Regional probabilistic situational awareness and forecasting of COVID-19

2.1 Regional predictions

Regional predictions of hospitalisations have been pivotal for preparedness and capacity planning. Importantly, our predictions assume no changes in the transmissibility in the short-term, hence showing what would happen if policies and behaviour remained unchanged. However, our predictions often triggered new policies and behavioural changes, which in turn can influence reproduction numbers. Therefore, we produce only three-weeks-ahead predictions.

In figure 1, we show three-weeks-ahead predictions of hospitalisations, using data until 04/01/2021. As additional interventions were implemented in Norway in late March 2021, our predictions overestimate actual data in county Viken and nationally. This is due to the delay between transmission and laboratory-confirmed test and/or hospitalisation: the changes were not yet visible in the data used for calibration. In the supplementary text (figures S8-S33), we present predictions for other dates, where the predictions are better because intervention policies remained unchanged.

When the main interest is predicting hospitalisations, it is unclear whether it is best to use both test and hospitalisation data or only the latter. On one side, using all available data should reduce uncertainty, and test data contain more information about recent changes because of the shorter delay. But if the two data sources are not appropriately coherent, the hospital predictions may be substantially biased. We compared hospital predictions when calibrating to both test and hospital data, to when calibrating only to the latter. Results (see supplementary text figures S12-S17) showed that point predictions were more accurate when only calibrating to the hospital data. There was a systematic underestimation of the predicted hospitalisations when also using the test data. However, prediction uncertainty is larger when using only the hospitalisation data.

2.2 The national picture

To present a national picture, we calibrate the model assuming the same transmissibility in all regions (table 1). In Norway, the estimated national reduction in transmissibility after the lockdown in March 2020 was 85% (78%, 89%), to a reproduction number significantly below 1. After reopening schools, we estimate a reduction of 79% (65%, 91%) compared to before interventions. During late spring 2020, many restrictions were lifted, but the estimated mean/median effective reproduction number stayed below 1 until 08/01/2020, when the borders, universities and schools reopened. During autumn 2020, the national reproduction number increased. Many restrictions were again implemented on 11/05/2020, and we estimate a reduction of 75% (69%, 80%) compared to R₀. For the restrictions on 01/04/2021, we estimate a reduction of 81% (76%, 85%) compared to R₀. On 03/02/2021, Oslo implemented several restrictions. Nationally, we estimate an effect of these interventions of 66% (57%, 73%) compared to R₀.

2.3 Policy compliance and reduced mobility

The mobility data are indicators for compliance with mobility reducing policies, like travel restrictions and teleworking. Figure 3 shows the daily number of trips out from each of Norway’s counties. There was a clear reduction in mobility during the March 2020 lockdown of approximately 50%. Thereafter, mobility increased steadily until the summer. In July, geographic differences in mobility correspond to summer vacations. Later in 2020, Norway experienced high, regionally varying mobility, with peaks around vacations. Late 2020 and early 2021, mobility decreases again during the second and third waves. The systematic mobility drop on weekends indicates commuting to work even though teleworking was recommended.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3:

Daily time series of aggregated outgoing mobility from Norway’s counties: Oslo (03), Rogaland (11), Møre og Romsdal (15), Nordland (18), Viken (30), Innlandet (34), Vestfold og Telemark (38), Agder (42), Vestland (46), Trøndelag (50), Troms og Finmark (54).

For some counties (e.g., Troms og Finnmark), mobility has recovered to the levels prior to the first lockdown, while this is not the case for others (Oslo and Viken).

2.4 Half of the imported cases were discovered

In the beginning of an epidemic and whenever the disease level is low, importation of the virus into the regions is decisive. In Norway, many of the early imported cases were identified, as testing of everyone returning from known risk areas was recommended[23]. However, an unknown number of imported cases escaped control. We estimated that only 49% (33%, 84%) of the imported cases were notified and registered.

2.5 Predictive improvement with regional transmissibility

We investigate the predictive performance of the proposed model with regionally varying reproduction numbers for Norway and compare it to the model using a nationally constant reproduction number. We predict the weekly hospitalisation incidence and the number of new confirmed symptomatic cases region-wise for three weeks ahead following 04/01/2021, 03/01/2021, 11/01/2020, 10/01/2020, and 09/01/2020. We calibrate using data up to the prediction date. To quantify the quality of predictions and compare models, we calculate a multivariate energy-score for the region-wise predictions and a continuous ranked probability score (CRPS) for the aggregated national predictions[24], using the R-package scoringRules[25]. Proper scoring rules allow to study the quality of probabilistic forecasts by simultaneously considering the overlap between the predictions and observations and the width of the forecast distribution. Lower scores indicate better predictive performance. We also present the percentage of weeks per region when the observed hospital incidence is within the 95% prediction interval (PI).

Results, averaged over the five periods, are in figure 4, see also supplementary text table S3. The model with regional reproduction numbers clearly outperforms the national model on predicting hospital incidence and confirmed cases at the regional level, shown by the regional energy scores. The national model does slightly better on the aggregated national CRPS score for shorter predictions of 1 week, but the regional model performs better at national level for predictions two and three weeks ahead. The coverage of the regional 50% and 95% PI is good for the hospital admissions, but low for the test data. This is probably since we use a 7-days moving average in the calibration of the test data, to avoid estimating additional day-of-the-week effects. In Norway, short term predictions of hospital admissions have been an important public health tool, while predictions of the number of confirmed cases have mainly been used for model checking and validation.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4:

Average county energy score, national CRPS and county level coverage of 50 and 95% PI for the regional and national model.

4.1 Case data

We utilise different COVID-19 data sources. We have access to anonymised individual-level hospital incidence data from the Norwegian Intensive Care and Pandemic Registry. This data set includes all patients admitted within 14 days of a positive laboratory test or diagnosed with COVID-19 in the discharge report for all hospitalised individuals in Norway until 04/01/2021. From MSIS, we also have access to all the positive and negative COVID-19 tests performed from 04/01/2020 until 04/01/2021 in Norway, and for each tested case we have information about whether or not the individual was infected abroad. Additional details are provided in the supplementary text section S2.1.

4.2 Mobility data

We estimate mobility between counties of Norway by mobile phone data for the whole epidemic period until 04/01/2021. Every day is divided into six-hour intervals, during which the total number of individuals transitioning between counties is counted. Individual movements are not tracked over time. When predicting the future, we regularise the most recent movement matrix to ensure conservation of the number of people per county and the rare depletion of inhabitants in smaller counties. We use all subscribers to Telenor Norway, the largest mobile network operator. Additional details are given in supplementary text section S2.2.

4.3 Infectious disease spread model

For situational awareness and forecasting of the COVID-19 epidemic, we have developed a stochastic spatial metapopulation SEIR model[31, 32]. The model consists of three layers: (i) the total population, distributed in regions, with a region-specific age profile; (ii) a mathematical transmission model per region; (iii) an inter-regional mobility model informed by mobile phone data.

Multiple studies indicate the importance of presymptomatic transmission[5, 33, 34] and asymptomatic infection[35] of SARS-CoV-2. We include six compartments in the model: susceptible, exposed, presymptomatic, infectious with symptoms, infectious asymptomatic, and recovered. Details are provided in supplementary text section S2.4. For each region, we assume that transmissibility is a step-function, constant between changepoints, corresponding to changes in regional regulations. We calculate the expression for the basic reproduction number of this model, R₀, as the largest eigenvalue of the next generation matrix, see supplementary text section S3.8. The effective reproduction number is obtained by multiplying the eigenvalue with the average proportion susceptible during the constant periods between changepoints.

4.4 Calibration

To estimate the model parameters, we calibrate to region-specific daily hospital incidence and laboratory-confirmed cases. Using multiple data sources in inference is useful, as each component might carry unique information, intrinsically or due to measurement error[26, 37]. For these reasons however, inconsistency between data sources can appear, challenging inference.

We use age-specific hospitalisation risks, the age structure of each region, and the age distribution of the laboratory-confirmed cases, to simulate hospitalisations. The time between symptom onset and hospitalisation is estimated from registry data on all hospitalised cases. This leads to a stochastic time shift between transmission and hospitalisation of approximately 14 days, see supplementary text section S2.5.4 for details.

We model the laboratory-confirmed cases as a binomial process of the daily incidence. The case detection probability by testing depends on the total number of tests, as a proxy for the time-varying effort to detect cases. As our model only estimates transmission within a country, we exclude the cases imported from abroad. For Norway, we choose not to use the laboratory-confirmed cases before 05/01/2020, as the test criteria and capacity were significantly different early in the epidemic.

Inference was based on a new version of SMC-ABC (split-SMC-ABC, see supplementary text section S2.8), resulting in samples from the approximate joint posterior distribution of the parameters. ABC is known to fail to scale in the number of parameters[38]. For Norway, after a year, there are almost 100 parameters, far beyond what is feasible for SMC-ABC, which then fails to converge in useful time. To our knowledge, our new split-SMC-ABC is the first method able to estimate so many parameters in a stochastic model, in time useful for operational regional surveillance, exploiting that correlations of transmissibility become less important over time. It has turned out to be an important instrument in decision making in Norway[36]. To simulate the future, we propagate posterior samples into the future, and obtain credibility intervals (CI) of the forecasts.

The split-SMC-ABC is based on temporal splits of the data and calibration. We first perform a calibration of the early part of the epidemic using data until a predefined split point. The results are then probabilistically propagated further, after the split, such that in operation we only calibrate the post-split parameters, to the most recent data. Multiple splits can be introduced. Data overlap between splits, to reduce discontinuities in inference and to cope with time delays between data and transmission.

Often, regions are demographically and epidemiologically different. When all the regional parameters are calibrated simultaneously, the more populated regions with more cases are typically estimated better. In the last post-split calibration, we therefore first perform a separate calibration for each region, assuming a common transmissibility for all other regions. The results for each region are then used to inform prior distributions in a final simultaneous calibration of all the parameters. This final simultaneous calibration is necessary to handle the spatial dependence.