Abstract
Epidemiological modelling has played a key role in proposing, analyzing and justifying non-pharmaceuticals interventions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite its importance, evaluations of models’ ability to accurately anticipate the evolution of the disease remain scarce. Thus, robust, systematic, and pre-specified evaluation criteria are needed to assess the relevance of modelling scenarios that guided policy response during the pandemic. We conduct a retrospective assessment of modelling reports which guided policy response in France from April 2020 to April 2022. After systematically verifying the scenarios hypotheses (e.g., exclusion of no-lockdown scenarios when a lockdown was effectively in place), we find that epidemiological models were (a) uncertain, (b) unaccurate, and (c) biased towards an overestimation of predicted COVID-19 related hospitalizations. In more than half of the reports, reality is below or equal to even the best-case scenario. To our knowledge, this is the only national systematic retrospective assessment of COVID-19 pandemic scenarios; such an approach should be reproduced in other countries whenever possible.
Graphical Abstract: Comparison of Pasteur Institute’s scenarios to reality. Forecasting errors of scenarios (colors) compared to reality (black line) are expressed as a percentage of the maximum Intensive Care Units occupancy reached during the covid-19 pandemic in France (horizontal dashed line).
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced are available online at https://github.com/maxime-langevin/retrospective_analysis
