Abstract
As the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic progressed, distinct variants emerged and dominated in England. These variants, Wildtype, Alpha, Delta, and Omicron were characterized by variations in transmissibility and severity. We used a robust mathematical model and Bayesian inference framework to analyse epidemiological surveillance data from England. We quantified the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), therapeutics, and vaccination on virus transmission and severity. Each successive variant had a higher intrinsic transmissibility. Omicron (BA.1) had the highest basic reproduction number at 8.1 (95% credible interval (CrI) 6.8-9.3). Varying levels of NPIs were crucial in controlling virus transmission until population immunity accumulated. Immune escape properties of Omicron decreased effective levels of protection in the population by a third. Furthermore, in contrast to previous studies, we found Alpha had the highest basic infection fatality ratio (2.8%, 95% CrI 2.3-3.2), followed by Delta (2.0%, 95% CrI 1.5-2.4), Wildtype (1.2%, 95% CrI 1.0-1.3), and Omicron (0.6%, 95% CrI 0.4-0.8). Our findings highlight the importance of continued surveillance. Long-term strategies for monitoring and maintaining effective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 are critical to inform the role of NPIs to effectively manage future variants with potentially higher intrinsic transmissibility and severe outcomes.
Main
The COVID-19 pandemic has driven unprecedented surges in excess mortality,1 and caused severe disruptions to healthcare systems and economies globally.2,3 The Omicron sub-variants are more transmissible and thus more difficult to control than ancestral lineages;4,5 and their severity levels, although lower, remain a threat to populations and health systems.6
The global public health response to the virus has included varying degrees of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), improvement of treatment, and vaccination.7 The SARS-CoV-2 virus has evolved over time, with distinct variants of concern (VOCs) predominant during successive epidemic waves. Epidemiological studies have assessed changes in the transmissibility and severity of SARS-CoV-2 over these sequential waves of infections and the overall effectiveness of interventions.8–13 However, integrated quantitative analyses of the relative effect of different interventions and a direct comparison of the transmissibility and severity of different variants have not been performed to date.
Here we expanded a validated dynamic transmission model using a Bayesian evidence synthesis framework,8–10 and fitted it to comprehensive surveillance data by age and English National Health Service (NHS) regions. Data included the number of positive and negative PCR tests in the community, population-representative infection prevalence surveys, genetic characterisation of a sample of the PCR positive cases, seroprevalence from blood donor residual sera, hospital admissions and deaths, and community deaths (see Figure 1 A-B, methods and online Supplement). Leveraging these data, we estimated the absolute and relative levels of transmissibility and severity of the Wildtype, Alpha, Delta, and initial Omicron (BA.1) variants, and other key epidemiological parameters. We evaluated the relative effect of changes in contact rates due to NPIs, changes in healthcare provision and clinical practice and infection- or vaccine-derived population immunity on virus transmission and severity in England between March 16, 2020 and February 24, 2022.
Population-level transmission of SARS-CoV-2 between March 2020 and February 2022 in England. A) Infection positivity measured amongst those aged over 15 years old in the community through the national Government PCR testing programme (Pillar 2). B) Infection prevalence (PCR) in representative samples of households from the REACT-1 study. In A and B, data is shown in green (lines and point, with binomial 95% confidence intervals in error bars) and model trajectory in red (average and 95% credible interval (95% CrI)). Grey shading indicates periods where specific non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) of interest for the analysis were implemented nationally; see legends in panel F and main manuscript for specific references. The shading level is not correlated with quantitative astringency; for a complete list of modelled change points in contact rates including dates and description see Supplement Table S11 and Figures S28 and S29. C) Model-inferred average frequency of daily infections by variant and type of infection (either primary or re-infection following any prior infection, “reinf”). D) Intrinsic R0 estimates by variant (mean and 95% CrI). E) Model trajectory of vaccine status of the national population (all ages as denominator), as informed by official data of daily doses administered (see sources in Table S1). F) Model trajectories of the instantaneous reproduction number in the absence of the effect of immunity (Rt) or accounting for immunity (effective Rt). Legends and grey areas specify date and duration of official NPIs in England over the study period. G) Inferred effective levels of protection in the population (all ages as denominator. Lines correspond to the effective protection against specific variants, with colour scheme as in panels C & D, whereas areas indicate overall effective protection by type of immunity (vaccine derived, hybrid or natural from prior infection). During periods of variant replacement (e.g. Alpha to Delta) the effective protection transitions from the levels associated with the variant being replaced to the level of the variant that becomes dominant.
Evolving SARS-CoV-2 transmissibility and population infection control strategies
England experienced multiple COVID-19 waves, partly due to different SARS-CoV-2 variants over the study period (Figure 1A-B). The effective reproduction number, 
, quantifies viral transmissibility over time and represents the average number of secondary infections each primary infection generates at time t, with 
indicating epidemic decline and 
epidemic growth.14 
is determined by the inherent transmission potential of a variant and by contact patterns and immunity levels in the host population.14 We estimated both 
and the time-varying reproduction number in the absence of population immunity, Rt. The latter allows us to disentangle the intrinsic and extrinsic factors that drive transmissibility, with the basic reproduction number, R0, defined as Rt=0.
Viral evolution tends to select for more transmissible lineages.15 For the Alpha and Delta variants, mutations in the spike protein that conferred higher receptor affinity and faster fusion into host cells increased intrinsic transmissibility.16 The later Omicron (BA.1) variant had further mutations allowing substantial immune escape.16 The R0 of SARS-CoV-2 variants in England sequentially increased from 2.5 (95% credible interval (CrI) 2.1 – 2.8) for the initial Wildtype virus, to 4.0 (95% CrI 3.5 – 4.5), 6.7 (95% CrI 5.7 – 7.7) and 8.1 (95% CrI 6.8 – 9.3), respectively, for the Alpha, Delta and Omicron (BA.1) variants (Figure 1D).
NPIs were first introduced in England in mid-March 2020, during the first epidemic wave, to reduce transmission through social distancing, and limit numbers of severe cases from overwhelming the health system.17 These measures were lifted and re-implemented thereafter, at varying levels, through to late February 2022.7 Rt varied as contact rates decreased or increased in response to NPIs (Figure 1F). Before the COVID-19 vaccination programme, 
was only slightly lower than Rt, indicating very low levels of accrued infection-induced immunity. We estimate that only 7.7% (95% CrI 7.2 – 8.3) of the population were immune by early September 2020, before the emergence of the Alpha variant (Figure 1G).
The rollout and scale-up of the national vaccination programme, from December 2020 onwards, coincided with the dominance of more transmissible VOCs. Nevertheless, rapidly increasing immunity helped limit the spread of the Alpha and Delta variants (Figure 1E & G). Error! Reference source not found.Population-level protection against infection rapidly rose from 12.4% (95% CrI 11.8 – 13.0), purely from prior infections, on December 8, 2020, to 33.9% (95% CrI 33.0 – 34.9) by the time Delta emerged in March 2021 due to a combination of infection- and vaccine-induced immunity. We estimate population-level immunity peaked at 67.8% (95% CrI 66.2 – 69.4) in late November 2021, with vaccination contributing the most to this immunity profile (Figure 1G). During this same period, in the summer of 2021, NPIs were progressively lifted with the national policy for a Roadmap out of lockdown.7,17 Rt increased gradually as NPIs were lifted in the first half of 2021, leading to a sustained high level of Delta infections for 5 months (Figure 1A). During this period, 
estimates remained close to 1 (Figure 1F), suggesting increases in contact rates were balanced by increasing immunity for an extended period.
In contrast, the emergence and dominance of the initial Omicron BA.1 variant marked a decline in population immunity (Figure 1G). The relative increase in Omicron’s R0 compared with Delta was not as high compared to previous variant replacements (Figure 1D). Rather, the replacement of the Delta variant by Omicron was driven by the antigenic divergence and thus immune escape properties of Omicron relative to prior variants with population-level protection against infection decreasing by 31% of its late November peak value to reach 46.9% (95% CrI 45.6 – 48.0) in late December 2021 (Figure 1G). Infection levels rose to an all-time high over this period, with re-infections accounting for up to a third of daily new infections (Figure 1C). Reimplementation of some NPIs (work from home and wearing face masks and/or showing proof of negative COVID-19 tests in public venues)7,18 introduced between December 12, 2021 and January 27, 2022, decreased Rt (Figure 1F). Nevertheless, we estimate that the combined effect of rapidly rolling out booster vaccinations and infection-induced immunity, increased population-level immunity and, consequently, decreased 
to around 1 (Figure 1F-G). By February 24, 2022, when all NPIs were lifted and large parts of routine surveillance were phased out,7 population protection against infection was 53.0% (95% CrI 50.6 – 55.5), with 20.1% (95% CrI 19.7 – 20.6) resulting from vaccination, 9.7% (95% CrI 9.1 – 10.2) from prior infection, and 23.2% (95% CrI 21.8 – 24.7) from a combination of both (Figure 1G).
Epidemiological drivers of the severity of COVID-19 waves
The severity of SARS-CoV-2 across multiple epidemic waves in England varied substantially over the study period (Figure 2A-C). Observable severity as traditionally measured from epidemiological surveillance, however, is subject to a range of biases, including case ascertainment, healthcare provision and population immunity.19 Therefore, traditional surveillance cannot directly quantify the intrinsic severity of pathogens, nor disentangle the effects of underlying factors on severity.
Inferred severity of SARS-CoV-2 variants in England between March 2020 and February 2022. A-C) Inferred basic and effective infection hospitalisation ratio (IHR, A), hospital fatality ratio (HFR, B) and infection fatality ratio (IFR, C). Boxplots to the left show the basic severity measure and trajectories to the right show severity measure over time (mean and 95% credible interval, 95% CrI) for each variant, with black showing the weighted average across co-circulating variants at any time. Basic severity is measured for each variant assuming healthcare characteristics of the early epidemic, to allow a like-for-like comparison. Effective severity trajectories account for changing vaccine- and infection-induced protection against severe disease, as well as underlying healthcare variations (see Table S8 for model time-varying severity parameters).D-F) Age-specific (selected age groups) effective IHR (D), HFR (E) and IFR (F), assessed at the date of key milestones of the national vaccination programme, “rollout” refers to the start of the vaccination programme on 8th December 2020.
Our model captures temporal changes in the infection hospitalisation ratio (IHR, probability of hospitalisation given infection), hospital fatality ratio (HFR, probability of death given hospitalisation for severe disease), and infection fatality ratio (IFR, probability of death given infection) by SARS-CoV-2 variant. During the time of the study, the virus ecosystem underwent many transformations, with changes taking place for example in the virus biology, the surveillance landscape and the healthcare system. To enable a like-for-like comparison of variant severity, we defined the variant-specific basic IHR, HFR and IFR as that observed in an entirely immunologically naïve population with the same age distribution of infections and healthcare provision that was seen after the peak of the first wave of the pandemic (see Supplement section 4.7). We also model changes in healthcare provision and changes in clinical practice throughout the duration in the study using a time varying piece-wise linear function (see Supplement Table S9). Despite the large amount of data used to inform the model, it can be challenging, if events happen simultaneously, to pinpoint which specific event affected changes in severity.
The basic IHR of SARS-CoV-2 increased from 2.2% (95% CrI 2.0 – 2.5) for Wildtype, to 3.5% (95% CrI 3.1 – 3.9) for Alpha, 4.4% (95% CrI 4.0 – 4.9) for Delta, but subsequently decreased to 3.5% (95% CrI 2.8 – 4.4) for Omicron (Figure 2A). The overall risk of dying for hospitalised patients was highest for the Alpha variant, with a basic HFR of 47.8% (95% CrI 37.8 – 55.9), lower for Wildtype and Delta, at 33.0% (95% CrI 28.8 – 37.4) and 29.7% (95% CrI 21.8 – 38.2), respectively, and lowest for Omicron (BA.1), at 11.4% (95% CrI 7.3 – 16.3) (Figure 2B). The basic IFR was a function of the basic IHR and HFR, further accounting for COVID-19 deaths in the community (outside hospitals). The basic IFR was highest for the Alpha variant at 2.8% (95% CrI 2.3 – 3.2), followed by Delta at 2.0% (95% CrI 1.5 – 2.4), Wildtype at 1.2% (95% CrI 1.0 – 1.3), and Omicron at 0.6% (95% CrI 0.4 – 0.8) (Figure 2C).
We also estimated the effective observable severity (given healthcare provision, immunity, and age-dependent mixing patterns) of the variants over time and estimated the effect of changes in healthcare practices and population immunity against severe outcomes. During the first epidemic wave, effective treatments, including remdesivir and dexamethasone, were approved and deployed,20,21 and there was a major re-adaptation of hospital capacity to manage severe COVID-19 cases.22 We infer that such changes in healthcare reduced the effective HFR, in line with prior observational evidence,11 and IFR below basic levels for the then-dominant Wildtype variant (Figure 2B & C).
Our findings also suggest that pressures on the healthcare system had a detrimental impact on the severity of the pandemic. Between October 2020 and January 2021, when a tiered geographically-localised system of NPIs in England was used17, infection incidence increased, associated with a sustained period when 
(Figure 1A, B & F). There was a progressive increase in all effective severity metrics, particularly in HFR, (Figure 2A-C) as the model infers there was an overall higher risk of death in hospital, independently of the basic severity properties of the Alpha variant. It should be noted, no data was available on hospital admissions and deaths by variant to fit our model to and differentiate the specific contribution of variant and healthcare effects on the increased severity. However, in an additional statistical analysis using linked patient-level records, we observed that the increase in HFR during this period was positively correlated with daily critical care bed occupancy levels, with variation across English regions (see Supplement section 6.1).
Vaccination decisively reduced the effective severity of COVID-19 in England. As age is a major predictor of COVID-19 severity,23 the national vaccination strategy prioritised the elderly and clinically vulnerable.24 Our model reproduces this prioritisation and complex observed dynamics of the age distribution of hospitalisations and deaths over time (see Supplement Figure S11). We were, thus, able to infer the age-specific severity profile (see Model parameters were estimated as in calibration or informed by the literature (see Supplement Table S11). We ran sensitivity analyses for parameters affecting the transmissibility of all the variants and, for the case of Omicron only, the cross-protection conferred from a prior infection by any variant and the vaccine effectiveness of booster doses (see Supplement section 5). We found that qualitatively our estimates were robust to assumptions about the serial interval and effectiveness of booster vaccines. Similarly, varying assumptions about the cross-protection that infection with previous variants provide against Omicron yielded very similar results to our main analysis.25
Discussion
Many factors influence pathogen transmission and severity, including pathogen evolution,15 intervention-based or self-adopted changes in behaviours,26 and changing infection- and/or vaccine-induced protection.19 Estimating the relative role of these factors in shaping an epidemic is difficult, as multiple complex interacting processes are involved, which are not directly measurable through surveillance.19 By retrospectively fitting a dynamic transmission model to the uniquely rich COVID-19 epidemiological surveillance data from England27 we provide the first quantitative estimates of the population-level drivers of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and severity. Although our study focuses on England, the results have implications for the effectiveness of control measures globally in this and future pandemics.
Prior to vaccinations when population immunity was low, only stringent levels of NPIs were effective in limiting virus transmission. The intrinsic transmission advantage of Alpha and Delta allowed them to become dominant, while Omicron’s additional immune escape properties, which reduced population-level protection against infection by approximately a third, enabled it to become dominant from late 2021 despite the high population immunity at that time. We find that the Alpha variant displayed the highest basic HFR and IFR, followed in decreasing order by the Delta, Wildtype and Omicron variants. A higher risk of hospitalisation and death has been estimated for the Delta variant compared to Alpha in a previous meta-analysis.28 The strongest evidence for this comes from a cohort study which compared severity outcomes amongst individuals diagnosed in the community with a positive PCR test in England between late March and May, 2021.29 Researchers from this study concluded that infections with the Delta variant carried a significantly higher risk of hospitalisation and death, adjusting for a number of sociodemographic variables, vaccination status and week of infection occurrence.29 This and other studies,28,29 however, were restricted to short time periods where both variants co-circulated and, hence, do not capture subsequent changes such as a reduction in severity later in the Delta period with the AY.4.2 sub-variant compared with the earlier non-AY.4.2 one.30 Moreover, survival studies restricted to discrete periods are subject to biases inherent to health seeking and treatment practices. In this sense, estimates of the increase severity of Delta over Alpha from patients seeking a PCR test are constrained by test-seeking behaviours in the population during the early phase of Delta transmission. In contrast, we average variant specific estimates over a longer period, integrating them dynamically with other ecological factors, including infection prevalence, PCR cases positivity and variant frequency in the latter. Whilst we did not have data available to fit our model to hospital outcomes by variant, by integrating multiple data sources in a comprehensive evidence synthesis framework, we disentangle and reproduce the multiple drivers of severity and estimate that the IFR for Alpha was higher than for Delta. Indeed, future pandemic studies would benefit from additional surveillance data with distinction of hospitalisations and deaths by pathogen strain.
In line with prior evidence,11 our results show that a rapid identification of effective pharmacological treatments20,21 and re-adaptation of hospital capacity22 were effective in countering the intrinsic severity of the Wildtype virus. However, we and other authors31,32 also find strong evidence that improvements in clinical care can be nullified unless paired with effective and timely interventions to control infection rates in the population. We find that NPIs were not always effective or timely enough to control the virus. This led to a peak in hospitalisations over the winter of 2020/21 and, in turn, an increase in HFR which could not be explained solely by the severity characteristics of the Wildtype and Alpha variants, nor changes in the age distribution of hospital admissions. Lastly, we have demonstrated the critical role of risk-prioritised vaccination programmes24 in reducing severity alongside transmission. Levels of protection from prior infection in England have remained low throughout. The combined proportion of those effectively protected by infection-induced and combined infection- and vaccine-induced immunity has stayed under a third of the national population.
Currently, the Omicron variant lineage dominates the pandemic landscape globally.25 Our analysis robustly shows that the initial (BA.1) sub-variant of this lineage has basic severity properties comparable to Wildtype IHR, HFR and IFR. Recent analyses from China, where cumulative levels of protection against the virus in the population are considerably lower than in England, suggest that NPIs remain crucial public health interventions.6 We have demonstrated that a failure to mitigate transmission early can lead to increased severity and pressure on health services. Further research is needed to quantify the impact of changes in healthcare pressure metrics such as staff-to-patient ratios, safe bed occupancy, and availability of key commodities, which could be monitored for real-time epidemic analyses and integrated in future pandemic disease models.
Models can be used to systematically explore uncertainties around the target population and vaccination programmes for pandemic and seasonal respiratory pathogens.33–35 Waning vaccine- and infection-induced immunity against Omicron subvariants is well established,4,12,36 and recent studies suggest that hybrid immunity (from prior infection and vaccination) may be more effective than repetitive boosting through vaccination.37 Yet, our analysis around the emergence of the Omicron variant demonstrates that boosting immunity by vaccination remains an important intervention to tackle potential changes in the transmissibility and severity of SARS-CoV-2 as it evolves. Despite recent optimism that COVID-19 is becoming endemic,38 the risk of new SARS-CoV-2 variants emerging remains.2 We have highlighted the public health implications of a higher viral transmissibility over time, which has resulted from both increased intrinsic transmissibility and increased immune escape properties. Even with similar severity properties to the current Omicron lineage, a variant with a higher intrinsic transmissibility will pose a significant public health threat.6
As COVID-19 surveillance has been drastically scaled down,7 detecting future changes in the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and performing robust epidemiological analyses will be challenging. Our study highlights the importance of comprehensive quantitative frameworks to integrate evidence from multiple data streams. We demonstrate how combining data from different sources can help to identify patterns that may not be apparent (or would be wrongly attributed), such as the higher IFR estimated for Alpha than Delta in contrast to previous studies, when using a reduced number of data streams. This in turn provides important insights into the drivers of epidemic dynamics and informs options for future interventions. As the pandemic continues, optimising surveillance systems to detect significant changes in viral severity and transmissibility, trends in global case numbers, and the emergence of new VOCs is critical.
Data Availability
All data necessary to reproduce the analysis in the present study are available online.
Declaration of interests
PPG has consulted for Pfizer. AC has received payment from Pfizer for teaching of mathematical modelling of infectious diseases. RS and NI are currently employed by the Wellcome Trust, however the Wellcome Trust had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing of the manuscript. KAMG has received honoraria from Wellcome Genome Campus for lectures and salary support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, through Imperial College London for work outside this study. LKW has received consultancy payments from the Wellcome Trust. All other authors declare no competing interests. All other authors declare no competing interests.
Funding
This work was supported jointly by the Wellcome Trust and the Department for International Development (DFID; 221350)]. We acknowledge joint Centre funding from the UK MRC and DFID (MR/R015600/1). This work was also supported by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Modelling Methodology, a partnership between PHE, Imperial College London, and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (NIHR200908), the Abdul Latif Jameel Foundation, and the EDCTP2 programme supported by the EU. LKW is funded by the Wellcome Trust (grant number 218669/Z/19/Z).
Methods
We expanded a previously described8–10 stochastic compartmental SARS-CoV-2 mathematical model and Bayesian evidence synthesis framework, fitting to a range of epidemiological surveillance data streams using particle Markov Chain Monte Carlo,39 Data range between March 16, 2020 and February 24, 2022 and are aggregated by England NHS (health administration) region. For a full description of the model structure, equations, parameters and fitted data, see online Supplement. Briefly, our model has an SEIR structure, stratified in 17 age classes (5-year bands from 0 to 79 and 80+). We fitted to age-specific data on PCR case positivity from the community (national Pillar 2 programme),40 infection PCR-positive prevalence survey from the REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission (REACT) Study,41 hospital admissions, and community and hospital deaths, and daily number of first, second, and booster vaccine doses,40 and to regionally aggregated data on daily general and ICU bed occupancy,40 and infection-PCR-positive prevalence from the Office for National Statistics.42
To model heterogenous contact rates among age groups, we use the POLYMOD contact matrix for England.43 We then fit a piecewise linear, time-varying multiplier, β to account for changes in transmission given NPIs or other official events, such as school holidays (Supplement Table S10). We use age-splines for the probabilities of severe disease (requiring hospitalisation) conditional on infection, need for ICU care given hospitalisation and death in hospital compartments (general bed, ICU, step-down care after ICU), as previously described.8 To account for changes in healthcare characteristics, we further fit piecewise linear, time-varying modifiers of the probabilities of hospitalisation given severe disease, ICU admission given hospitalisation, death in hospital and death in the community, with dates defined either by official approval for key pharmacological treatments for COVID-19 in England or changes in healthcare seeking behaviours (Supplement Tables S8 and S10).
Our model accommodates two circulating variants at a time over a sequence of three strain replacement phases; namely, Wildtype and Alpha, Alpha and Delta, and Delta and Omicron. Within the two-variant model phases, infected compartments are further stratified into four classes, accounting for both primary infections and reinfections by each of the circulating variants. Additionally, recovered compartments feature a fifth class, to account for those recovered from an infection from a historic variant (e.g. during the Alpha and Delta phase, those recovered from a Wildtype infection). A reinfection occurs when an individual in the recovered compartment is infected with a new variant. We assume that an infection with a variant confers perfect immunity against that variant and variants that predate it (e.g. prior infection with Omicron confers perfect immunity against Delta and Omicron). However, to model imperfect protection from prior infection against emerging variants, we fix cross-immunity parameters as informed from the literature (Supplement Table S9). To ensure the robustness of results, we varied fixed cross-immunity parameters across a plausible range in sensitivity analyses (see Supplement section 5). We assume that individuals recovered from an infection can lose all their infection-induced immunity and return to the susceptible compartment and their next potential infection would be modelled as a new primary infection rather than a reinfection.
We model vaccination in seven classes (unvaccinated, dose one-no effect, dose one-full effect, dose two, waned from dose two, booster dose, waned from booster) and we explicitly account for protection against infection, symptomatic (mild) disease, severe disease requiring hospitalisation, death, and onward transmission (infectiousness). We assume fixed degree-type protection from vaccine, informed by population-level English analyses by vaccine type and variant (Supplement Tables S3 and S4, and Figures S2-S5). To account for different vaccines used in England over the study period, we used a multiplicative VE weighting for AstraZeneca and Pfizer/Moderna (assuming same efficacy between the latter) uptake in the different age groups to daily data on first, second and booster doses administered by NHS England region.
To robustly capture the variant-specific properties of transmissibility and severity, we fitted our model to regionally aggregated data of variant frequency from Pillar 2 cases44 for each variant transition. To infer variant transmissibility, we fitted variant-specific parameters of their seeding date and transmission advantage relative to the variant being replaced. We assume a fixed seeding pattern for each variant and a gradual decrease in the serial interval over successive variants as informed by the literature (Supplement Table S2). This latter assumption was also tested in sensitivity analysis (Supplement section 5). For variant severity, we fitted variant-specific parameter multipliers of the age-splines of the probabilities of hospitalisation conditional on infection, of ICU admission given hospitalisation, and of death given infection. For each variant in succession, these multipliers were relative to the variant being replaced, independent of fitted time-varying healthcare severity parameters, and scaled (up or down) the age-specific severity splines as a whole (assuming no age-specific changes in severity due to the variant).
We estimated the intrinsic R0 and basic severity properties of the variants parametrically. For each NHS England region, the intrinsic R0 was the product of the instantaneous reproduction number at the start of the model, Rt=0, and the variant’s transmission advantage relative to Wildtype. We fit the transmission advantage for each variant as a parameter relative to the variant it replaces (e.g. Delta relative to Alpha). Lastly, we defined the basic severity of the variants as what their infection hospitalisation (IHR), hospital fatality (HFR) and infection fatality ratios (IFR) would be in a population without any immunity (either from prior infections or vaccination) on the 16th of May 2020. Thus, these basic severity measures allow us to compare variant severity in the absence of changes in severity over time or in the age distribution of infections or hospitalisations, such as may be driven by vaccination or improvements in healthcare. Given the stratification of our model compartments by age, vaccine and variant classes, coupled to our fitted splines of baseline severity pathways as described above, we were able to parametrically calculate the variant specific IHR, HFR and IFR by age and vaccination class (see Supplement, section 4.3.4). We were then able to remove the effect of vaccine-derived immunity by assessing these metrics in the unvaccinated classes only. To account for the effect of the age distribution of infections or hospitalisation, we derived population-level basic IHR, IFR or HFR by weighting age specific estimates across age groups using the eigenvector corresponding to the leading eigenvalue of the next-generation matrix used for ascertaining Rt. Since basic severity values are calculated with the same scaling effects of the fitted time-varying severity modifiers for all variants, the effect of potential modifications is standardised across variants.
Acknowledgments
We thank all colleagues at PHE and front-line health professionals who have not only driven and continue to drive the daily response to the COVID-19 epidemic in England but also provided the necessary data to inform this study. This work would not have been possible without the dedication and expertise of said colleagues and professionals. The use of pillar-2 PCR testing data, vaccination data, and the variant and mutation data was made possible thanks to PHE colleagues, and we extend our thanks to N Gent and A Charlett for facilitation and insights into these data. The use of serological data was made possible by colleagues at PHE Porton Down, Colindale, and the NHS Blood Transfusion Service. We are particularly grateful to G Amirthalingam and N Andrews for helpful discussions around these data. We thank all the REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission (REACT) Study investigators for sharing PCR prevalence data. We also thank the entire Imperial College London COVID-19 response team for support and feedback throughout. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the UK Department of Health and Social Care, the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), PHE, UK Medical Research Council (MRC), UK Research and Innovation, or the EU.
References
