Abstract
Background: Unprecedented public health interventions including travel restrictions and national lockdowns have been implemented to stem the COVID-19 epidemic, but the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions is still debated. International comparisons are hampered by highly variable conditions under which epidemics spread and differences in the timing and scale of interventions. Cumulative COVID-19 morbidity and mortality are functions of both the rate of epidemic growth and the duration of uninhibited growth before interventions were implemented. Incomplete and sporadic testing during the early COVID-19 epidemic makes it difficult to identify how long SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in different places. SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequences can be analyzed to provide an estimate of both the time of epidemic origin and the rate of early epidemic growth in different settings. Methods: We carried out a phylogenetic analysis of more than 29,000 publicly available whole genome SARS-CoV-2 sequences from 57 locations to estimate the time that the epidemic originated in different places. These estimates were cross-referenced with dates of the most stringent interventions in each location as well as the number of cumulative COVID-19 deaths following maximum intervention. Phylodynamic methods were used to estimate the rate of early epidemic growth and proxy estimates of epidemic size. Findings: The time elapsed between epidemic origin and maximum intervention is strongly associated with different measures of epidemic severity and explains 46% of variance in numbers infected at time of maximum intervention. The reproduction number is independently associated with epidemic severity. In multivariable regression models, epidemic severity was not associated with census population size. The time elapsed between detection of initial COVID-19 cases to interventions was not associated with epidemic severity, indicating that many locations experienced long periods of cryptic transmission. Interpretation: Locations where strong non-pharmaceutical interventions were implemented earlier experienced much less severe COVID-19 morbidity and mortality during the period of study.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
MRC is jointly funded by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the UK Department for International Development (DFID) under the MRC/DFID Concordat agreement and this award is part of the EDCTP2 programme supported by the European Union (MR/R015600/1). RJ and EV acknowledge funding from the European Commission (CoroNAb 101003653). EV additionally acknowledges funding from the Wellcome Trust (220885/Z/20/Z).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Analyses were conducted entirely on anonymous, publicly available data from GISAID and other public databases.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
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 and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All genetic data are publicly available upon registration with GISAID (https://www.gisaid.org/). Details for non-genetic data are provided in our Supplementary Materials.
