Relative role of border restrictions, case finding and contact tracing in controlling SARS-CoV-2 in the presence of undetected transmission

Background Several countries have controlled the spread of COVID-19 through varying combinations of border restrictions, case finding, contact tracing and careful calibration on the resumption of domestic activities. However, evaluating the effectiveness of these measures based on observed cases alone is challenging as it does not reflect the transmission dynamics of missed infections. Methods Combining data on notified local COVID-19 cases with known and unknown sources of infections (i.e. linked and unlinked cases) in Singapore in 2020 with a transmission model, we reconstructed the incidence of missed infections and estimated the relative effectiveness of different types of outbreak control. We also examined implications for estimation of key real-time metrics -- the reproduction number and ratio of unlinked to linked cases, using observed data only as compared to accounting for missed infections. Findings Prior to the partial lockdown in Singapore, initiated in April 2020, we estimated 89% (95%CI 75-99%) of the infections caused by notified cases were contact traced, but only 12.5% (95%CI 2-69%) of the infections caused by missed infectors were identified. We estimated that the reproduction number was 1.23 (95%CI 0.98-1.54) after accounting for missed infections but was 0.90 (95%CI 0.79-1.1) based on notified cases alone. At the height of the outbreak, the ratio of missed to notified infections was 34.1 (95%CI 26.0-46.6) but the ratio of unlinked to linked infections was 0.81 (95%CI 0.59-1.36). Our results suggest that when case finding and contact tracing identifies at least 50% and 20% of the infections caused by missed and notified cases respectively, the reproduction number could be reduced by more than 14%, rising to 20% when contact tracing is 80% effective. Interpretation Depending on the relative effectiveness of border restrictions, case finding and contact tracing, unobserved outbreak dynamics can vary greatly. Commonly used metrics to evaluate outbreak control -- typically based on notified data -- could therefore misrepresent the true underlying outbreak. Funding Ministry of Health, Singapore.


Background 13
Several countries have controlled the spread of COVID-19 through varying combinations of 14 border restrictions, case finding, contact tracing and careful calibration on the resumption of 15 domestic activities. However, evaluating the effectiveness of these measures based on observed 16 cases alone is challenging as it does not reflect the transmission dynamics of missed infections. 17 18 Methods 19 Combining data on notified local COVID-19 cases with known and unknown sources of infections 20 (i.e. linked and unlinked cases) in Singapore in 2020 with a transmission model, we reconstructed 21 the incidence of missed infections and estimated the relative effectiveness of different types of 22 outbreak control. We also examined implications for estimation of key real-time metrics -the 23 reproduction number and ratio of unlinked to linked cases, using observed data only as compared 24 to accounting for missed infections. 25 26 Findings 27 Prior to the partial lockdown in Singapore, initiated in April 2020, we estimated 89% (95%CI 75-28 99%) of the infections caused by notified cases were contact traced, but only 12.5% (95%CI 2-29 69%) of the infections caused by missed infectors were identified. We estimated that the 30 reproduction number was 1.23 (95%CI 0.98-1.54) after accounting for missed infections but was 31 0.90 (95%CI 0.79-1.1) based on notified cases alone. At the height of the outbreak, the ratio of 32 missed to notified infections was 34.1 (95%CI 26.0-46.6) but the ratio of unlinked to linked 33 infections was 0.81 (95%CI 0.59-1.36). Our results suggest that when case finding and contact 34 tracing identifies at least 50% and 20% of the infections caused by missed and notified cases 35 respectively, the reproduction number could be reduced by more than 14%, rising to 20% when 36 contact tracing is 80% effective. 37 38 Interpretation 39 Depending on the relative effectiveness of border restrictions, case finding and contact tracing, 40 unobserved outbreak dynamics can vary greatly. Commonly used metrics to evaluate outbreak 41 control -typically based on notified data -could therefore misrepresent the true underlying 1 outbreak. 2 3 Funding 4 5 Ministry of Health, Singapore. 6 7 Research in context 8 9 Evidence before this study 10 11 We searched PubMed, BioRxiv and MedRxiv for articles published in English up to Mar 20, 2021 12 using the terms: (2019-nCoV OR "novel coronavirus" OR COVID-19 OR SARS-CoV-2) AND 13 (border OR travel OR restrict* OR import*) AND ("case finding" OR surveillance OR test*) AND 14 (contact trac*) AND (model*). The majority of modelling studies evaluated the effectiveness of 15 various combinations of interventions in the absence of outbreak data. For studies that 16 reconstructed the initial spread of COVID-19 with outbreak data, they further simulated 17 counterfactual scenarios in the presence or absence of these interventions to quantify the impact 18 to the outbreak trajectory. None of the studies disentangled the effects of case finding, contact 19 tracing, introduction of imported cases and the reproduction number, in order to reproduce an 20 observed SARS-CoV-2 outbreak trajectory. 21 22 Added value of this study 23 24 Notified COVID-19 cases with unknown and known sources of infection are identified through 25 case finding and contact tracing respectively. Their respective daily incidence and the growth rate 26 over time may differ. By capitalising on these differences in the outbreak data and the use of a 27 mathematical model, we could identify the key drivers behind the growth and decline of both 28 notified and missed COVID-19 infections in different time periods -e.g. domestic transmission 29 vs external introductions, relative role of case finding and contact tracing in domestic 30 transmission. Estimating the incidence of missed cases also allows us to evaluate the usefulness 31 of common surveillance metrics that rely on observed cases. 32 33 Implications of all the available evidence 34 35 Comprehensive outbreak investigation data integrated with mathematical modelling helps to 36 quantify the strengths and weaknesses of each outbreak control intervention during different 37 stages of the pandemic. This would allow countries to better allocate limited resources to 38 strengthen outbreak control. Furthermore, the data and modelling approach allows us to estimate 39 the extent of missed infections in the absence of population wide seroprevalence surveys. This 40 allows us to compare the growth dynamics of notified and missed infections as reliance on the 41 observed data alone may create the illusion of a controlled outbreak. 42 43 44

Background 1
The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in substantial disruption to international travel and trade 2 due to widespread border restrictions that have been enacted by countries as a key strategy to 3 reduce the importation and spread of COVID-19. 1 In addition to border controls, which do not 4 totally prevent the importation of cases, 2 case finding and contact tracing have formed a central 5 part of the response in many countries. Case finding has helped in early identification and isolation 6 of new infections that are not associated with other known cases through testing of suspected 7 cases and surveillance in target groups. 3,4 Meanwhile, contact tracing identifies potential 8 transmission routes and new infections among contacts of a known case. 3,4 Local COVID-19 9 cases with known and unknown sources of infection can therefore be categorised as 'linked' or 10 'unlinked' respectively. 3,5 11 12 The occurrence of unlinked COVID-19 cases implies that the pandemic is partly unobserved. This 13 could be attributed to the importation and transmission from asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic 14 infections who do not require medical attention 6 and underreporting of symptomatic cases 7 . 15 Furthermore, failure to trace secondary cases arising from a notified case would also create gaps 16 in the observed transmission chains. The respective case counts and ratio of unlinked to linked 17 cases are often used as a metric for the effectiveness of outbreak control, and are closely 18 monitored in many countries to assess the potential for resuming social and economic activities 19 and the lifting of border restrictions. 8-10 However, methods to establish the relative role of border 20 restrictions, case finding, contact tracing to the trajectory of linked and unlinked cases, remain 21 elusive. 22 23 In addition, the pandemic trajectory is often measured by the effective reproduction number which 24 relies on notified cases or cases extrapolated from observed deaths. 11-13 With effective case 25 isolation and contact tracing, the time spent in the community while infectious for a notified case 26 is truncated, shortening the observed serial interval (a proxy for generation interval). 14 27 Consequently, the observed chains of transmission are short-lived and, on average, less than 28 one secondary case is generated. 15 As such, it is currently unclear whether metrics based on 29 observed features such as notified cases and their linkage give an accurate picture on the 30 underlying outbreak dynamics. 31 32 As countries progressively reopen, it is important for policy makers to understand the parameters 33 that contributes to the spread of cases and the growth dynamics in undetected cases. Combining 34 the daily incidence of imported, and local linked and unlinked COVID-19 cases in Singapore with 35 a mathematical model, we aim to characterise the effectiveness of detection and control 36 measures over the course of the pandemic and estimate the incidence of missed cases, even 37 when longitudinal serology surveys are absent. Furthermore, we compared the growth patterns 38 in missed and notified cases and investigated the implications of making inferences on the 39 pandemic trajectory based on observed data alone. 40 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 9, 2021. acquiring or transmitting disease, and ad-hoc testing of sub-populations of interest. 3 10 Imported cases are confirmed COVID-19 cases with travel history to a country with ongoing 11 COVID-19 outbreak in the preceding 14 days. They were stratified into two main categories, those 12 quarantined in dedicated facilities upon arrival, and those undergoing home-based quarantine or 13 who were not quarantined at all, prior to detection. 20 The former were tested at the start and end 14 of their quarantine period and were assumed to be incapable of introducing infections into the 15 community while the latter, to whom the community were potentially exposed to, could generate 16 local infections. 17 All confirmed cases were conveyed to secured isolation facilities and discharged after 21 days 18 from date of confirmation if assessed to be clinically well, or with sequential negative tests. Cases 19 occurring in persons residing in a foreign-worker dormitory and notified from Apr 7 to Oct 31, 2020 20 were omitted from analysis as these dormitories were placed under lockdown for an extended 21 period of time. As workers were subjected to restricted movements, the opportunity to interact 22 with the community during this period was minimal and hence they were assumed to be incapable 23 of driving community-level transmission. Furthermore, about 0.2% of the confirmed cases 24 occurred in persons providing care to confirmed cases and as these secondary infections were 25 not community-acquired infections, they were omitted from analysis. 26

Transmission Model 27
We simulated disease transmission through a branching process to compute the expected 28 incidence over time. The model was fitted using a Poisson likelihood to the daily incidence of 29 linked and unlinked local cases to reconstruct the incidence of missed infections (see 30 Supplementary Information for details). 31 Infections were introduced into the population by either notified imported cases who potentially 32 had contact with community individuals (referred to as notified imported cases with community 33 contact in the remaining text) or through missed imported infections. We modelled the number of 34 missed imported infections relative to the number of notified imported cases with community 35 contact using a factor . Both types of imported cases could generate community infections from 36 the time of arrival to isolation or end of their infectiousness respectively. Community infections 37 were identified through varying effectiveness of contract tracing of notified cases (i.e. probability 38 of detecting linked cases, link) or case finding (i.e. probability of detecting unlinked cases, unlink). 39 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 9, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.05.21256675 doi: medRxiv preprint The potential reproduction number of an infected individual, , was defined as the average 1 number of secondary cases generated by a single infectious individual over the entire infectious 2 period in the absence of quarantine/isolation. This is analogous to the reproduction number of a 3 missed infected individual, missed. For a notified case, the amount of time spent in the community 4 while infectious is generally shorter as compared to a missed infection, either as they sought 5 medical attention and were isolated, or when a secondary case was identified through contact 6 tracing and quarantined before being tested positive. The reproduction number of a notified case, 7 notified, was defined as the average number of secondary cases generated by a single infectious 8 individual till the time of quarantine/isolation. Notified cases were assumed to be incapable of 9 generating offspring infections once isolated. Overall, the effective reproduction number, eff, is 10 an aggregate measure of the reproduction number of both missed and notified cases. 11 We assumed the generation time was gamma distributed with mean 7.5 days (SD 3.4). 21  . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 9, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.05.21256675 doi: medRxiv preprint using Wilson's method. 25 We performed a z-test to evaluate the difference between the observed 1 and modelled rates and p values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. 2 3 Modelling varying effectiveness of detecting linked and unlinked cases and impact to epidemic 4 growth dynamics 5 We further explored the epidemic growth dynamics in the presence of missed and notified SARS-6 CoV-2 infections via the use of a next-generation matrix mathematical framework (Supplementary 7 Information). In general, a notified case spends a reduced amount of time spent in the community 8 while infectious as compared to a missed infection. This creates a heterogeneity in the 9 reproduction number of a missed and notified case. As such, we studied the impact of the eff 10 across a range of values for link, unlink and . We assumed a Weibull distributed time of infection 11 to isolation with mean 9.2 days (SD 4.4) for notified cases (derived from observed data in 12 symptomatic cases notified from Mar 1 to Apr 6, 2020, Supplementary Figure 1 and Table 1). 13 The ratio of missed to notified cases established during exponential growth was also modelled to 14 characterise the extent of case ascertainment and compared against the ratio of unlinked to linked 15 infections. Lastly, we analysed how different ratios of missed to notified imported cases with 16 community contact influences the time taken to achieve exponential growth and implications of 17 inferring outbreak trajectory from transient growth patterns. 18 All data and code required to reproduce the analysis is available online. 26 19 20 21 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 9, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.05.21256675 doi: medRxiv preprint We estimated that was 1.17 (95% CI 0.97-1.35) at the start of the pandemic. From Mar 1 to 1 Apr 6, 2020, this increased to 1.38 (95% CI 1.21-1.67) prior to the partial lockdown (figure 3a). 2 However, notified, was lower at 0.90 (95% CI 0.79-1.1) due to the reduced amount of time spent 3 in the community while infectious compared to a missed infection (supplementary figure 5).. After 4 accounting for missed infections, the eff was 1.23 (95% CI 0.98-1.54) (supplementary figure 5). 5 While the country's contact tracing system was able to detect 89% of the secondary cases ( link, 6 95% CI 75-99%) arising from a notified case, only 12.5% of the infections ( unlink, 95%CI 2-69%) 7 caused by a missed infected individual were identified through case finding -a sharp decline 8 from 78% ( unlink, 95% CI 37-99%) as estimated from Jan 18 to Feb 29 (figure 3b and c). We 9 observed a peak of 70 imported cases per day being isolated and we estimated that 23 imported 10 cases (95% CI 3-175) were missed daily (figure 3d). CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 9, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.05.21256675 doi: medRxiv preprint of detecting a linked case, link, (C) effectiveness of detecting an unlinked case, unlink, (D) average 1 daily number of missed imported cases in log scale. 2 During the partial lockdown, although we estimated to be below 1, which signalled a controlled 3 outbreak, the effectiveness of detecting linked and unlinked cases was low at 50% (95%CI 45-4 55%) and 1% (95%CI 1-2%) respectively (figure 3b and c). As such, it took about two months to 5 reach a daily observed incidence of less than 10 (figure 2b and c). As social and economic 6 activities were progressively resumed from Jun 19, 2020 onwards, the effectiveness of detecting 7 linked and unlinked cases remained low at 15% (95% CI 13-17%) and 8% (95% CI 6-11%) 8 respectively. However, with strict quarantine of incoming travellers and continued enforcement of 9 outbreak control measures, the average daily number of missed imported infections was low at 10 0.35 (95% CI 0.01-1.27) ( figure 3c and d) and was approximately 0.74 (95% CI 0.68-0.79) 11 (figure 3a and d Varying effectiveness of detecting linked and unlinked cases and implications for epidemic growth 27 When the effectiveness of detecting linked cases is low ( link=20%), an effectiveness of detecting 28 unlinked cases of at least 50% results in eff approximately 14.1% lower than (figure 4). As the 29 testing capacity and effectiveness of case finding increases, with a further increase in the ability 30 to ring fence secondary infections arising from notified cases, link, of up to 80%, this could further 31 reduce the eff to at least 23.3% lower than ( figure 4). As a country's case finding and contact 32 tracing system strengthens and the time from infection to isolation is reduced, the reduction in the 33 eff relative to is expected to increase (supplementary figure 6 and 7). 34 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 9, 2021. To characterise the extent of case ascertainment, we estimate the ratio of missed to notified 10 cases. When link is more than 80%, this ratio remains below 1 if unlink is greater than 30%. In 11 other words, aggressive ring fencing of contacts whenever a confirmed case is detected, helps to 12 ensure that the underlying outbreak is mostly observed (figure 5a). For the same values of link 13 and unlink, the ratio of missed to notified cases can be vastly different from the ratio of unlinked to 14 linked cases -typically used to characterise the extent of outbreak control. When unlink is low, 15 the epidemic becomes increasingly obscure and the ratio of missed to notified cases grows very 16 large but the ratio of the unlinked to linked cases tends to a fixed value dependent on link ( figure  17  5a and b). 18 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 9, 2021.
1 Figure 5 Comparison of unobserved outbreak dynamics with common surveillance metrics. (A)  2 Ratio of missed to notified cases for varying link and unlink. Dashed lines implies that the ratio 3 extends to infinity as unlink tends to zero; (B) Ratio of unlinked to linked cases for varying link and 4 unlink; (C) Ratio of missed to notified cases (turquoise dots) and ratio of unlinked to linked cases 5 (purple triangle) in different time periods of the pandemic. Posterior median (dot/triangle), 50% CI 6 (dark vertical lines) and 95% CI (light vertical lines). (D) Generations to exponential growth for an 7 outbreak with 5 missed imported cases and 95 notified imported cases with community contact, 8 of 1.5, link of 80%, for varying unlink. 9 10 To put these results into the Singapore context, as the effectiveness of detecting unlinked cases 11 declined in March during the surge of imported cases and further declined during the partial 12 lockdown, the ratio of missed to notified cases increased to 34.1 (95%CI 26.0-46.6) and was 13 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 9, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.05.21256675 doi: medRxiv preprint many times higher than the ratio of unlinked to linked cases of 0.81 (95%CI 0.59-1.36) (figure 1 5c). As such, metrics derived from observed data alone do not always accurately reflect the 2 underlying outbreak. 3 4 Under certain conditions, the time to achieve exponential growth in notified and missed infections 5 could differ. When unlink is low and when the initial ratio of missed to notified imported cases with 6 community contact is low (5 missed:95 notified), the number of generations required to achieve 7 exponential growth in notified cases is greater than that in missed cases (figure 5d). This time to 8 exponential growth is reduced when either the unlink is high or when the initial ratio of missed to 9 notified imported cases with community contact increases ( figure 5d and supplementary figure 8). 10 11 Discussion 12 Using the growth patterns in the daily incidence of local linked and unlinked cases, and imported 13 cases with community contact, our model was capable of disentangling the effects of case finding 14 and contact tracing ( unlink and link) from other outbreak interventions that affect the potential 15 reproduction number of a case ( ), at a time before vaccination roll out. In spite of a strong 16 capability to contact trace, without a tight control on the number of imported cases coupled with 17 low ability to detect new cases and eff exceeding 1, community transmission was sustained, as 18 witnessed in Singapore's daily incidence of COVID-19 cases from Mar 1 to Apr 6, 2020. This 19 surge in community cases affected the ability of the contact tracing system to ring fence notified 20 cases in the following months (figure 3b) but the partial lockdown with strong enforcement of non-21 pharmaceutical interventions such as mask wearing, physical distancing, and movement 22 restrictions helped to reverse the pandemic trajectory (figure 2 and 3). 23 24 As countries progressively resume economic and social activities in partially vaccinated 25 populations, the potential reproduction number of an infectious individual engaged in these 26 activities may exceed unity. Case finding and contact tracing help in the early identification and 27 isolation of (secondary) cases thereby minimising the duration of infectious period spent in the 28 community. Even if contact tracing capacity is low, if more than half of the infections arising from 29 a previously undetected infection present to the healthcare system for early testing and isolation, 30 the of a case could be reduced by more than 14% (figure 4). Increasing the effectiveness of 31 case finding ( unlink) implies casting a wider surveillance net but ultimately this measure depends 32 on compliance with testing regimes. We estimated a sharp drop in unlink during the partial 33 lockdown period (figure 3c) and this behaviour was corroborated by behavioural surveys 34 documenting diminished health-seeking behaviour. 27 Factors driving avoidance of testing 35 warrants further studies as, no matter how many infections can be detected from contact tracing, 36 the healthcare system relies on the testing and identification of cases in the first instance. 37 38 As contact tracing devices are progressively rolled out to speed up contact tracing and coupled 39 with effective quarantine and testing of close contacts, for a given unlink of 50% and link of 80%, 40 is lowered by more than 20% ( figure 4). Even if a healthcare system is only able to detect 30-41 50% of the infections arising from previously undetected infections ( unlink), a high link ensures 42 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 9, 2021. aggressive ring fencing of secondary infections arising from an unlinked case and keeps the 1 outbreak in check (figure 5a). 2 3 Current methods to estimate the effective reproduction number, eff , of SARS-CoV-2 rely on the 4 notified case incidence or deaths, some with appropriate adjustments to capture the right-5 censoring of data. [11][12][13]15 However, in the presence of asymptomatic infections 6 and 6 underreporting of symptomatic cases 7 , these methods neglect the growth dynamics of a non-7 negligible number of missed infections which can result in misleading inferences. From the model, 8 we estimated that was about 1.38 from Mar 1 to Apr 6, 2020 (figure 3a). With an effective 9 contact tracing system that quarantines close contacts and detects close to 90% of the secondary 10 cases from notified cases, this results in reduced time from infection to isolation and the 11 reproduction number of a notified case was 0.90, similar to previous modelling estimates. 15

12
Collectively, the eff was approximately 1.2, which exceeds 1 and signalled sustained 13 transmissions (supplementary figure 5). 14 15 By reconstructing the daily incidence of missed infections, we could infer the time-varying level of 16 case under-ascertainment. We estimated that nearly 90% of the missed infections occurred 17 between Mar 1 and Jun 18, 2020 and the ratio of missed to notified infections was more than 30 18 (figure 5c). This overall level of case under-ascertainment was comparable to the estimated 19 under-ascertainment in symptomatic cases alone in other countries during similar phases of the 20 pandemic and the under-ascertainment levels in many countries are expected to be higher when 21 accounting for asymptomatic infections. 7 Furthermore, we showed that using the ratio of unlinked 22 to linked cases -calculated from observed data alone, does not adequately characterise the 23 extent of outbreak control. The ratio of unlinked to linked cases showed little variation over the 24 course of the pandemic as compared to the ratio of missed to notified infections and does not 25 provide warning of a runaway outbreak. 26 27 With the reopening of borders, missed and notified imported cases with community contact could 28 initiate the first generation of local infections and if there is a low ratio of missed to notified 29 imported case of 1:19 coupled with a low ability to detect unlinked cases ( unlink = 10%), it takes 3 30 more generations for the notified cases to achieve exponential growth as compared to the missed 31 cases (figure 5d). The deviation from exponential growth in notified cases at the early stages of 32 the outbreak creates an illusion that outbreak can be controlled based on observed data, while 33 the number of undetected infections continues to escalate. One effective but resource intensive 34 method of minimising the number of missed imported infections is to implement strict quarantine 35 and testing of incoming travellers, especially those arriving from countries with high COVID-19 36 incidence. This reduces the overall number of new infections introduced into the population and 37 is especially important for countries that have managed to stabilise their epidemic numbers after 38 the initial wave(s) of infections. 39 40 There are some limitations to our study. Firstly, the model assumes that each of the four 41 parameters remains constant in a specified time period. As such, we are unable to provide a time-42 varying measure to characterise the impact of different outbreak detection and control measures 43 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 9, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.05.21256675 doi: medRxiv preprint that were progressively rolled out in the population at a granular level. Instead, time periods were 1 chosen based on prior knowledge of major policies that would affect at least one of the four model 2 parameters. Secondly, those imported cases subjected to home quarantine and no quarantine 3 were assumed to have the same potential of making contact with members of the community as 4 household transmission might occur, while in reality the amount of community contact would be 5 different as those under home quarantine could potentially only contact household members. In 6 the absence of data, we made a conservative assumption that the imported cases under home 7 quarantine were capable of generating local infections. Further model calibration would require 8 data on the outcome of the various quarantine measures. Finally, missed infections could arise 9 from asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic infections, or underreporting of symptomatic cases. We 10 assumed that is the same among these cases. More information is needed to determine the 11 temporal variation in the types of cases to account for lowered transmission potential in 12 asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic cases. At the same time, a key strength to our analysis is 13 that our model was able to reproduce independent observations in two separate population level 14 surveys and this lends support to our assumption of a homogeneous among all missed 15 infections. 16

17
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has generated new forms of data collection and many new ways to 18 reconstruct outbreak dynamics and evaluate the extent of missed infections arising from high 19 asymptomatic rates and underreporting of cases. The daily incidence of linked and unlinked cases 20 could help countries evaluate their performance in case finding, contact tracing and the 21 effectiveness of their border restrictions. Missed and notified infections bring about a 22 heterogeneity in the reproduction number and the mixture of these factors can create an illusion 23 of a controlled outbreak. As countries progressively reopen borders or plan for pandemics in the 24 future, it is important to have an integrated surveillance and modelling analysis system to 25 overcome the challenges of undetected transmissions. 26 27 References CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 9, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.05.21256675 doi: medRxiv preprint . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 9, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.05.21256675 doi: medRxiv preprint