster growth of VOC 202012/01 relative to other lineages at comparable times since their initial observation. Later declines in VOC and B.1.177 correspond to highly uncertain estimates of growth rates for data that are yet to be backfilled, and so these declines in ρ (t) are sensitive to the processing of future sequences from recent dates (Fig. S1). (C) Muller plots of the relative abundances of the major SARS-CoV-2 variants in the UK, based on a multinomial spline fit to COG-UK sequence data (separate-slopes multinomial spline model, Tables 1 & S1). A model extrapolation until March 1 is shown (shaded area). Minority variants are 440 circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants of low abundance. Specific colours represent the same lineages in panels A–C. (D) Mean reproduction number over 7-day periods in 149 upper-tier local authorities of England (coloured by the NHS England region they are within) plotted against the weekly proportion of Pillar 2 community SARS-CoV-2 tests with S gene target failure shows the spread of VOC 202012/01, a corresponding increase in the reproduction number by local authority, and the eventual impact of targeted government restrictions from 20 December 2020. Testing data are shown for the week following the reproduction number estimates to account for delays from infection to test.

To quantify the growth advantage of VOC 202012/01, we performed a series of multinomial and logistic regression analyses on COG-UK data. A time-varying multinomial spline model estimates an increased growth rate for VOC 202012/01 of +0.104 days^-1 (95% CI 0.100–0.108) relative to the previously dominant lineage, B.1.177 (model 1a, Table 1; Fig. 2C, S2, S3). Assuming a generation interval of 5.5 days (14), this corresponds to a 77% (73–81%) increase in the reproduction number R. The growth advantage of VOC 202012/01 persists under more conservative model assumptions (model 1b, Table 1; Fig. S4), is consistent across all regions of the UK (model 2a, Table S1; Fig. S5), and is similar when measured from S gene target failures among community COVID-19 tests instead of COG-UK sequence data (model 2h, Table 1; Fig. S6). Data from other countries yield similar results: we estimate that R for VOC 202012/01 relative to other lineages is 55% (45–66%) higher in Denmark, 74% (66–82%) higher in Switzerland, and 59% (56–63%) higher in the United States, with consistent rates of displacement across regions within each country (models 3a–c, Table 1; Figs. S6, S7).

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 1. Estimates of increased reproduction number for VOC 202012/01.

Means and 95% CIs (GLMM) / 95% CrIs (R_t regression, transmission model) shown. GLMM models do not estimate a baseline growth rate or reproduction number. See Table S1 for full details.

As an alternative approach, we performed a regression analysis of previously-estimated reproduction numbers from case data against the frequency of S gene target failure in English upper-tier local authorities (Fig. 2D), using local control policies and mobility data as covariates and including a time-varying spline to capture any unmeasured confounders. This yielded an estimated increase in R for VOC 202012/01 of 43% (38–48%), increasing to a 57% (52–62%) increase if the spline was not included (model 4a–b, Table 1). The various statistical models we fitted yield slightly different estimates for the growth rate of VOC 202012/01, reflecting different assumptions and model structures, but all identify a substantially increased growth rate (Table S1).

Mechanistic hypotheses for the rapid spread

To understand possible biological mechanisms for why VOC 202012/01 spreads more quickly than preexisting variants, we extended an age- and regionally-structured mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission (10, 15) to consider two co-circulating variants (Fig. S8; Tables S2, S3). The model uses Google mobility data (11), validated by social contact surveys (10), to capture changes in contact patterns over time for each region of England. We created five versions of the model, each including one alternative parameter capturing a potential mechanism.

The hypotheses we tested are as follows. First, observations of lower Ct values (16–18)—i.e., higher viral load—support that VOC may be more transmissible per contact with an infectious person than preexisting variants (hypothesis 1). Second, longitudinal testing data (17) suggest that VOC may be associated with a longer period of viral shedding, and hence a potentially longer infectious period (hypothesis 2). Third, the ΔH69/ΔV70 deletion in spike contributed to immune escape in an immunocompromised patient (7), potentially suggesting that immunity to preexisting variants affords reduced protection against infection with VOC (hypothesis 3). Fourth, that VOC initially spread during the November 2020 lockdown in England, during which schools were open, suggests that children may be more susceptible to infection with VOC than with preexisting variants (hypothesis 4). Children are typically less susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection than adults (19, 20), possibly because of immune cross-protection due to other human coronaviruses (21), which could be less protective against VOC. Finally, VOC could have a shorter generation time than preexisting variants (hypothesis 5). A shorter generation time could account for an increased growth rate without requiring a higher reproduction number, which would make control of VOC 202012/01 via social distancing measures relatively easier to achieve.

We fit each model to time series of COVID-19 deaths, hospital admissions, hospital and ICU bed occupancy, PCR prevalence, seroprevalence, and the proportion of community SARS-CoV-2 tests with S gene target failure across the three most heavily affected NHS England regions, over the period of 1 March – 24 December 2020 (Figs. 3, S9–S14). We assess models using Deviance Information Criteria (DIC) and by comparing model predictions to observed data for the 14 days following the fitting period (i.e., 25 December 2020 – 7 January 2021). Of the five hypotheses assessed, hypothesis 1 (increased transmissibility) had the lowest (i.e., best) combined DIC and predictive deviance. Hypotheses 2 (longer infectious period) and 4 (increased susceptibility in children) also fitted the data well, although hypothesis 4 is not well supported by household secondary attack rate data (Fig. S15) or by age-specific patterns of S gene target failure in the community (Fig. S16), neither of which identify a substantial increase in susceptibility among children. Hypotheses 3 (immune escape) and 5 (shorter generation time) fit poorly (Fig. 3A; Table S4). In particular, hypothesis 5 predicted that the relative frequency of VOC 202012/01 should have dropped during stringent restrictions in late December 2020, because when two variants have the same R_t < 1 but different generation times, infections decline faster for the variant with the shorter generation time.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig 3. Comparison of possible biological mechanisms underlying the rapid spread of VOC 202012/01.

Each row shows a different assumed mechanism. (A) Relative frequency of VOC 202012/01 (black line and ribbon shows observed S gene target failure frequency with 95% binomial credible interval; purple line and ribbon shows mean and 95% credible interval from model fit). (B) Posterior estimates for relative odds of hospitalisation (severe illness), relative odds of ICU admission (critical illness), relative odds of death (fatal illness), growth rate as a multiplicative factor per week (i.e. exp(7·Δr)), and the parameter that defines the hypothesised mechanism; all parameters are relative to those estimated for preexisting variants. Illustrative model fits for the South East NHS England region: (C) fitted two-strain increased transmissibility model with VOC 202012/01 included; (D) fitted two-strain increased transmissibility model with VOC 202012/01 removed; (E) fitted single-strain model without emergence of VOC 202012/01.

We fitted a combined model incorporating the five hypotheses above, but it was not able to identify a single consistent mechanism across NHS England regions, demonstrating that a wide range of parameter values are compatible with the observed growth rate of VOC 202012/01 (Fig. S14). Based on our analysis, we identify increased transmissibility as the most parsimonious model, but emphasize that the five mechanisms explored here are not mutually exclusive and may be operating in concert.

The increased transmissibility model does not identify a clear increase or decrease in the severity of disease associated with VOC 202012/01, finding similar odds of hospitalisation (estimated odds ratio of hospitalisation given infection, 0.92 [95% credible intervals 0.77–1.10]), critical illness (OR 0.90 [0.58–1.40]), and death (OR 0.90 [0.68–1.20]), based upon fitting to the three most heavily affected NHS England regions (Fig. 3B). These estimates should be treated with caution, as we would not expect to identify a clear signal of severity when fitting to data up to 24 December 2020, given delays between infection and hospitalization or death. However, the fitted model finds strong evidence of higher relative transmissibility, estimated at 65% (95% CrI: 39– 93%) higher than preexisting variants for the three most heavily affected NHS England regions, or 82% (43–130%) when estimated across all seven NHS England regions (model 5a, Table 1). These estimates of increased transmissibility are consistent with our statistical estimates and with a previous estimate of a 70% increased reproduction number for VOC 202012/01 (16). This model reproduces observed epidemiological dynamics for VOC 202012/01 (Figs. 3C, S17). Without the introduction of a new variant with a higher growth rate, the model is unable to reproduce observed dynamics (Fig. 3D–E, Fig. S17–S19), further highlighting that changing contact patterns do not explain the spread of VOC 202012/01.

Implications for COVID-19 dynamics in England

Using the best-performing transmission model (increased transmissibility) fitted to all seven NHS England regions, we compared projected epidemic dynamics under different assumptions about control measures from mid-December 2020 to the end of June 2021. We compared four scenarios for non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) introduced on 1 January 2021: (i) a moderate-stringency scenario with mobility levels as observed in the first half of October 2020; (ii) a high-stringency scenario with mobility levels as observed during the second national lockdown in England in November 2020, with schools open; (iii) the same high-stringency scenario, but with schools closed until 15 February 2021; and (iv) a very high-stringency scenario with mobility levels as observed during the first national lockdown in early April 2020, with schools closed (Fig. S20). In combination with these NPI scenarios, we considered three vaccination scenarios: no vaccinations; 200,000 vaccinations per week; and 2 million vaccinations per week. We assumed that vaccine rollout starts on 1 January 2021 and that vaccinated individuals have a 95% lower probability of disease and a 60% lower probability of infection than unvaccinated individuals. For simplicity, we assumed that vaccine protection was conferred immediately upon receipt of one vaccine dose. Note that these projections serve as indicative scenarios rather than formal predictive forecasts.

Regardless of control measures, all regions of England were projected to experience a new wave of COVID-19 cases and deaths in early 2021, peaking in February 2021 if no substantial control measures are introduced, or in mid-January 2021 if strong control measures succeeded in reducing R below 1 (Fig. 4A). In the absence of substantial vaccine roll-out, the number of COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations, ICU admissions and deaths in 2021 were predicted to exceed those in 2020, even with stringent NPIs in place (Table 2). Implementing more stringent measures in January 2021 (scenarios iii and iv) led to a larger rebound in cases when simulated restrictions were lifted in March 2021, particularly in those regions that had been least affected up to December 2020 (Fig. S21). However, these more stringent measures may buy time to reach more widespread population immunity through vaccination. Vaccine roll-out further mitigates transmission, although the impact of vaccinating 200,000 people per week—similar in magnitude to the rates reached in December 2020—was relatively small (Fig. 4B, Fig. S22). An accelerated uptake of 2 million people fully vaccinated per week (i.e., 4 million doses for a two-dose vaccine) had a much more substantial impact (Fig. 4C, Fig. S23). However, accelerated vaccine roll-out has a relatively limited impact on peak burden, as the peak is largely mediated by the stringency of NPIs enacted in January 2021, before vaccination has much of an impact. The primary benefit of accelerated vaccine roll-out lies in helping to avert a resurgence of cases following the relaxation of NPIs, and in reducing transmission after the peak burden has already been reached.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 2.

Summary of projections for England, 15 December 2020 – 30 June 2021.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig 4. Projections of epidemic dynamics under different control measures.

We compare four alternative scenarios for non-pharmaceutical interventions from 1 January 2021: (i) mobility returning to levels observed during relatively moderate restrictions in early October 2020; (ii) mobility as observed during the second lockdown in England in November 2020, then gradually returning to October 2020 levels from 1 March to 1 April 2021, with schools open; (iii) as (ii), but with school closed until 15 February 2021; (iv) as (iii), but with a lockdown of greater stringency as observed in March 2020 (Fig. S20). (A) Without vaccination. (B) With 200,000 people vaccinated per week. (C) With 2 million people vaccinated per week. We assume that vaccination confers 95% vaccine efficacy against disease and 60% vaccine efficacy against infection, and that vaccination starts on 1 January 2021 with vaccine protection starting immediately upon receipt. This is intended to approximate the fact that vaccination started in early December, but that full protection occurs after a time lag and potentially after a second dose. Vaccines are given first to 70+ year olds until 85% coverage is reached in this age group, then to 60+ year olds until 85% coverage is reached in this age group, continuing into younger age groups in 10-year decrements. Resurgences starting in March 2021 are due to the relaxation of non-pharmaceutical interventions, including reopening schools (Fig. S20). Median and 95% credible intervals are shown. The dotted lines in rows 2 and 3 show peak hospitalisations and deaths from the first COVID-19 wave in England (April 2020).

As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran model projections with a seasonal component such that transmission is 20% higher in the winter than in the summer (22), but this did not qualitatively affect our results (Fig. S24, Table S5).

Discussion

Combining multiple behavioural and epidemiological data sources with statistical and dynamic modelling, we estimated that the novel SARS-CoV-2 variant VOC 202012/01 has a 43–90% (range of 95% credible intervals 38–130%) higher reproduction number than preexisting variants of SARS-CoV-2 in England, assuming no changes to the generation interval. Based on early population-level data, we were unable to identify whether the new variant is associated with higher disease severity. Theoretical considerations suggest that mutations conferring increased transmissibility to pathogens may be inextricably linked to reduced severity of disease (23). However, this framework assumes that a long history of adaptive evolution has rendered mutations yielding increased transmissibility inaccessible without a decrease in virulence, which does not obviously hold for a recently emerged human pathogen such as SARS-CoV-2.

Regardless, without strengthened controls, there is a clear risk that future epidemic waves may be larger – and hence associated with greater burden – than previous waves. The UK government initiated a third national lockdown on 5 January 2021 in response to the rapid spread of VOC 202012/01, including school closures. Educational settings are among the largest institutions linked to SARS-CoV-2 clusters that remained open during the November 2020 lockdown (24), which means the enacted school and university closures may substantially assist in reducing the burden of COVID-19 in early 2021.

The rise in transmission from VOC 202012/01 has crucial implications for vaccination. First, it means prompt and efficient vaccine delivery and distribution is even more important to reduce the impact of the epidemic in the near future. Increased transmission resulting from VOC 202012/01 will raise the herd immunity threshold, meaning the potential burden of SARS-CoV-2 is larger and higher vaccine coverage will be required to achieve herd immunity. It is therefore extremely concerning that VOC 202012/01 has spread to at least 82 countries globally (2). Although VOC 202012/01 was first identified in England, a rapidly spreading variant has also been detected in South Africa (25, 26), where there has been a marked increase in transmission in late 2020. Another variant exhibiting immune escape has emerged in Brazil (27, 28). Thus, vaccination timelines will also be a crucial determinant of future burden in other countries where similar new variants are present. Second, there is a need to assess how VOC 202012/01 and other emerging lineages affect the efficacy of vaccines (29, 30). Vaccine developers may need to consider developing formulations with variant sequences, and powering post-licensure studies to detect differences in efficacy between the preexisting and new variants. Licensing authorities may need to clarify abbreviated pathways to marketing for vaccines that involve altering strain formulation without any other changes to their composition.

There are limitations to our analysis. We have considered a small number of intervention and vaccination scenarios, which should not be regarded as the only available options for policymakers. Our transmission model does not explicitly capture care home or hospital transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and is fit to each region of England separately rather than pooling information across regions and explicitly modelling transmission between regions. There are also uncertainties in the choice of model used to generate these predictions, and the exact choice will yield differences in the measures needed to control the epidemic. We note that even without increased susceptibility of children to VOC 202012/01, the more efficient spread of the variant implies that the difficult societal decision of closing schools will be a key public health question for multiple countries in the months ahead.

We only assess relative support in the data for the mechanistic hypotheses proposed, but there may be other plausible mechanisms driving the resurgence of cases that we did not consider, and we have not identified the specific combination of mechanisms driving the increased transmission of VOC 202012/01. We identify increased transmissibility as the most parsimonious mechanistic explanation for the higher growth rate of VOC 202012/01, but a longer infectious period also fits the data well (Table S4) and is supported by longitudinal testing data (17). Our conclusions about school closures were based on the assumption that children had reduced susceptibility and infectiousness compared to adults (19), but the precise values of these parameters and the impact of school closures remains the subject of scientific debate (31). We based our assumptions about the efficacy of NPIs on the measured impact on mobility of previous national lockdowns in England, but the impact of policy options cannot be predicted with certainty.

Despite these limitations, we found strong evidence that VOC 202012/01 is spreading substantially faster than preexisting SARS-CoV-2 variants. Our modelling analysis suggests this difference could be explained by an overall higher infectiousness of VOC 202012/01, but not by a shorter generation time or immune escape alone. Further experimental work will provide insight into the biological mechanisms for our observations, but given our projections of a rapid rise in incidence from VOC 202012/01—and the detection of other novel and highly-transmissible variants (25–28)—there is an urgent need to consider what new approaches may be required to sufficiently reduce the ongoing transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Materials and Methods

Funding

NGD: UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Research England; National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Immunisation (NIHR200929); UK Medical Research Council (MRC) (MC_PC_19065). SA: Wellcome Trust (WT) (210758/Z/18/Z). RCB: European Commission (EC) (EpiPose 101003688). CIJ: Global Challenges Research Fund managed through Research Councils UK and the Economic and Social Research Council (RECAP ES/P010873/1). AJK: WT (206250/Z/17/Z); NIHR (NIHR200908). JDM: WT (210758/Z/18/Z). CABP: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) (OPP1184344); UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) / WT (221303/Z/20/Z). TWR: WT (206250/Z/17/Z). AG: EC (EpiPose 101003688). WW: NIHR (COV0335), MRC (MR/V027956/1). KvZ: FCDO / WT (221303/Z/20/Z); Elrha’s Research for Health in Humanitarian Crises Programme funded by FCDO, WT, and NIHR. KDO: Royal Society–WT Sir Henry Dale Fellowship 218554/Z/19/Z. RHK: UKRI Future Leaders Fellowship (MR/S017968/1). RME: Health Data Research UK (MR/S003975/1); MRC (MC_PC 19065); NIHR (NIHR200908). SF: WT (210758/Z/18/Z); NIHR (NIHR200908). MJ: BMGF (INV-003174, INV-016832); NIHR (16/137/109, NIHR200929, NIHR200908); EC (EpiPose 101003688). KEA: European Research Council (757688). WJE: EC (EpiPose 101003688); NIHR (NIHR200908). COG-UK is supported by funding from the MRC, part of UKRI; the NIHR; and Genome Research Limited, operating as the Wellcome Sanger Institute.

Author contributions

NGD, SA, RCB, CIJ, AJK, JDM, CABP, TWR, DCT, ADW, TW, AG, WW, KLMW, KvZ, JDS, KDO, RK, RME, SF, MJ, KEA, and WJE conceived the study, performed analyses, and wrote the manuscript. NGD led the transmission model analysis, CIJ led the mobility analysis, ADW led the relativized growth rate analysis, TW led the GLMM analysis, and SA and SF led the R_t analysis. The CMMID COVID-19 Working Group provided discussion and comments.

Competing interests

ADW owns Selva Analytics LLC. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Data and materials availability

All analysis code and data have been archived with Zenodo (43). Code and data for the negative binomial state-space model, multinomial and binomial mixed models and transmission dynamic model are maintained at https://www.github.com/nicholasdavies/newcovid, and code and data for the R_t analysis are maintained at https://github.com/epiforecasts/covid19.sgene.utla.rt.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. This license does not apply to figures/photos/artwork or other content included in the article that is credited to a third party; obtain authorization from the rights holder before using such material.

Supplementary Materials

Materials and Methods

Supplementary Text 1, 2

Figures S1-S24

Tables S1-S6

References 43-75

Supplementary Materials for

Estimated Transmissibility and Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern 202012/01 in England

Supplementary Text 1: CMMID COVID-19 Working Group members and funding

The CMMID COVID-19 Working Group is (randomized order): Sophie R Meakin, James D Munday, Amy Gimma, Rosanna C Barnard, Timothy W Russell, Billy J Quilty, Yang Liu, Stefan Flasche, Jiayao Lei, Adam J Kucharski, William Waites, Sebastian Funk, Fiona Yueqian Sun, Fabienne Krauer, Rachel Lowe, Nikos I Bosse, Damien C Tully, Emily S Nightingale, Katharine Sherratt, Rosalind M Eggo, Kaja Abbas, Kathleen O’Reilly, Hamish P Gibbs, C Julian Villabona-Arenas, Naomi R Waterlow, W John Edmunds, Graham Medley, Oliver Brady, Jack Williams, Alicia Rosello, Christopher I Jarvis, Petra Klepac, Mihaly Koltai, Nicholas G. Davies, Frank G Sandmann, Anna M Foss, Sam Abbott, Yalda Jafari, Kiesha Prem, Yung-Wai Desmond Chan, Katherine E. Atkins, Carl A B Pearson, Joel Hellewell, Kevin van Zandvoort, Simon R Procter, Thibaut Jombart, Gwenan M Knight, Akira Endo, Matthew Quaife, Mark Jit, Alicia Showering, Samuel Clifford.

Funding for the CMMID COVID-19 Working Group is as follows. SRM: Wellcome Trust (grant: 210758/Z/18/Z). JDM: Wellcome Trust (grant: 210758/Z/18/Z). AG: European Commission (EpiPose 101003688). RCB: European Commission (EpiPose 101003688). TWR: Wellcome Trust (grant: 206250/Z/17/Z). BJQ: This research was partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (16/137/109 & 16/136/46) using UK aid from the UK Government to support global health research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. BJQ is supported in part by a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1139859). YL: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-003174), NIHR (16/137/109), European Commission (101003688). SFlasche: Wellcome Trust (grant: 208812/Z/17/Z). JYL: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-003174). AJK: Wellcome Trust (grant: 206250/Z/17/Z), NIHR (NIHR200908). WW: UK Medical Research Council (MRC) (grant MR/V027956/1). S. Funk: Wellcome Trust (grant: 210758/Z/18/Z), NIHR (NIHR200908). FYS: NIHR EPIC grant (16/137/109). FK: Innovation Fund of the Joint Federal Committee (Grant number 01VSF18015), Wellcome Trust (UNS110424). RL: Royal Society Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowship. NIB: Health Protection Research Unit (grant code NIHR200908). DCT: No funding declared. ESN: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1183986). KS: Wellcome Trust (grant: 210758/Z/18/Z). RME: HDR UK (grant: MR/S003975/1), MRC (grant: MC_PC 19065), NIHR (grant: NIHR200908). KA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1157270, INV-016832). KO’R: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1191821). HPG: This research was produced by CSIGN which is part of the EDCTP2 programme supported by the European Union (grant number RIA2020EF-2983-CSIGN). The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of EDCTP. This research is funded by the Department of Health and Social Care using UK Aid funding and is managed by the NIHR. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Department of Health and Social Care (PR-OD-1017-20001). CJVA: European Research Council Starting Grant (Action number 757688). NRW: Medical Research Council (grant number MR/N013638/1). WJE: European Commission (EpiPose 101003688), NIHR (NIHR200908). GFM: NTD Modelling Consortium by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1184344). OJB: Wellcome Trust (grant: 206471/Z/17/Z). JW: NIHR Health Protection Research Unit and NIHR HTA. AR: NIHR (grant: PR-OD-1017-20002). CIJ: Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) project ‘RECAP’ managed through RCUK and ESRC (ES/P010873/1). PK: This research was partly funded by the Royal Society under award RP\EA\180004, European Commission (101003688), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-003174). MK: Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office / Wellcome Trust. NGD: UKRI Research England; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Immunisation (NIHR200929); UK MRC (MC_PC_19065). FGS: NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Modelling & Health Economics, and in Immunisation. AMF: No funding declared. SA: Wellcome Trust (grant: 210758/Z/18/Z). YJ: LSHTM, DHSC/UKRI COVID-19 Rapid Response Initiative. KP: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-003174), European Commission (101003688). YWDC: No funding declared. KEA: European Research Council Starting Grant (Action number 757688). CABP: CABP is supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1184344) and the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO)/Wellcome Trust Epidemic Preparedness Coronavirus research programme (ref. 221303/Z/20/Z). JH: Wellcome Trust (grant: 210758/Z/18/Z). KvZ: KvZ is supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO)/Wellcome Trust Epidemic Preparedness Coronavirus research programme (ref. 221303/Z/20/Z), and Elrha’s Research for Health in Humanitarian Crises (R2HC) Programme, which aims to improve health outcomes by strengthening the evidence base for public health interventions in humanitarian crises. The R2HC programme is funded by the UK Government (FCDO), the Wellcome Trust, and the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). SRP: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-016832). TJ: RCUK/ESRC (grant: ES/P010873/1); UK PH RST; NIHR HPRU Modelling & Health Economics (NIHR200908). GMK: UK Medical Research Council (grant: MR/P014658/1). AE: The Nakajima Foundation. MQ: European Research Council Starting Grant (Action Number #757699); Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-001754). MJ: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-003174, INV-016832), NIHR (16/137/109, NIHR200929, NIHR200908), European Commission (EpiPose 101003688). AS: No funding declared. SC: Wellcome Trust (grant: 208812/Z/17/Z).

Supplementary Text 2: COG-UK Consortium members and affiliations

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation: Samuel C Robson ¹³.

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools: Nicholas J Loman ⁴¹ and Thomas R Connor ^{10, 69}.

Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation: Tanya Golubchik ⁵.

Funding acquisition, Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation: Rocio T Martinez Nunez ⁴².

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, and Samples and logistics: Catherine Ludden ⁸⁸.

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis: Sally Corden ⁶⁹.

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Project administration, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis: Ian Johnston ⁹⁹ and David Bonsall ⁵.

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Sequencing and analysis, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation: Colin P Smith ⁸⁷ and Ali R Awan ²⁸.

Funding acquisition, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation: Giselda Bucca ⁸⁷.

Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis: M. Estee Torok ^{22, 101}.

Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, and Visualisation: Kordo Saeed ^{81, 110} and Jacqui A Prieto ^{83, 109}.

Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools: David K Jackson ⁹⁹.

Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools: William L Hamilton ²².

Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, and Visualisation: Luke B Snell ¹¹.

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, and Samples and logistics: Catherine Moore ⁶⁹.

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Project administration, and Samples and logistics: Ewan M Harrison ^{99, 88}.

Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, and Samples and logistics: Sonia Goncalves ⁹⁹.

Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis: Ian G Goodfellow ²⁴, Derek J Fairley ^{3, 72}, Matthew W Loose ¹⁸ and Joanne Watkins ⁶⁹.

Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, and Software and analysis tools: Rich Livett ⁹⁹.

Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, and Visualisation: Samuel Moses ^{25, 106}.

Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools: Roberto Amato ⁹⁹, Sam Nicholls ⁴¹ and Matthew Bull ⁶⁹.

Leadership and supervision, Project administration, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis: Darren L Smith ^{37, 58, 105}.

Leadership and supervision, Sequencing and analysis, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation: Jeff Barrett ⁹⁹, David M Aanensen ^{14, 114}.

Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis: Martin D Curran ⁶⁵, Surendra Parmar ⁶⁵, Dinesh Aggarwal ^{95, 99, 64} and James G Shepherd ⁴⁸.

Metadata curation, Project administration, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools: Matthew D Parker ⁹³.

Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, and Visualisation: Sharon Glaysher ⁶¹.

Metadata curation, Sequencing and analysis, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation: Matthew Bashton ^{37, 58}, Anthony P Underwood ^{14, 114}, Nicole Pacchiarini ⁶⁹ and Katie F Loveson ⁷⁷.

Project administration, Sequencing and analysis, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation: Alessandro M Carabelli ⁸⁸.

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, and Metadata curation: Kate E Templeton ^{53, 90}.

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, and Project administration: Cordelia F Langford ⁹⁹, John Sillitoe ⁹⁹, Thushan I de Silva ⁹³ and Dennis Wang ⁹³.

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, and Sequencing and analysis: Dominic Kwiatkowski ^{99, 107}, Andrew Rambaut ⁹⁰, Justin O’Grady ^{70, 89} and Simon Cottrell ⁶⁹.

Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, and Sequencing and analysis: Matthew T.G. Holden ⁶⁸ and Emma C Thomson ⁴⁸.

Leadership and supervision, Project administration, and Samples and logistics: Husam Osman ^{64, 36}, Monique Andersson ⁵⁹, Anoop J Chauhan ⁶¹ and Mohammed O Hassan-Ibrahim ⁶.

Leadership and supervision, Project administration, and Sequencing and analysis: Mara Lawniczak ⁹⁹.

Leadership and supervision, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis: Ravi Kumar Gupta ^{88, 113}, Alex Alderton ⁹⁹, Meera Chand ⁶⁶, Chrystala Constantinidou ⁹⁴, Meera Unnikrishnan ⁹⁴, Alistair C Darby ⁹², Julian A Hiscox ⁹² and Steve Paterson ⁹².

Leadership and supervision, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools: Inigo Martincorena ⁹⁹, David L Robertson ⁴⁸, Erik M Volz ³⁹, Andrew J Page ⁷⁰ and Oliver G Pybus ²³.

Leadership and supervision, Sequencing and analysis, and Visualisation: Andrew R Bassett⁹⁹.

Metadata curation, Project administration, and Samples and logistics: Cristina V Ariani ⁹⁹, Michael H Spencer Chapman ^{99, 88}, Kathy K Li ⁴⁸, Rajiv N Shah ⁴⁸, Natasha G Jesudason ⁴⁸ and Yusri Taha ⁵⁰.

Metadata curation, Project administration, and Sequencing and analysis: Martin P McHugh ⁵³ and Rebecca Dewar ⁵³.

Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis: Aminu S Jahun ²⁴, Claire McMurray ⁴¹, Sarojini Pandey ⁸⁴, James P McKenna ³, Andrew Nelson ^{58, 105}, Gregory R Young ^{37, 58}, Clare M McCann ^{58, 105} and Scott Elliott ⁶¹.

Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, and Visualisation: Hannah Lowe ²⁵.

Metadata curation, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools: Ben Temperton ⁹¹, Sunando Roy ⁸², Anna Price ¹⁰, Sara Rey ⁶⁹ and Matthew Wyles ⁹³.

Metadata curation, Sequencing and analysis, and Visualisation: Stefan Rooke ⁹⁰ and Sharif Shaaban ⁶⁸.

Project administration, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis: Mariateresa de Cesare ⁹⁸.

Project administration, Samples and logistics, and Software and analysis tools: Laura Letchford ⁹⁹.

Project administration, Samples and logistics, and Visualisation: Siona Silveira ⁸¹, Emanuela Pelosi ⁸¹ and Eleri Wilson-Davies ⁸¹.

Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools: Myra Hosmillo ²⁴.

Sequencing and analysis, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation: Áine O’Toole ⁹⁰, Andrew R Hesketh ⁸⁷, Richard Stark ⁹⁴, Louis du Plessis ²³, Chris Ruis ⁸⁸, Helen Adams ⁴ and Yann Bourgeois ⁷⁶.

Funding acquisition, and Leadership and supervision: Stephen L Michell ⁹¹, Dimitris Grammatopoulos^{84, 112}, Jonathan Edgeworth ¹², Judith Breuer ^{30, 82}, John A Todd ⁹⁸ and Christophe Fraser ⁵.

Funding acquisition, and Project administration: David Buck ⁹⁸ and Michaela John ⁹.

Leadership and supervision, and Metadata curation: Gemma L Kay ⁷⁰.

Leadership and supervision, and Project administration: Steve Palmer ⁹⁹, Sharon J Peacock ^{88, 64} and David Heyburn ⁶⁹.

Leadership and supervision, and Samples and logistics: Danni Weldon ⁹⁹, Esther Robinson ^{64, 36}, Alan McNally ^{41, 86}, Peter Muir ⁶⁴, Ian B Vipond ⁶⁴, John BoYes ²⁹, Venkat Sivaprakasam ⁴⁶, Tranprit Salluja ⁷⁵, Samir Dervisevic ⁵⁴ and Emma J Meader ⁵⁴.

Leadership and supervision, and Sequencing and analysis: Naomi R Park ⁹⁹, Karen Oliver ⁹⁹, Aaron R Jeffries ⁹¹, Sascha Ott ⁹⁴, Ana da Silva Filipe ⁴⁸, David A Simpson ⁷² and Chris Williams ⁶⁹.

Leadership and supervision, and Visualisation: Jane AH Masoli ^{73, 91}.

Metadata curation, and Samples and logistics: Bridget A Knight ^{73, 91}, Christopher R Jones ^{73, 91}, Cherian Koshy ¹, Amy Ash ¹, Anna Casey ⁷¹, Andrew Bosworth ^{64, 36}, Liz Ratcliffe ⁷¹, Li Xu-McCrae ³⁶, Hannah M Pymont ⁶⁴, Stephanie Hutchings ⁶⁴, Lisa Berry ⁸⁴, Katie Jones ⁸⁴, Fenella Halstead ⁴⁶, Thomas Davis ²¹, Christopher Holmes ¹⁶, Miren Iturriza-Gomara ⁹², Anita O Lucaci ⁹², Paul Anthony Randell ^{38, 104}, Alison Cox ^{38, 104}, Pinglawathee Madona ^{38, 104}, Kathryn Ann Harris ³⁰, Julianne Rose Brown ³⁰, Tabitha W Mahungu ⁷⁴, Dianne Irish-Tavares ⁷⁴, Tanzina Haque ⁷⁴, Jennifer Hart ⁷⁴, Eric Witele ⁷⁴, Melisa Louise Fenton ⁷⁵, Steven Liggett ⁷⁹, Clive Graham ⁵⁶, Emma Swindells ⁵⁷, Jennifer Collins ⁵⁰, Gary Eltringham ⁵⁰, Sharon Campbell ¹⁷, Patrick C McClure ⁹⁷, Gemma Clark ¹⁵, Tim J Sloan ⁶⁰, Carl Jones ¹⁵ and Jessica Lynch ^{2, 111}.

Metadata curation, and Sequencing and analysis: Ben Warne ⁸, Steven Leonard ⁹⁹, Jillian Durham ⁹⁹, Thomas Williams ⁹⁰, Sam T Haldenby ⁹², Nathaniel Storey ³⁰, Nabil-Fareed Alikhan ⁷⁰, Nadine Holmes ¹⁸, Christopher Moore ¹⁸, Matthew Carlile ¹⁸, Malorie Perry ⁶⁹, Noel Craine ⁶⁹, Ronan A Lyons ⁸⁰, Angela H Beckett ¹³, Salman Goudarzi ⁷⁷, Christopher Fearn ⁷⁷, Kate Cook ⁷⁷, Hannah Dent ⁷⁷ and Hannah Paul ⁷⁷.

Metadata curation, and Software and analysis tools: Robert Davies ⁹⁹.

Project administration, and Samples and logistics: Beth Blane ⁸⁸, Sophia T Girgis ⁸⁸, Mathew A Beale ⁹⁹, Katherine L Bellis ^{99, 88}, Matthew J Dorman ⁹⁹, Eleanor Drury ⁹⁹, Leanne Kane ⁹⁹, Sally Kay ⁹⁹, Samantha McGuigan ⁹⁹, Rachel Nelson ⁹⁹, Liam Prestwood ⁹⁹, Shavanthi Rajatileka ⁹⁹, Rahul Batra ¹², Rachel J Williams ⁸², Mark Kristiansen ⁸², Angie Green ⁹⁸, Anita Justice ⁵⁹, Adhyana I.K Mahanama ^{81, 102} and Buddhini Samaraweera ^{81, 102}.

Project administration, and Sequencing and analysis: Nazreen F Hadjirin ⁸⁸ and Joshua Quick ⁴¹.

Project administration, and Software and analysis tools: Radoslaw Poplawski ⁴¹.

Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis: Leanne M Kermack ⁸⁸, Nicola Reynolds ⁷, Grant Hall ²⁴, Yasmin Chaudhry ²⁴, Malte L Pinckert ²⁴, Iliana Georgana ²⁴, Robin J Moll ⁹⁹, Alicia Thornton ⁶⁶, Richard Myers ⁶⁶, Joanne Stockton ⁴¹, Charlotte A Williams ⁸², Wen C Yew ⁵⁸, Alexander J Trotter ⁷⁰, Amy Trebes ⁹⁸, George MacIntyre-Cockett ⁹⁸, Alec Birchley ⁶⁹, Alexander Adams ⁶⁹, Amy Plimmer ⁶⁹, Bree Gatica-Wilcox ⁶⁹, Caoimhe McKerr ⁶⁹, Ember Hilvers ⁶⁹, Hannah Jones ⁶⁹, Hibo Asad ⁶⁹, Jason Coombes ⁶⁹, Johnathan M Evans ⁶⁹, Laia Fina ⁶⁹, Lauren Gilbert ⁶⁹, Lee Graham ⁶⁹, Michelle Cronin ⁶⁹, Sara Kumziene-SummerhaYes ⁶⁹, Sarah Taylor ⁶⁹, Sophie Jones ⁶⁹, Danielle C Groves ⁹³, Peijun Zhang ⁹³, Marta Gallis ⁹³ and Stavroula F Louka ⁹³.

Samples and logistics, and Software and analysis tools: Igor Starinskij ⁴⁸.

Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools: Chris J Illingworth ⁴⁷, Chris Jackson ⁴⁷, Marina Gourtovaia ⁹⁹, Gerry Tonkin-Hill ⁹⁹, Kevin Lewis ⁹⁹, Jaime M Tovar-Corona ⁹⁹, Keith James ⁹⁹, Laura Baxter ⁹⁴, Mohammad T. Alam ⁹⁴, Richard J Orton ⁴⁸, Joseph Hughes ⁴⁸, Sreenu Vattipally ⁴⁸, Manon Ragonnet-Cronin ³⁹, Fabricia F. Nascimento ³⁹, David Jorgensen ³⁹, Olivia Boyd ³⁹, Lily Geidelberg ³⁹, Alex E Zarebski ²³, Jayna Raghwani ²³, Moritz UG Kraemer ²³, Joel Southgate ^{10, 69}, Benjamin B Lindsey ⁹³ and Timothy M Freeman ⁹³.

Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation: Jon-Paul Keatley ⁹⁹, Joshua B Singer ⁴⁸, Leonardo de Oliveira Martins ⁷⁰, Corin A Yeats ¹⁴, Khalil Abudahab ^{14, 114}, Ben EW Taylor ^{14, 114} and Mirko Menegazzo ¹⁴.

Leadership and supervision: John Danesh ⁹⁹, Wendy Hogsden ⁴⁶, Sahar Eldirdiri ²¹, Anita Kenyon ²¹, Jenifer Mason ⁴³, Trevor I Robinson ⁴³, Alison Holmes ^{38, 103}, James Price ^{38, 103}, John A Hartley ⁸², Tanya Curran ³, Alison E Mather ⁷⁰, Giri Shankar ⁶⁹, Rachel Jones ⁶⁹, Robin Howe ⁶⁹ and Sian Morgan ⁹.

Metadata curation: Elizabeth Wastenge ⁵³, Michael R Chapman ^{34, 88, 99}, Siddharth Mookerjee ^{38, 103}, Rachael Stanley ⁵⁴, Wendy Smith ¹⁵, Timothy Peto ⁵⁹, David Eyre ⁵⁹, Derrick Crook ⁵⁹, Gabrielle Vernet ³³, Christine Kitchen ¹⁰, Huw Gulliver ¹⁰, Ian Merrick ¹⁰, Martyn Guest ¹⁰, Robert Munn ¹⁰, Declan T Bradley ^{63, 72} and Tim Wyatt ⁶³.

Project administration: Charlotte Beaver ⁹⁹, Luke Foulser ⁹⁹, Sophie Palmer ⁸⁸, Carol M Churcher ⁸⁸, Ellena Brooks ⁸⁸, Kim S Smith ⁸⁸, Katerina Galai ⁸⁸, Georgina M McManus ⁸⁸, Frances Bolt ^{38, 103}, Francesc Coll ¹⁹, Lizzie Meadows ⁷⁰, Stephen W Attwood ²³, Alisha Davies ⁶⁹, Elen De Lacy ⁶⁹, Fatima Downing ⁶⁹, Sue Edwards ⁶⁹, Garry P Scarlett ⁷⁶, Sarah Jeremiah ⁸³ and Nikki Smith ⁹³.

Samples and logistics: Danielle Leek ⁸⁸, Sushmita Sridhar ^{88, 99}, Sally Forrest ⁸⁸, Claire Cormie ⁸⁸, Harmeet K Gill ⁸⁸, Joana Dias ⁸⁸, Ellen E Higginson ⁸⁸, Mailis Maes ⁸⁸, Jamie Young ⁸⁸, Michelle Wantoch ⁷, Sanger Covid Team (www.sanger.ac.uk/covid-team) ⁹⁹, Dorota Jamrozy ⁹⁹, Stephanie Lo ⁹⁹, Minal Patel ⁹⁹, Verity Hill ⁹⁰, Claire M Bewshea ⁹¹, Sian Ellard ^{73, 91}, Cressida Auckland ⁷³, Ian Harrison ⁶⁶, Chloe Bishop ⁶⁶, Vicki Chalker ⁶⁶, Alex Richter ⁸⁵, Andrew Beggs ⁸⁵, Angus Best ⁸⁶, Benita Percival ⁸⁶, Jeremy Mirza ⁸⁶, Oliver Megram ⁸⁶, Megan Mayhew ⁸⁶, Liam Crawford ⁸⁶, Fiona Ashcroft ⁸⁶, Emma Moles-Garcia ⁸⁶, Nicola Cumley ⁸⁶, Richard Hopes ⁶⁴, Patawee Asamaphan ⁴⁸, Marc O Niebel ⁴⁸, Rory N Gunson ¹⁰⁰, Amanda Bradley ⁵², Alasdair Maclean ⁵², Guy Mollett ⁵², Rachel Blacow ⁵², Paul Bird ¹⁶, Thomas Helmer ¹⁶, Karlie Fallon ¹⁶, Julian Tang ¹⁶, Antony D Hale ⁴⁹, Louissa R Macfarlane-Smith ⁴⁹, Katherine L Harper ⁴⁹, Holli Carden ⁴⁹, Nicholas W Machin ^{45, 64}, Kathryn A Jackson ⁹², Shazaad S Y Ahmad ^{45, 64}, Ryan P George ⁴⁵, Lance Turtle ⁹², Elaine O’Toole ⁴³, Joanne Watts ⁴³, Cassie Breen ⁴³, Angela Cowell ⁴³, Adela Alcolea-Medina ^{32, 96}, Themoula Charalampous ^{12, 42}, Amita Patel ¹¹, Lisa J Levett ³⁵, Judith Heaney ³⁵, Aileen Rowan ³⁹, Graham P Taylor ³⁹, Divya Shah ³⁰, Laura Atkinson ³⁰, Jack CD Lee ³⁰, Adam P Westhorpe ⁸², Riaz Jannoo ⁸², Helen L Lowe ⁸², Angeliki Karamani ⁸², Leah Ensell ⁸², Wendy Chatterton ³⁵, Monika Pusok ³⁵, Ashok Dadrah ⁷⁵, Amanda Symmonds ⁷⁵, Graciela Sluga ⁴⁴, Zoltan Molnar ⁷², Paul Baker ⁷⁹, Stephen Bonner ⁷⁹, Sarah Essex ⁷⁹, Edward Barton ⁵⁶, Debra Padgett ⁵⁶, Garren Scott ⁵⁶, Jane Greenaway ⁵⁷, Brendan AI Payne ⁵⁰, Shirelle Burton-Fanning ⁵⁰, Sheila Waugh ⁵⁰, Veena Raviprakash ¹⁷, Nicola Sheriff ¹⁷, Victoria Blakey ¹⁷, Lesley-Anne Williams ¹⁷, Jonathan Moore ²⁷, Susanne Stonehouse ²⁷, Louise Smith ⁵⁵, Rose K Davidson ⁸⁹, Luke Bedford ²⁶, Lindsay Coupland ⁵⁴, Victoria Wright ¹⁸, Joseph G Chappell ⁹⁷, Theocharis Tsoleridis ⁹⁷, Jonathan Ball ⁹⁷, Manjinder Khakh ¹⁵, Vicki M Fleming ¹⁵, Michelle M Lister ¹⁵, Hannah C Howson-Wells ¹⁵, Louise Berry ¹⁵, Tim Boswell ¹⁵, Amelia Joseph ¹⁵, Iona Willingham ¹⁵, Nichola Duckworth ⁶⁰, Sarah Walsh ⁶⁰, Emma Wise ^{2, 111}, Nathan Moore ^{2, 111}, Matilde Mori ^{2, 108, 111}, Nick Cortes ^{2, 111}, Stephen Kidd ^{2, 111}, Rebecca Williams ³³, Laura Gifford ⁶⁹, Kelly Bicknell ⁶¹, Sarah Wyllie ⁶¹, Allyson Lloyd ⁶¹, Robert Impey ⁶¹, Cassandra S Malone ⁶, Benjamin J Cogger ⁶, Nick Levene ⁶², Lynn Monaghan ⁶², Alexander J Keeley ⁹³, David G Partridge ^{78, 93}, Mohammad Raza ^{78, 93}, Cariad Evans ^{78, 93} and Kate Johnson ^{78, 93}.

Sequencing and analysis: Emma Betteridge ⁹⁹, Ben W Farr ⁹⁹, Scott Goodwin ⁹⁹, Michael A Quail ⁹⁹, Carol Scott ⁹⁹, Lesley Shirley ⁹⁹, Scott AJ Thurston ⁹⁹, Diana Rajan ⁹⁹, Iraad F Bronner ⁹⁹, Louise Aigrain ⁹⁹, Nicholas M Redshaw ⁹⁹, Stefanie V Lensing ⁹⁹, Shane McCarthy ⁹⁹, Alex Makunin ⁹⁹, Carlos E Balcazar ⁹⁰, Michael D Gallagher ⁹⁰, Kathleen A Williamson ⁹⁰, Thomas D Stanton ⁹⁰, Michelle L Michelsen ⁹¹, Joanna Warwick-Dugdale ⁹¹, Robin Manley ⁹¹, Audrey Farbos ⁹¹, James W Harrison ⁹¹, Christine M Sambles ⁹¹, David J Studholme ⁹¹, Angie Lackenby ⁶⁶, Tamyo Mbisa ⁶⁶, Steven Platt ⁶⁶, Shahjahan Miah ⁶⁶, David Bibby ⁶⁶, Carmen Manso ⁶⁶, Jonathan Hubb ⁶⁶, Gavin Dabrera ⁶⁶, Mary Ramsay ⁶⁶, Daniel Bradshaw ⁶⁶, Ulf Schaefer ⁶⁶, Natalie Groves ⁶⁶, Eileen Gallagher ⁶⁶, David Lee ⁶⁶, David Williams ⁶⁶, Nicholas Ellaby ⁶⁶, Hassan Hartman ⁶⁶, Nikos Manesis ⁶⁶, Vineet Patel ⁶⁶, Juan Ledesma ⁶⁷, Katherine A Twohig ⁶⁷, Elias Allara ^{64, 88}, Clare Pearson ^{64, 88}, Jeffrey K. J. Cheng ⁹⁴, Hannah E. Bridgewater ⁹⁴, Lucy R. Frost ⁹⁴, Grace Taylor-Joyce ⁹⁴, Paul E Brown ⁹⁴, Lily Tong ⁴⁸, Alice Broos ⁴⁸, Daniel Mair ⁴⁸, Jenna Nichols ⁴⁸, Stephen N Carmichael ⁴⁸, Katherine L Smollett ⁴⁰, Kyriaki Nomikou ⁴⁸, Elihu Aranday-Cortes ⁴⁸, Natasha Johnson ⁴⁸, Seema Nickbakhsh ^{48, 68}, Edith E Vamos ⁹², Margaret Hughes ⁹², Lucille Rainbow ⁹², Richard Eccles ⁹², Charlotte Nelson ⁹², Mark Whitehead ⁹², Richard Gregory ⁹², Matthew Gemmell ⁹², Claudia Wierzbicki ⁹², Hermione J Webster ⁹², Chloe L Fisher ²⁸, Adrian W Signell ²⁰, Gilberto Betancor ²⁰, Harry D Wilson ²⁰, Gaia Nebbia ¹², Flavia Flaviani ³¹, Alberto C Cerda ⁹⁶, Tammy V Merrill ⁹⁶, Rebekah E Wilson ⁹⁶, Marius Cotic ⁸², Nadua Bayzid ⁸², Thomas Thompson ⁷², Erwan Acheson ⁷², Steven Rushton ⁵¹, Sarah O’Brien ⁵¹, David J Baker ⁷⁰, Steven Rudder ⁷⁰, Alp Aydin ⁷⁰, Fei Sang ¹⁸, Johnny Debebe ¹⁸, Sarah Francois ²³, Tetyana I Vasylyeva ²³, Marina Escalera Zamudio ²³, Bernardo Gutierrez ²³, Angela Marchbank ¹⁰, Joshua Maksimovic ⁹, Karla Spellman ⁹, Kathryn McCluggage ⁹, Mari Morgan ⁶⁹, Robert Beer ⁹, Safiah Afifi ⁹, Trudy Workman ¹⁰, William Fuller ¹⁰, Catherine Bresner ¹⁰, Adrienn Angyal ⁹³, Luke R Green ⁹³, Paul J Parsons ⁹³, Rachel M Tucker ⁹³, Rebecca Brown ⁹³ and Max Whiteley ⁹³.

Software and analysis tools: James Bonfield ⁹⁹, Christoph Puethe ⁹⁹, Andrew Whitwham ⁹⁹, Jennifier Liddle ⁹⁹, Will Rowe ⁴¹, Igor Siveroni ³⁹, Thanh Le-Viet ⁷⁰ and Amy Gaskin ⁶⁹.

Visualisation: Rob Johnson ³⁹.

Affiliations

1 Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, 2 Basingstoke Hospital, 3 Belfast Health & Social Care Trust, 4 Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, 5 Big Data Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, 6 Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, 7 Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, University of Cambridge, 8 Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 9 Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, 10 Cardiff University, 11 Centre for Clinical Infection & Diagnostics Research, St. Thomas’ Hospital and Kings College London, 12 Centre for Clinical Infection and Diagnostics Research, Department of Infectious Diseases, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, 13 Centre for Enzyme Innovation, University of Portsmouth (PORT), 14 Centre for Genomic Pathogen Surveillance, University of Oxford, 15 Clinical Microbiology Department, Queens Medical Centre, 16 Clinical Microbiology, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, 17 County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, 18 Deep Seq, School of Life Sciences, Queens Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, 19 Department of Infection Biology, Faculty of Infectious & Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 20 Department of Infectious Diseases, King’s College London, 21 Department of Microbiology, Kettering General Hospital, 22 Departments of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Cambridge, UK, 23 Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, 24 Division of Virology, Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, 25 East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, 26 East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust, 27 Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust, 28 Genomics Innovation Unit, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, 29 Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 30 Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, 31 Guy’s and St. Thomas’ BRC, 32 Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Hospitals, 33 Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 34 Health Data Research UK Cambridge, 35 Health Services Laboratories, 36 Heartlands Hospital, Birmingham, 37 Hub for Biotechnology in the Built Environment, Northumbria University, 38 Imperial College Hospitals NHS Trust, 39 Imperial College London, 40 Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health & Comparative Medicine, 41 Institute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, 42 King’s College London, 43 Liverpool Clinical Laboratories, 44 Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, 45 Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, 46 Microbiology Department, Wye Valley NHS Trust, Hereford, 47 MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, 48 MRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, 49 National Infection Service, PHE and Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, 50 Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 51 Newcastle University, 52 NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, 53 NHS Lothian, 54 Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, 55 Norfolk County Council, 56 North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust, 57 North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, 58 Northumbria University, 59 Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 60 PathLinks, Northern Lincolnshire & Goole NHS Foundation Trust, 61 Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust, 62 Princess Alexandra Hospital Microbiology Dept., 63 Public Health Agency, 64 Public Health England, 65 Public Health England, Clinical Microbiology and Public Health Laboratory, Cambridge, UK, 66 Public Health England, Colindale, 67 Public Health England, Colindale, 68 Public Health Scotland, 69 Public Health Wales NHS Trust, 70 Quadram Institute Bioscience, 71 Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 72 Queen’s University Belfast, 73 Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, 74 Royal Free NHS Trust, 75 Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust, 76 School of Biological Sciences, University of Portsmouth (PORT), 77 School of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Portsmouth (PORT), 78 Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, 79 South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 80 Swansea University, 81 University Hospitals Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, 82 University College London, 83 University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, 84 University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, 85 University of Birmingham, 86 University of Birmingham Turnkey Laboratory, 87 University of Brighton, 88 University of Cambridge, 89 University of East Anglia, 90 University of Edinburgh, 91 University of Exeter, 92 University of Liverpool, 93 University of Sheffield, 94 University of Warwick, 95 University of Cambridge, 96 Viapath, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, and King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 97 Virology, School of Life Sciences, Queens Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, 98 Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, 99 Wellcome Sanger Institute, 100 West of Scotland Specialist Virology Centre, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, 101 Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, 102 Ministry of Health, Sri Lanka, 103 NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in HCAI and AMR, Imperial College London, 104 North West London Pathology, 105 NU-OMICS, Northumbria University, 106 University of Kent, 107 University of Oxford, 108 University of Southampton, 109 University of Southampton School of Health Sciences, 110 University of Southampton School of Medicine, 111 University of Surrey, 112 Warwick Medical School and Institute of Precision Diagnostics, Pathology, UHCW NHS Trust, 113 Wellcome Africa Health Research Institute Durban and 114 Wellcome Genome Campus.

Supplementary Figures

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. S1.

Analysis of COG-UK backfilling. This plot shows the trends in COG-UK sequence counts (A), lineage richness (B), and lineages per-sequence (C) for data downloaded on 2021-01-11. Comparing January 11th download to previous downloads reveals the backfilling of samples from previous sample dates but (D) by 1-month or 31 days prior to a download most of the samples are processed and uploaded to COG-UK. We use data up to 31 days prior to our final download to avoid potential backfilling biases when comparing growth rates across lineages.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. S2.

Muller plots of the relative abundance of the 9 major SARS-CoV2 lineages (reaching at least 13% in any week overall) in different NHS regions across the UK, based on the raw COG-UK sequencing data, aggregated by week. The remaining minority variants comprise a collection of a total of 410 lineages. Note that the large fluctuations seen in July & August in some regions such as Scotland are caused by low sample size.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. S3.

Fitted spread of variants to B.1.177 and VOC 202012/01 estimated from a multinomial spline model by NHS region fit on the COG-UK data (model 1a in Table S1 and Fig. 2C) with 95% confidence intervals and per-week aggregated raw proportions, shown on a logit (log(odds)) scale. The much faster rate of spread of VOC 202012/01 compared to B.1.177 is apparent (cf. Δr values in Table S1). The excellent linearity on a logit scale for VOC 202012/01 allows us to realistically model the spread of this variant using spatially more fine-grained binomial GLMMs (carried out the level of LTLAs), using a subset of the data from August 1 2020 onwards. Likewise, a binomial GLMM was used to model the spread of variant B.1.177 for the period between July 1 2020 and September 30 2020, before it starting to be displaced by VOC 202012/01.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. S4.

Muller plots of the relative abundances of the major SARS-CoV-2 variants in the UK, based on a multinomial mixed model fit to COG-UK sequence data, incorporating lower-tier local authority as a random intercept as well as overdispersion (common-slopes multinomial mixed model 1b in Table 1). A model extrapolation until the end of February is shown (shaded area). Minority variants are 410 circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains that never reached >13% in any week overall.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. S5.

Binomial GLMMs fitted on the COG-UK sequence data with separate-slopes by region (models 2a and 2g in Table S1) show that VOC 202012/01 has been displacing all other SARS-CoV2 variants at a consistently high rate across different regions in the UK (A, Table S1), with pairwise Tukey posthoc tests for differences in slopes across regions mainly demonstrating a slightly slower rate of displacement in the East of England. By contrast, variant B.1.177, which in the UK became the major strain at the end of September, had a much lower competitive advantage in comparison with the minority variants that it displaced, evident from the much lower slope on a log(odds) scale (Table S1). In addition, pairwise Tukey posthoc tests for differences in slopes across regions demonstrate marked and significant cross-regional variation in the rate of spread of this variant (10 out of 36 pairwise comparisons with P < 0.05). This supports the idea that VOC 202012/01 enjoys a consistent competitive advantage, whilst the small competitive advantage enjoyed by variant B.1.177 may have been largely, though perhaps not exclusively, the result of stochastic introduction events, e.g. linked with travel to Spain (53), where it was first observed.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. S6.

Estimates of the rate at which VOC 202012/01 is displacing other variants in the UK, Denmark, Switzerland and the USA based on S-gene target failure data (UK & USA) and sequencing of SARS-CoV2 strains (Denmark and Switzerland) or RT-PCR 501Y.V1 re-screening (Switzerland) (32–36) (binomial GLMMs, with adjustment for the true positive rate in the analyses of SGTF data). For the UK data, a binomial spline GLMM with NHS region and a natural cubic spline with 3 degrees of freedom in function of sampling date plus the interaction between both as fixed effects and an observation-level random effect to take into account overdispersion provided the best fit based on the BIC criterion. The different intercepts for the different regions reflect differences in the dates of introduction of the VOC, which in terms of relative timing match those inferred from the COG-UK data (Fig. S3 and S5). By contrast, for the data from Denmark, Switzerland and the USA, models with sample date included as an additive fixed effect and region (or state) coded as either a fixed factor (for Switzerland) or as a random intercept (for Denmark and the USA), and an observation-level random effect included to take into account overdispersion (54), provided the best fit. This indicates a near-constant rate of displacement in the different regions or states within each of those countries. Based on these data, the overall average growth advantage in the UK, Denmark, Switzerland and the USA are estimated at 10.9% (10.7-11.1%), 8.0% (6.7-9.2%), 10.1% (9.2-10.9%) and 8.4% (8.0-8.8%) per day, which with a generation time of 5.5 days would translate to mean transmission advantages of 83% (81-84%), 55% (45-66%), 74% (66-82%) and 59% (56-63%) (cf. models 2h, 3a, 3b and 3c in Table S1). For Switzerland and the USA, slightly earlier introduction in Geneva and Florida are apparent.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. S7.

Estimates of the rate at which VOC 202012/01 is displacing other variants in the USA shown by state (displaying the 9 states with the most data), based on S-gene target failure data (36). A binomial GLMM with sample date included as an additive fixed effect, state coded as a random intercept and an observation-level random effect included to take into account overdispersion (54), provided the best fit based on the BIC criterion. In this model, binomial counts were adjusted to take into account the true positive rate (the proportion of the S-negative samples that were indeed the VOC), which was estimated using an independent binomial GLMM fitted on sequencing data of S-negative samples, whereby sample date was included as a continuous covariate and state was coded as a random intercept. A random-slope model, whereby the regression slope could vary by state, was also fitted but provided a worse model fit based on the BIC criterion. This indicates that with the current evidence, the VOC is displacing the other strains at a comparable rate across the different states of the US. The different intercepts reflect different dates of introduction.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. S8. Diagram of the two-strain model with vaccination.

Subscripts for age group and region are omitted from this diagram and only certain key parameters are shown. Compartments and processes in purple apply to the vaccine model only. S, susceptible; E, exposed; L, latent (see below); I_P, preclinically infectious; I_C, clinically infectious; I_S, subclinically infectious; R, recovered; V, vaccinated. Subscript 2 represents compartments and parameters for VOC 202012/01. Above, λ and λ₂ are the force of infection for preexisting variants versus VOC 202012/01; y and y₂ are the fraction of cases that develop clinical symptoms for preexisting variants versus VOC 202012/01; v is the rate of vaccination; w_v is the waning rate of vaccination (assumed to be zero for this manuscript); p captures cross-protection against VOC 202012/01 conferred by immunity to preexisting variants; q captures vaccine protection against disease; and r captures vaccine protection against infection. L and L₂ are additional compartments for a latent period prior to subclinical infection only (i.e. with zero probability of clinical infection). For a vaccine with efficacy against disease e_d (e.g. e_d = 0.95 for this manuscript) and efficacy against infection e_i (e.g. e_i = 0.6 for this manuscript), we assume r = (1 – e_i) e_d and q = (1 – e_i) (1 – e_d).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. S9.

Model posterior densities for the “increased transmissibility” model for seven NHS England regions. See Table S2 for parameter definitions.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. S10.

Model posterior densities for “longer infectious period” for three NHS England regions. See Table S2 for parameter definitions.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. S11.

Model posterior densities for “immune escape” model for three NHS England regions. See Table S2 for parameter definitions.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. S12.

Model posterior densities for “increased susceptibility in children” model for three NHS England regions. See Table S2 for parameter definitions.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. S13.

Model posterior densities for “shorter generation time” model for three NHS England regions. See Table S2 for parameter definitions.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. S14.

Model posterior densities for a “combined” model with increased transmissibility, altered serial interval, immune escape, and altered susceptibility in children. See Table S2 for parameter definitions.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. S15.

Analysis of age-stratified secondary attack rates, based on data reported by Public Health England (63) (data derived from the COG-UK dataset, the PHE Second Generation Surveillance System and NHS Test and Trace). A binomial GLM with data type (sequence data or S-gene target failure), age group of the person being infected, and variant (VOC 202012/01 or not) plus all first order interaction effects shows that the odds to be infected by an index patient carrying the VOC is consistently higher than by those carrying other variants (A). Sidak posthoc tests show the odds to be infected by the VOC to be significantly greater than by a non-VOC variant for nearly all age groups (for all age groups and both data types 2-sided P < 1E-7, except for 80+ where P = 0.07 and 0.06 for sequencing and SGTF data, respectively). The mean probability for secondary contacts to become infected in function of age was not significantly different across both types of data (no significant data type by age interaction effect, Type III test, ) and there was also no difference in the estimated increased odds to be infected by a VOC vs. a non-VOC index patient (no significant data type by variant interaction effect, Type III test, ). The mean odds ratio to be infected by an index patient carrying the VOC vs. a non-VOC variant across all age groups and both data types was 1.41 [1.34, 1.48] 95% CIs. The relative susceptibility to be infected by the VOC showed little variation in function of the age of the person being infected, with only the 40-49 category being slightly more susceptible to be infected by a VOC vs a non-VOC carrying index patient than average (measured in terms of difference in log odds ratios, Sidak age group x variant interaction contrasts, z ratio = 3.45, P = 0.01, all other P > 0.05).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. S16.

Comparison of age distribution of infections in the two-strain model, depending upon biological mechanism of VOC 202012/01 growth rate, and age distribution of Pillar 2 (community) SARS-CoV-2 tests with and without S gene target failure. Contrasting (A) “longer infectious period” and (B) “increased susceptibility among children” models with (C) pillar 2 testing data. Measured in the fitted model and empirically for the South East NHS England region in December 2020. Empirical data (C) does not show any marked increase of S gene target failure comparable to the increase in VOC 202012/01 infections in the “increased susceptibility among children” model (B). The lower overall proportion of Pillar 2 tests among 0–9-year-olds in the testing data may be due to lower propensity for testing in this age group.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. S17.

Fit of “increased transmissibility” model to data up to 24 December 2020. Black lines show observed data, while coloured lines and shaded regions show median and 95% credible intervals from the fitted model.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. S18.

Fit of “increased transmissibility” model to data up to 24 December 2020, with the emergence of the second strain (VOC 202012/01) disabled. Surges in the East of England, London, and the South East are no longer captured. Black lines show observed data, while coloured lines and shaded regions show median and 95% credible intervals from the fitted model.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. S19.

Fit of a model with no second strain up to 24 December 2020. The model increases transmission of the original strain to compensate, but cannot capture surges in the East of England, London, and the South East. Black lines show observed data, while coloured lines and shaded regions show median and 95% credible intervals from the fitted model.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. S20.

Google Mobility indices used for projections in the main text (Fig. 4).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. S21.

Model projections by NHS region, without vaccination. Median and 95% credible intervals are shown. See Fig. 4A, main text.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. S22.

Model projections by NHS region, with 200,000 vaccinations per day. Median and 95% credible intervals are shown. See Fig. 4B, main text.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. S23.

Model projections by NHS region, with 2 million vaccinations per day. Median and 95% credible intervals are shown. See Fig. 4C, main text.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. S24.

Model projections for England, with a seasonal component of transmission equivalent to 20% greater transmission at the peak of winter (1 January) relative to summer (1 July) (22). Median and 95% credible intervals are shown. See Fig. 4, main text.

Supplementary Tables