On the role of different age groups in propagating Omicron epidemics in France ============================================================================== * Edward Goldstein ## Abstract **Background** There is limited information on the role of different age groups in propagating SARS-CoV-2 epidemics driven by the Omicron variants. **Methods** We examined the role of individuals in different age groups in propagating the Spring, Summer, and Autumn waves of the Omicron epidemics in France using the previously developed methodology based on the relative risk (RR) statistic that measures the change in the group’s proportion among all cases admitted to ICU for COVID-19 before vs. after the peak of an epidemic wave. Higher value of the RR statistic for a given age group suggests a disproportionate depletion of susceptible individuals in that age group during the epidemic’s ascent (due to increased contact rates and/or susceptibility to infection). **Results** For the Spring wave (March 14 - May 15), the highest RR estimate belonged to children aged 10-19y (RR=1.92 (95% CI (1.18,3.12)), followed by adults aged 40-49y (RR=1.45 (1.09,1.93)) and children aged 0-9y (RR=1.31 (0.98,1.74)). For the Summer wave (June 27 – Aug. 21), the highest RR estimate belonged to children aged 0-9y (RR=1.61 (1.12,2.3)) followed by children aged 10-19y (RR=1.46 (0.72,2.93)) and adults aged 20-29y (RR=1.42 (0.91,2.23)). For the Autumn wave (Sep. 18 – Nov. 12), the highest RR estimate belonged to children aged 10-19y (RR=1.63 (0.72,3.71)), followed by adults aged 30-34y (RR=1.34 (0.8,2.25)) and 20-24y (RR=1.20 (0.65,2.21)). **Conclusions** Children aged 10-19y played the greatest relative role in propagating Omicron epidemics, particularly when schools were open, followed by children aged 0-9y and adults aged 20-29y, as well as adults aged 30-49y. Persons aged over 50y played a more limited role in propagating Omicron infection in the community. Additional efforts are needed to increase vaccination coverage in children aged 10-19y, as well as younger children and young adults to mitigate Omicron epidemics in the community. ## Introduction With the emergence of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2, the risk of complications, including hospital admission and death in adults became lower compared to the Delta variant, though those relative risks vary with age, with the relative risk for severe outcomes, including death for Omicron vs. Delta being greatest for the oldest adults [1,2]. In addition to changes in severity, emergence of the Omicron variant brought about changes in the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. During the circulation of earlier SARS-CoV-2 variants, the leading role in the infection process generally belonged to younger adults (aged 18-35y) and older adolescents [3-6] – in particular, see the temporal data on the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in different age groups in England in [6]. The appearance of the Omicron variant resulted in a greater role of children in the transmission process. For example, findings from REACT-1 study in England for samples tested between January 5-20, 2022 saw the greatest prevalence of infection in children aged 5-11y [7]. The role of different age groups during subsequent waves of Omicron epidemics needs a better characterization. In [8-10] we developed a method for assessing the relative role (per average individual) in different subpopulations in transmission during epidemics of infectious diseases. The idea of that method is that subpopulations that play a disproportionate role during the outbreak’s ascent due to increased susceptibility to infection and/or contact rates can be related to the relative risk (RR) statistic that evaluates the change in the subpopulation’s proportion among all cases in the population before vs. after the epidemic’s peak (see Methods). Moreover, we used simulations in the context of influenza epidemics ([8]) to show a relation between a higher value for an RR statistic in a given age group and a higher impact of vaccinating an individual in that age group on reducing the epidemic’s initial growth rate. This method was also used in the context of SARS-CoV-2 epidemics in 2020 and 2021 to show the prominent relative role of younger adults and older adolescents in the infection process [4,5]. In this paper we estimate the RR statistic in different age groups during the Spring, Summer, and Autumn waves of Omicron epidemics in France using data on ICU admissions for COVID-19 in different age groups in France [11,12]. The reason for using ICU admissions for COVID-19 rather than hospitalizations for COVID-19 or detected cases of COVID-19 is that under-detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection is much less pronounced in symptomatic ICU admissions compared to hospitalizations and ambulatory/community testing of cases. The goal is to characterize the role of different age groups during the waves of Omicron epidemics beyond the initial (winter) wave to inform vaccination efforts, and other efforts aiming at mitigation of Omicron transmission in the community. ## Methods ### Data Data on the rates of ICU admissions for COVID-19 in different age groups in France are available in [11,12]. Data on the age structure of the population in France in 2022 are available in [13]. Those data were combined to evaluate the numbers of ICU admission during the previous week between March 1, 2022 and Dec. 17, 2022. ### Statistical Inference Based on the data for ICU admissions in all age groups in France (Figure 1), we delineated three epidemic waves between March 1, 2022 and Dec. 17, 2022: The Spring wave (March 14 - May 15, peak day for ICU admissions being April 14), the Summer wave (June 27 – Aug. 21, peak day for ICU admissions being July 21), and the Autumn wave (Sep. 18 – Nov. 12, peak day for ICU admissions being Oct. 19). For each epidemic wave, we excluded the 7-day period around the peak day for ICU admissions, and defined the before-the-peak period for that epidemic wave as the period from the start of the epidemic wave to the last day before the 7-day window around the peak day for ICU admissions -- thus, for the Spring epidemic wave between March 14 - May 15, with the peak day for ICU admissions being April 14, the before-the-peak period of the wave is March 14 – April 10, etc. We defined the after-the-peak period of the epidemic wave as the period starting from the first day after the 7-day window around the peak of ICU admissions to the end of the epidemic wave \---| thus, for the Spring epidemic wave between March 14 - May 15, with the peak day for ICU admissions being April 14, the after-the-peak period of the wave is April 18 – May 15, etc. data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1a94b/1a94bb37a471c92fe5dbf0615a168f7c444a0bd7" alt="Figure 1:" [Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/12/23/2022.12.22.22283867/F1) Figure 1: ICU admissions for COVID-19 in France during the previous week, March 1, 2022 - Dec. 17, 2022, and the three epidemic waves (March 14 - May 15, June 27 – Aug. 21, Sep. 18 – Nov. 12). We considered 9 age groups in our analyses: 0-9y, 10-19y, 20-29y, 30-39y, 40-49y, 50-59y, 60-69y, 70-79y, 80+y. For each epidemic wave, and each age group *g*, let *B*(*g*) be the number of ICU admissions for COVID-19 in persons in age group *g* during the before-the-peak-period, and let *A*(*g*) be the number of ICU admissions for COVID-19 in persons in age group *g* during the after-the-peak-period. The relative risk (RR) statistic measures the change in the group’s proportion among all cases admitted to ICU before vs. after the peak of the epidemic wave. The point estimate for the relative risk *R*(*g*) in an age group *g* is: ![Formula][1]</img> Higher value of the RR statistic for a given age group suggests a disproportionate depletion of susceptible individuals in that age group during the epidemic’s ascent (due to increased contact rates and/or susceptibility to infection), resulting in the decline in the share of that age group among all cases during the epidemic’s descent. We assume that the numbers of reported cases are sufficiently high so that the logarithm ln(RR(g)) of the relative risk RR in the age group g is approximately normally distributed [14]. Under this approximation, the 95% confidence interval for RR (g) is exp(ln(RR(g)) ± 1.96 · SE(g)), where ln(RR(g)) is estimated via eq. 1, and the standard error SE(g) is ([14]): ![Formula][2]</img> ## Results Figure 1 plots the numbers of ICU admissions for COVID-19 in France during the previous week between March 1, 2022 - Dec. 17, 2022, including the three epidemic waves used in our study (March 14 - May 15, June 27 – Aug. 21, Sep. 18 – Nov. 12). Plots of the rates of ICU admissions in different age groups are contained in [11]. Table 1 gives the estimates of the relative risk (RR) statistic in different age groups during the three epidemic waves. For the Spring wave (March 14 - May 15), the highest RR estimate belonged to children aged 10-19y (RR=1.92 (95% CI (1.18,3.12)), followed by adults aged 40-49y (RR=1.45 (1.09,1.93)) and children aged 0-9y (RR=1.31 (0.98,1.74)). For the Summer wave (June 27 – Aug. 21), the highest RR estimate belong to children aged 0-9y (RR=1.61 (1.12,2.3)) followed by children aged 10-19y (RR=1.46 (0.72,2.93)) and adults aged 20-29y (RR=1.42 (0.91,2.23)). For the Autumn wave (Sep. 18 – Nov. 12), the highest RR estimate belonged to children aged 10-19y (RR=1.63 (0.72,3.71)), followed by adults aged 30-34y (RR=1.34 (0.8,2.25)) and 20-24y (RR=1.20 (0.65,2.21)). Persons aged over 50y generally had lower RR estimates compared to persons aged under 50y. View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/12/23/2022.12.22.22283867/T1) Table 1: Estimates for the relative risk RR (eq. 1) for data on ICU admissions in different age groups during three Omicron waves in France in 2022: March 14 - May 15, June 27 – Aug. 21, Sep. 18 – Nov. 12, 2022 ## Discussion The appearance of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 resulted not only in changes in the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infections [1,2], but also in changes in the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. During the circulation of earlier SARS-CoV-2 variants, the leading role in the infection process generally belonged to younger adults (aged 18-35y) and older adolescents [3-6]. During the first wave if the Omicron epidemic, infection rates in children (relative to other age groups) were higher compared to earlier variants (e.g. [7] vs. [6]). The role of different age groups during the subsequent waves of Omicron epidemics is less studied. In this paper, we applied the previously developed methodology [8-10,3,4] to study the relative role of individuals in different age groups during the Spring, Summer, and Autumn waves of the Omicron epidemics in France. We found that children aged 10-19y played the greatest relative role in propagating Omicron epidemics, particularly when schools were open, followed by children aged 0-9y and adults aged 20-29y, as well as adults aged 30-49y. We note that several studies have documented large SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in the school setting under limited mitigation [15-17], which is generally pertinent to the Omicron period compared to earlier periods when different mitigation (including social distancing) measures in schools were put in place. Persons aged over 50y played a more limited role in propagating Omicron infection in the community. This suggests that increase in vaccination coverage and use of other mitigation efforts related to children aged 10-19y, as well as younger children and young adults should help mitigate future Omicron epidemics in the community. Our results have some limitations. Inconsistency in the testing/detection of Omicron infections would affect the estimates of the relative risk (RR) statistic. We used data on ICU admissions for COVID-19 rather than hospitalizations for COVID-19 or detected cases of COVID-19 in the community since under-detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection is much less pronounced in symptomatic ICU admissions compared to hospitalizations and ambulatory/community testing of cases. There is uncertainty regarding the relation between the RR statistic and the role that individuals in different age groups play in propagating epidemics. We used simulations in the context of influenza epidemics ([8]) to show a relation between a higher value for the RR statistic in a given age group and a higher impact of vaccinating an individual in that age group on reducing the epidemic’s initial growth rate. ## Conclusions Using data from the Spring, Summer and Autumn waves of Omicron epidemics in France, we found that the greatest relative role (per individual) in propagating Omicron epidemics belonged to children aged 10-19y, particularly when schools were open, followed by children aged 0-9y and adults aged 20-29y, as well as adults aged 30-49y. Increase in vaccination coverage and use of other mitigation efforts related to children aged 10-19y, as well as younger children and young adults should help mitigate future Omicron epidemics in the community. ## Data Availability This study is based on aggregate, de-identified, publicly available data that can be accessed through refs. 11-13 [https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/dossiers/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-chiffres-cles-et-evolution-de-la-covid-19-en-france-et-dans-le-monde](https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/dossiers/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-chiffres-cles-et-evolution-de-la-covid-19-en-france-et-dans-le-monde) [https://www.data.gouv.fr/fr/datasets/donnees-hospitalieres-relatives-a-lepidemie-de-covid-19/](https://www.data.gouv.fr/fr/datasets/donnees-hospitalieres-relatives-a-lepidemie-de-covid-19/) [https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2381472#graphique-Donnes](https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2381472#graphique-Donnes) ## Footnotes * edmigo3{at}gmail.com * Received December 22, 2022. * Revision received December 22, 2022. * Accepted December 23, 2022. * © 2022, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International), CC BY-NC 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ## References 1. [1].Nyberg T, et al. Comparative analysis of the risks of hospitalization and death associated with SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) and delta (B.1.617.2) variants in England: a cohort study. The Lancet 2022; 399(10332): 1303–1312 2. [2].Auvigne V, et al. Severe hospital events following symptomatic infection with Sars-CoV-2 Omicron and Delta variants in France, December 2021-January 2022: A retrospective, population-based, matched cohort study. EClinicalMedicine. 2022;48:101455 3. [3].Goldstein E, Cevik M, Lipsitch M. On the Effect of Age on the Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Households, Schools, and the Community. J Infect Dis. 2021;223(3):362–369 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/infdis/jiaa691&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F23%2F2022.12.22.22283867.atom) 4. [4].Goldstein E, Lipstich M. Temporal rise in the proportion of younger adults and older adolescents among coronavirus disease (COVID-19) cases following the introduction of physical distancing measures, Germany, March to April 2020, Euro Surveill. 2020;25(17):2000596 5. [5].Stern D, Lajous M, De la Rosa D, Goldstein E. On the increasing incidence of SARS-CoV-2 in older adolescents and younger adults during the epidemic in Mexico. Salud Publica Mex. 2021;63:422–428. 6. [6].Pritchard E, Jones J, Vihta K-D, Stoesser N, Matthews PC, Eyre DW, et al. Monitoring populations at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community using population-level demographic and behavioural surveillance. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2022;13:100282 7. [7].UK Health Security Agency. REACT-1 study of coronavirus transmission: January 2022 final results. Available from: [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/react-1-study-of-coronavirus-transmission-december-2021-final-results/react-1-study-of-coronavirus-transmission-december-2021-final-results](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/react-1-study-of-coronavirus-transmission-december-2021-final-results/react-1-study-of-coronavirus-transmission-december-2021-final-results) 8. [8].Worby CJ, Chaves SS, Wallinga J, Lipsitch M, Finelli L, Wallinga J. On the relative role of different age groups in influenza epidemics. Epidemics 2015;13:10–16. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.epidem.2015.04.003&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26097505&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F23%2F2022.12.22.22283867.atom) 9. [9].Goldstein E, Nguyen HH, Liu P, Viboud C, Steiner CA, Worby CJ, et al. On the relative role of different age groups during epidemics associated with respiratory syncytial virus. J Infect Dis. 2018;217(2):238–244 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/infdis/jix575&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29112722&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F23%2F2022.12.22.22283867.atom) 10. [10].Mahmud AS, Lipsitch M, Goldstein E. On the role of different age groups during pertussis epidemics in California, 2010 and 2014. Epidemiol Infect. 2019;147:e184 11. [11].Santé publique France. InfoCovidFrance: Chiffres clés et évolution de la COVID-19 en France et dans le Monde. 2022. Available from: [https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/dossiers/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-chiffres-cles-et-evolution-de-la-covid-19-en-france-et-dans-le-monde](https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/dossiers/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-chiffres-cles-et-evolution-de-la-covid-19-en-france-et-dans-le-monde) 12. [12].Santé publique France. Données hospitalières relatives à l’épidémie de COVID-19. Available from: [https://www.data.gouv.fr/fr/datasets/donnees-hospitalieres-relatives-a-lepidemie-de-covid-19/](https://www.data.gouv.fr/fr/datasets/donnees-hospitalieres-relatives-a-lepidemie-de-covid-19/) 13. [13].Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (INSEE). Pyramide des âges. Données annuelles 2022. Available from: [https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2381472#graphique-Donnes](https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2381472#graphique-Donnes) 14. [14].Altman DG (1991) Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman and Hall. 15. [15].Fontanet A, Tondeur L, Grant R, Temmam S, Madec Y, Bigot T, et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection in schools in a northern French city: a retrospective serological cohort study in an area of high transmission, France, January to April 2020. Euro Surveill. 2021;26(15):2001695. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.15.2001695&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33860747&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F23%2F2022.12.22.22283867.atom) 16. [16].Torres JP, Piñera C, De La Maza V, et al. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Antibody Prevalence in Blood in a Large School Community Subject to a Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outbreak: A Cross-sectional Study. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73(2):e458–e465 [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F23%2F2022.12.22.22283867.atom) 17. [17].Stein-Zamir C, Abramson N, Shoob N, et al. A large COVID-19 outbreak in a high school 10 days after schools’ reopening, Israel, May 2020. Euro Surveill 2020; 25:2001352. [1]: /embed/graphic-2.gif [2]: /embed/graphic-3.gif