Preliminary modeling estimates of the relative transmissibility and immune escape of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern in South Africa

Spreading and immune escape potential

In Figure 1 we plot the joint posterior distribution of η and α values. We consider two cases: in the first one, Omicron has the same generation time of Delta (T_G = 5.5 days), while in the second one we assume a shorter generation time (T_G = 3.5 days) [13]. We start with a flat three-dimensional prior (on η, α, and number of initial seeds). Note how the two-dimensional plot is a projection of the posterior values of the initial seeds. While large regions of the parameter space are rejected by the ABC approach, it emerges a plausible region that corresponds to the non-identifiable nature of both parameters. Generally speaking, the higher the immune escape α, the smaller η. Intuitively, Omicron’s large value of immune escape can be compensated by changes in the relative transmissibility with respect to Delta and vice versa. The number of initial seeds plays a role. For smaller values of seeds the joint posterior distribution peaks for large value of the relative transmissibility and low immune escape (not shown in the figures). As the number of seeds increases large values of η are dropped and the posterior shifts towards a more significant immunity escape. Interestingly, the generation time plays an important role in the values selected by the calibration process. When T_G = 5.5 days, the selected values of η go from ∼ 3 when α ∼ 0% and approach 1 (i.e., same transmissibility of Delta) for very large values of α. For T_G = 3.5 days, the maximum values of relative transmissibility in absence of immune escape are around 2 and fall below 1 (i.e., lower transmissibility of Delta) when α > 70%. In the next sections we will consider the case T_G = 5.5 days but very similar conclusions can be drawn in the case of shorter generation time.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Joint posterior distribution of relative transmissibility (η) and immune escape (α) for two values of the generation time of Omicron (T_G = 5.5 days on the left and T_G = 3.5 days on the right). The plot highlights the regions of the phase-space compatible with current observations. The colors describe the joint posterior distribution hence the probability that each pair of values is selected in the calibration. The lighter the color the closer the pair of values is to cases. Dashed white horizontal lines indicate the case when Omicron has the same transmission rate as Delta.

Path towards dominance

In Figure 2 we plot the share of cases due to the Omicron VOC considering the joint posterior distribution for η, α and σ. The plot suggests that Omicron reached dominance (i.e., more than 50% of cases) in mid-November and replaced Delta by early December. This finding is in line with current genomics data from the sample collected in the region [14]. To put this into perspective, estimates about the time to dominance of the Alpha variant across Europe are between 3 to 4 months [15].

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Omicron’s path towards dominance. The plots accounts for all the η, α and initial seeds σ values selected by the calibration.

Reproduction number estimates

In Figure 3-A we plot the reproductive numbers R_t (estimated via Epiestim [16]) for the Delta and Omicron VOC assuming the same generation time T_G = 5.5 days. The first observation is that the Delta VOC is subcritical (i.e., R_t ∼ 0.8). This finding is consistent with the decreasing trends before the emergence of Omicron. The values of the reproductive number of Omicron are above 1.6 until the last few data points where we see an inflection. By looking at both variants together we observe how the arrival of Omicron quickly shifted the values of R_t from below one to values around 1.7 in about two months since the seeding. In Figure 3-B, we plot the ratio between the R_t of Omicron and the equivalent quantity for Delta. While we note a rather large confidence intervals the median values are well above 2.2, confirming how the Omicron has a clear growth advantage with respect to Delta in South Africa.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3:

R_t for Omicron, Delta VOC, and for both on the left. Ratio of R_t of the two VOC competing in South Africa. The plots accounts for all the relative transmissibility, immune escape, and initial seeds values selected by the calibration.

Demographic and epidemiological data

We use epidemiological data from the COVID-19 Data Repository by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University and from official sources [18, 19]. The number of individuals in different age groups is taken from the United Nation World Population Prospects [20].

Disease transmission model

The disease progression is modeled via a compartmental model. Susceptible and healthy individuals (S) interacting with the Infectious (I) enter the Latent stage (L). After the latent period (ϵ⁻¹), L individuals become infectious. Finally, after the infectious period (µ⁻¹), I transition to the Recovered (R) compartments. Compatibly with the characteristics of the Delta SARS-CoV-2 variant (which was prevalent in South Africa during the period considered before the arrival of Omicron), we set ϵ⁻¹ = 3 days and µ⁻¹ = 2.5 days [21–23]. We consider individuals divided into 10 age groups: [0 − 9, 10 − 19, 20 − 24, 25 − 29, 30 − 39, 40 − 49, 50 − 59, 60 − 69, 70 − 79, 80+], and we describe frequency of contacts between age groups with a country-specific contacts matrix from Ref. [24]. The transmission rate is β and the force of infection depends on the age-stratified contact matrix.

We compute the daily number of deaths from individuals entering the R compartment using the age-stratified Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) from Ref. [9]. To account for delays due to reporting and hospitalization we record deaths computed on the recovered in day t after Δ days. We also introduce a seasonal term to account for changes in factors such as humidity and temperature that can influence transmissibility [25, 26]. This implies a modulation of the effective reproductive number R_t → s_i(t)R_t, with s_i(t) equal to , where i refers to the hemisphere considered, and t_max,i is the day associated to the maximum of the rescaling function. For the southern hemisphere it is fixed to July 15^th. In the simulations, we set α_max = 1 and consider α_min as a free parameter (see more details below).

We extend this framework with specific compartments to account for vaccinations and the introduction of the Omicron VOC. First, we model vaccinations as follows. Individuals who received the 1^st dose of vaccine transition to a new compartment V₁. Infection probability for V₁ individuals is reduced by a factor 1− V E_S1, where V E_S1 represents the effectiveness of vaccine against infection. If they get infected their IFR is also reduced by a factor 1 − V E_M1. It follows that the overall efficacy of the 1^st dose against death is V E₁ = 1 − (1 − V E_S1)(1 − V E_M1). V₁ individuals then receive the second inoculation and transition to the compartment V₂. The 2^nd dose has an efficacy V E_S2 and V_M2 (overall efficacy against death V E₂ = 1 − (1 − V E_S2)(1 − V E_M2)). We consider all vaccinated individuals are less infectious by a factor (1 − V E_I) [27]. We assume that S, L, and R individuals can get the vaccine and since protection is not immediate, we introduce a delay of Δ_V days between administration (of both 1^st and 2^nd dose) and actual effect of the vaccine. We consider the number of 1^st and 2^nd doses administered daily in South Africa from Ref. [28] and we assume that the vaccine rollout proceeded prioritizing the elderly.

The introduction of a SARS-CoV-2 variant is modeled as follows. We add specific L and I compartments to account for individuals who are infected with Omicron. We assume that its transmission rate is ψβ. For example, ψ = 0.5 indicates that the transmission rate of Omicron is half that of Delta, ψ = 1.0 the same of Delta, and ψ = 2.0 twice that of Delta. In the results presented in Fig. 1 we considered two scenarios with different generation time T_G = 5.5 days, and T_G = 3.5 days. The basic reproductive number in our model is , where ρ(C) is the leading eigenvalue of the contacts matrix. We explore values of the relative transmissibility between 0.25 and 3.0 in both scenarios.

In the week November 30^th, 2021 – October 7^th, 2021 we introduce σ seeds of the Omicron variant in the infected compartments (half in I and half in L compartment), and we distribute them in different age groups proportionally to their size. When we introduce the first Omicron infection we also move R individuals to a new compartment . We use a parameter α to describe the ability of Omicron VOC to escape natural and vaccine acquired immunity. We assume that individuals in V₁, V₂, and compartments see their protection provided by immunity reduced by a factor (1 − α). We assume also that initial protection of is equal to that of V₂ individuals.

Modeling of mitigation policies

We quantify the time varying variation in contacts due to mitigation policies by using Google mobility reports [29]. The Google mobility report provides the percentage change r_l(t) on day t of total visitors to specific locations l with respect to a pre-pandemic baseline. We turn this quantity into a rescaling factor for contacts such as ω(t) = (1 + r_l(t)/100)², by considering that the number of potential contacts per location scales as the square of the the number of visitors. The factor ω(t) is then multiplied to the overall contacts matrix C. As r_l(t) we use the average of the fields workplaces percent change from baseline, retail and recreation percent change from baseline and transit stations percent change from baseline.

Model Calibration

We use an Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC) approach [8, 30]. A prior distribution P (θ) is defined for the parameters θ. At each step of the calibration procedure, a set of parameters is sampled from P (θ) an an instance of the model is generated using . Then an output quantity E′ from the model is compared to the corresponding real quantity E using a distance metric s(E, E′). If s(E, E′) is smaller than a predefined tolerance δ, then the sets is accepted, otherwise is rejected. The procedure continues until N sets are accepted. The empirical distribution of the sampled is an approximation of the real posterior distribution of the parameters. Model estimates are then obtained generating an ensemble of trajectories sampled from the approximate posterior. Here we use the weighted mean absolute percentage error (wMAPE) as distance metric and weekly deaths as output quantity, and we set δ = 0.25. The parameters θ and the related prior distribution are:

• the transmissibility β; we explore uniformly values such that the reproductive number on the first day of simulation is between 1.0 and 2.5;

• the seasonality factor α_min ∼ U (0.5, 1.0) (0.5 implies strong seasonality while 1.0 no seasonality);

• the delay in deaths Δ ∼ U (10, 30) (discrete values);

• the initial number of infected individuals; we explore uniformly values between 1 and 10 times the number of reported cases in the week before the start of the simulation. We then assign these individuals to the infected compartments (L, I) proportionally to the time spent there by individuals (ϵ⁻¹ for L and µ⁻¹ for I);

• the initial number of recovered; we explore uniformly values between 2 and 20 times the total number of reported cases up to the start of the simulation;

• the percentage of deaths that are reported ∼ U (25%, 100%);

• a multiplier of the IFR ∼ U (0.5, 2.0)

The model is calibrated over the period May 1^st, 2021 – November 23^rd, 2021.

We use the ABC approach also to identify the posterior of Omicron parameters: relative transmissibility respect to Delta , immune escape potential α, and number of initial seeds σ. We consider values of η between 0.25 and 3.0, values of α between 0% and 100%, and 10, 50, 100, 500, 1000 initial Omicron seeds introduced in first week of October 2021. We repeat the simulations over this grid of (η, α, σ) values during the period November 26^th, 2021 – December 13^th, 2021 and we compare the simulated incidence to the reported daily incidence in South Africa using the wMAPE. For each triplet (η, α, σ), we perform 1500 stochastic realizations and we compute the posterior distribution considering the top 5% runs.