Using high-resolution contact networks to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 transmission and control in large-scale multi-day events

Characterising social interactions on cruise ships

3,963,256 contact episodes with 1,846,312 unique contact pairs were recorded during 37-hour data collection periods across four separate three-day sailings (see Materials and methods). During the period studied, cruise lines were operating at 50% capacity with a passenger to crew ratio of approximately 1:1 and passengers from different travelling groups were strongly advised to maintain a physical distance of at least one metre from other groups.

The four sailings had a mean of 1304 passengers (range 1142–1682) with a median age of 54 (IQR 35–63) and a mean of 1050 crew (range 1003–1083) spread across eight work departments (Table 1). There was a high density of contacts among passengers, with some clustering of contacts among crew, although crew members may be required to work with other individuals from the same or different departments, and roles such as housekeeping and galley crew had contacts dispersed across the network (Fig. 1A and fig. S1). Crew were encouraged to form ‘work bubbles’ as part of COVID-19 workplace interventions (i.e. team of workers that work independently from another team). As a result, on average they had 10 unique close contacts per day (IQR 6–18), about 50% lower than that of passengers (median 20, IQR 10–36) (Fig. 1B). If the threshold for close contact (defined as a cumulative duration of interaction of 15 minutes in our baseline analysis) was relaxed to a shorter duration, the overall median unique close contacts scaled exponentially (Fig. 1C). The strength of each contact (i.e. edge weights) can be further quantified as a function of the duration of the contact (see Materials and methods). Adjusted for the duration of each contact, the median weighted degree in crew was 8.3 (IQR 4.4–13.5), while the median in passengers was 13.9 (IQR 5.6–23.7) (Table 2). Furthermore, passengers had significantly higher connectivity with other highly-connected individuals, with a median eigenvector centrality of 0.3 (IQR 0.1–0.5) compared to a median of 0.09 (IQR 0.03–0.2) for crew (Table 2 and fig. S2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. 1

Distribution of cruise ship contacts. (A) Illustrative short-term network dynamics, showing cumulative network of all contacts that began between 12.00 to 12.05pm on the second day of a sail and lasted till the end of their contact episode. Edge width and colour intensity are a function of the type of contact (i.e. close, casual and transient). Intra- and inter-cohort contacts are represented by the connection of nodes with the same and different colour respectively. (B) Number of unique close, casual, transient contacts made per day by passenger and crew. (C) Number of close contacts per day for both crew and passengers using different thresholds for the cumulative duration of interaction.

Analysing the contacts formed during activities

The total number of contacts made by passengers with passengers from other travelling groups varied according to the type of location and the time spent at that location. The total close contacts plateaued at approximately 3 (IQR 2–5) after spending at least 1 hour in a food and beverage (F&B) location (Fig. 2A) while the total close contacts was 2 (IQR 1–3) after spending 30 minutes to 1 hour in a sports location and increased to 4 (IQR 2–7) after spending at least 2 hours (Fig. 2C).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. 2

Number of contacts made between passengers from different travelling groups per visit to a type of location (A-E) and snapshot of contact network at respective locations for 2 hour intervals on the second day of the sailing (F-J). Type of locations are: F&B (A, F), entertainment (B, G), sports (C, H), shops (D, I) and public areas (E, J). Median (shapes), 50% (dark lines) and 95% intervals (light lines) are shown in (A-E). Nodes of different colour intensity represent the time spent in the location by respective passengers.

Over the three-day sailings, a median of 71% (IQR 64–74%) of all the close contact episodes occurring between passengers from different travelling groups occurred in F&B locations of which 23% (IQR 19–26%) and 38% (IQR 31–40%) occurred in the buffet and inclusive restaurants respectively (Fig. 3A and B). 16% (IQR 11–24%) of the close contacts occurred in entertainment areas and 8% (IQR 6–10%) in sports areas (Fig. 3A). Passengers are largely mask-off when dining or engaged in sports and this accounted for 79% (IQR 69–84%) of all close contact episodes, 69% (IQR 57–76%) causal and 60% (IQR 51–66%) transient contact episodes (Fig. 3A).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. 3

Type of contact by location of interaction and throughout the sailing, (A) proportion of all close, casual and transient contact episodes between passengers of different travelling groups by the location of interaction, (B) proportion of all close, casual and transient contact episodes between passengers of different travelling groups by respective F&B locations.

Modelling outbreak dynamics and interventions

To examine the spread of SARS-CoV-2 on cruise ships and implications for other large-scale multi-day events, we used the contact data to generate an undirected network with nodes and edges representing individuals and the contact between them respectively. We defined the strength of an edge as a function of the proportion of days with recorded contact over a three-day sail period and the mean daily cumulative contact duration between two individuals to approximate a scenario where the edge weight reached 95% saturation after 3 hours of contact (see Materials and methods). This meant that the propensity for transmission increased and stabilised after 3 hours of contact, to mimic contacts formed in family gatherings over extended periods of time (14, 15).

We extended a community network transmission model (16, 17) to simulate SAR-CoV-2 Delta variant transmission over seven days, to enable comparison between different interventions during early generations of transmission. We considered interventions including: (i) one-off PCR testing one day before the sailing (to allow for test turnaround time), (ii) rapid antigen testing at the start and halfway through the event, (iii) mask wearing in feasible settings and (iv) vaccination coverage among attendees. In both (i) and (ii) testing interventions, we assumed infected individuals were isolated immediately after a positive test. The sensitivity of the PCR and rapid antigen tests were assumed to vary with viral load modelled according to the Delta variant (8, 18–20). For the mask wearing intervention, we assumed that passengers of different travelling groups would be exposed to each other without a mask during dining, sports activities (e.g. pool and waterslides, rock climbing, basketball, football) or smoking breaks; and would be wearing a mask correctly otherwise. Furthermore, contacts between passengers and crew were assumed to occur with mask-on at all times and crew-crew contacts were assumed to occur without a mask during meals times, workouts or smoking breaks. The proportion of contacts that occurred without a mask were modelled based on the proportion of contacts occurring in F&B and sport settings (Fig. 3A).

Under the baseline scenario with no modelled interventions, with one initial infected individual and assuming that the event lasted for 7 days, we estimated a median of 10 individuals (IQR 3– 23) would be infected by the end of the event (Fig. 4A and fig. S3A). Of these, 90% (IQR 84– 100) would only develop symptoms after the event. Because presymptomatic transmission was assumed to account for 25% the transmission, more than two generations of infections could sometimes occur during the event (Fig. S3B). We estimated that 64% and 17% of the simulated outbreaks involved spillover from passengers to crew and inter-department crew transmission respectively, and we estimated that spillover events first occurred in the 2nd (IQR 2–3) and 3rd (IQR 3–4) generation respectively. Outbreaks with a final size of more than 10 cases occurred in 48% of our simulations (Fig. 4B).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. 4

Outbreak size under respective interventions. (A) Cases and contacts in one outbreak simulation with cases represented by an enlarged node and red curved arrows depicting disease transmission, (B) proportion of simulations by respective outbreak size under different interventions, (C) average outbreak size and (D) 95th percentile of outbreak size for different interventions and varying vaccination coverage.

With the introduction of a one-off PCR test one day prior to the start of the cruise, the index case was isolated in 49% of the time, while 5% of the remaining simulations resulted in no transmission due to the stochastic nature of early disease transmission and the structure of the social network (Fig. 4B). As a result, more than half of the simulations had zero secondary cases. The risk of an outbreak of more than 10 cases was reduced to 22% with the PCR intervention. However, with rapid antigen testing at the start and at halfway through the event instead, only 3% of simulations resulted in a large outbreak.

We also modelled passenger-passenger interactions occurring under a mask-off setting approximately 60% of the time (based on the total transient, casual and close contacts in Fig. 2A) and assumed that all passenger-crew interactions occurred while wearing masks and that 30% of crew-crew interactions occurred when eating or working out without mask. Under these conditions and in the absence of other interventions, 22% of the simulations end with a large outbreak size (Fig. 4B). Assuming all individuals onboard the cruise ship were vaccinated (individuals under 12 years of age account for only 2% of the cruise population), 95% of simulations resulted in 5 or fewer cases (Fig. 4B).

We examined the expected outbreak size under a combination of interventions under the assumption that vaccination confers 50% protection against infection (9, 21, 22) and 50% lowered infectiousness in a vaccinated but infected individual (23) (Fig. 4C and 4D). Regardless of the testing strategies applied (i.e. no test, once-off PCR test, rapid antigen testing at the start and halfway through the event), and at any level of vaccine coverage, the addition of a mask-on intervention would further reduce the expected outbreak size by about 54% (IQR 50–59%). Given outbreak size is the cumulative result of individual transmission events, this implies that the overall intervention effectiveness of a mask mandate is substantially less than the assumed mask-on efficacy at the individual level (Table 4) (24–26). The expected outbreak size in simulations involving rapid antigen testing was less than 1 when vaccine coverage was minimally 25% (i.e. the expected number of transmission events was less than the initial number of infected individuals) (Fig. 4C). The expected outbreak size in mask-on, no testing interventions differed from mask-off, once-off PCR testing intervention by less than 1 case across varying vaccination coverage. The same was observed between a mask-on, once off PCR testing intervention and a mask-off, rapid antigen testing intervention. Compared to the expected outbreak size, the 95^th percentile of the outbreak size is approximately 3 times higher, with the no testing, mask-off and one-off PCR testing, mask-off interventions generating the highest number of cases among all other combinations of interventions (Fig. 4D).

Sensitivity analysis under different assumptions of the edge weights – and hence per-contact risk – showed an increase in the expected outbreak size as the duration required to be defined as a ‘maximal contact’ (i.e. weight of one) decreases (Fig. S4). Across all scenarios of varying testing strategy, vaccination coverage, network assumptions for edge weight, the average reduction in the expected outbreak size between a mask-on and mask-off scenario was 60% (IQR 54–71%).. Assuming edge weights vary based on the proportion of days over the entire sailing when interactions were recorded (i.e. a transient contact in a day is as risky as a close contact in a day), the difference in the expected outbreak size between a mask-on, no testing scenario and a mask-off, once-off PCR testing widens to 32 cases (IQR 11–64) (Fig. S4C). The difference in the expected outbreak size between a mask-on, once-off PCR testing scenario and a mask-off, rapid antigen testing at the start and halfway through the event differed by 6 cases (IQR 5–19) (Fig. S4C). We obtained similar conclusions on the relative effect of different combinations of interventions when we varied assumptions about the extent of vaccine effectiveness and presymptomatic transmission (see Supplementary Materials).

Data

Each cruise sailing lasts for three days — departing at 7pm on the first day and arriving at 8am on the last day, and only contacts during this period were studied. Embarking and disembarking begins and ends at approximately 12 noon on both days and devices are stored together prior to issuance or after collection. As such, data prior to departure and after arrival were not used, as the recorded data may be an artefact of devices being stored together.

All individuals onboard a cruise are issued a digital contact tracing device with a unique device identification number. These devices are calibrated based on signal strength to broadcast Bluetooth signals to other devices within a 2m radius every 14.9 seconds followed by a scan of nearby signals lasting for 0.1 seconds. Each scan record captures the timestamp of the signal exchange and the identification number of the interacted device. After every five minute interval, the records of 30 unique devices with the highest signal strength in each device are then stored. The stored records are then uploaded to a server on land. Further data processing is required to determine the duration of contact between two individuals. If there are two or more records with consecutive difference(s) of less than five minutes, the duration of contact is the difference of the last and first timestamp in the series of records.

For each cruise sailing, we collected a de-identified manifest with the device identification number and details of the device holder (passenger or crew; for crew: department of the crew; for passengers: cabin number, keycard number, age, gender). The cruise ship can be demarcated into different areas based on the activities in a location (i.e. type of location: food and beverage (F&B), entertainment, shops, sports, public areas) and all passengers were required to tap-in using their keycards upon entering a new area onboard the cruise ship. We also collected a de-identified list of entry records with each record capturing the keycard number, location and timestamp of entry.

Using the three data sources (i.e. contact data, de-identified manifest and de-identified location records), we categorised the contacts between each dyad into one of four contact groups, namely (i) passenger-passenger contact from within the same travelling group (i.e. passengers in the same cabin or having a cumulative contact duration of more than 5 hours over three days), (ii) passenger-passenger contact from different travelling groups, (iii) crew-crew contact, and (vi) passenger-crew contact. 5 hours was selected as a conservative definition for travelling groups, given that this is considerably longer than an average meal duration and more than 99% of the cumulative contact duration (i.e. sum of all contact episodes) between passengers from different cabins were less than this duration.

We further classified a contact episode in a location into close, casual and transient types of contact if the cumulative duration of contact was at least 15 minutes, at least 5 minutes but less than 15 minutes, and less than 5 minutes respectively in a 2m radius (34–36). For each individual in each type of location, we estimated the number of different types of contacts (i.e. close, casual and transient contact) with passengers from different travelling groups over time spent in the location. Across the sailings, for each type of contact, we estimated the proportion of contacts occurring at a type of location over all types of location.

Social Network Construction

We performed a preliminary social network analysis and estimated the weighted degree distribution (number of contacts made per individual with each contact weighted by the duration of contact, to be elaborated), the distribution of the clustering coefficient (a measure of the triadic linkage among individuals) and individuals’ eigenvector centrality (a measure of direct and indirect centrality within a network) of passengers and crew in respective departments in each sailing. We performed a Welch’s t-test to evaluate each network property for passengers against that for crew and p-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. While the mean and interquartile range (IQR) of each estimate fluctuate across sailings, the 95% range of the estimates exhibit substantial overlap (Fig. S1). As such, we selected contact data collected over a single sailing with 1208 passengers and 1032 crew to construct the social network for simulating disease transmission. Supplementary simulations were also performed on other sailings to ensure consistency in the percentage reduction in outbreak size for various outbreak interventions across the sailing (Supplementary fig. 7).

In the main analysis, we generated an undirected network with the strength of an edge weighted as a value between 0 and 1 based on the proportion of days with recorded contact over a three-day sail period and the exponent transformation of the mean daily cumulative contact duration between two individuals as follows:

Where W_ij is the weight of a contact between individuals i and j, c_ij is the proportion of days with recorded contact and is the mean daily cumulative contact duration expressed hours. σ is a scalar of 0.5 to approximate a scenario where the edge weight reaches 95% saturation after 3 hours of contact (W_ij → 1). As a sensitivity analysis, we explored other weightings for the network edges; similar to the above but 95% saturation to the same level of infection risk after 1 hour of contact, or based on the proportion of days over the entire sailing with recorded contact only. These scenarios depict how risk of infection increases based on contact duration as observed in SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in settings of poor ventilation (37, 38) or transmission driven by a highly transmissible pathogen onboard cruises such as norovirus (39).

Transmission Model

We simulated SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant transmission on the above generated social contact network by extending the individual based models developed by Firth et al and Hellewell et al (Table 3) (16, 17).

For each simulation, we assume that the disease is introduced by one passenger who could be infected up to 14 days prior to the event, with equal probability on any of the days but the onset of the index case would only occur between the start (i.e. day 1) and the end (i.e. day 7) of the event. The distribution of the symptoms onset date, S, on respective day of the event, d, is as follows: where δis the day of infection prior to the event (i.e. δ= 0 represents the day before the start of event), I (δ)is the probability of being infected on any of the 14 days prior to the event and is fixed at 1/14, θ is the incubation period distribution with d + | δ | representing the time since infection on the respective day of the event.

Currently, all crew are required to be tested weekly and are largely confined to the cruise except during periods of shore leave, thereby reducing the risk of disease introduction by crew. Each day, the model searches for susceptible individuals in contact with the infected cases who are not isolated and infection from infector i to susceptible individual j occurs based on the following probability: where Δd is the modelled time step of one day, and λ_{i → j} (d) is the force of infection between infector i and susceptible individual j on day d expressed as: where f(d | µ_i, α_i,ω_i) is the probability density function that represents the infectiousness of the infector on day d. We assumed a skew normal distribution with location parameter µ_i set based on the infector’s day of onset, a slant parameter α_i and a scale parameter ω_i adjusted such that 25% of the infections occurred prior to symptom onset. As there is substantial uncertainty in the proportion of presymptomatic transmission for SARS-CoV-2 (43), for sensitivity analysis, we considered a scenario where about 50% of transmission occurred prior to symptom onset.

We multiplied the force of infection with a scaling factor,r_scale, so that the mean probability of infection of a susceptible individual staying in the same cabin as an infected case is approximately 20% assuming exposure in the cabin and during all shared activities throughout the entire duration of infectiousness, similar to the household attack rates for SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant cases (29, 41). β_{i j} is the relative risk of infection depending on vaccination status and mask wearing behaviours, and is parameterised to reduce the probability of infection according to Table 4.

Interventions

In the testing interventions, the sensitivity of the tests were assumed to vary with viral load. We assumed PCR is 100% sensitive for cycle threshold (Ct) values (a measure of viral load) below 35 and rapid antigen tests is 94.5% sensitive for Ct values below 25 and lowered sensitivities as the Ct values increases (18). The viral load trajectory was modelled in relation to the Delta variant, rising above the limits of test detection three days before symptoms onset with prolonged shedding post symptoms onset (8, 19, 20).

For the mask wearing intervention, the expected weight of the contact between individuals i and j of contact group g are then modified based on the intervention of mask wearing and vaccination as follows: where m_g is the probability that the contact between any pairs of individual of a contact group goccurs while wearing a mask. β_vand β_{m, ν} are the relative risk of infection based on the vaccination status of the infector and infectee (Table 2).

For each intervention or combination of interventions, we ran 1000 simulations. We estimated the incidence by the day of infection, the number of cases in each generation, and the expected final outbreak size. All analyses were done in R version 4.0.4 (44) and the model code is available at (45).