TY - JOUR T1 - ‘Dark matter’, second waves and epidemiological modelling JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.09.01.20185876 SP - 2020.09.01.20185876 AU - Karl J. Friston AU - Anthony Costello AU - Deenan Pillay Y1 - 2020/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/03/2020.09.01.20185876.abstract N2 - Background Recent reports based on conventional SEIR models suggest that the next wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK could overwhelm health services, with fatalities that far exceed the first wave. These models suggest non-pharmaceutical interventions would have limited impact without intermittent national lockdowns and consequent economic and health impacts. We used Bayesian model comparison to revisit these conclusions, when allowing for heterogeneity of exposure, susceptibility, and viral transmission.Methods We used dynamic causal modelling to estimate the parameters of epidemiological models and, crucially, the evidence for alternative models of the same data. We compared SEIR models of immune status that were equipped with latent factors generating data; namely, location, symptom, and testing status. We analysed daily cases and deaths from the US, UK, Brazil, Italy, France, Spain, Mexico, Belgium, Germany, and Canada over the period 25-Jan-20 to 15-Jun-20. These data were used to estimate the composition of each country’s population in terms of the proportions of people (i) not exposed to the virus, (ii) not susceptible to infection when exposed, and (iii) not infectious when susceptible to infection.Findings Bayesian model comparison found overwhelming evidence for heterogeneity of exposure, susceptibility, and transmission. Furthermore, both lockdown and the build-up of population immunity contributed to viral transmission in all but one country. Small variations in heterogeneity were sufficient to explain the large differences in mortality rates across countries. The best model of UK data predicts a second surge of fatalities will be much less than the first peak (31 vs. 998 deaths per day. 95% CI: 24-37)—substantially less than conventional model predictions. The size of the second wave depends sensitively upon the loss of immunity and the efficacy of find-test-trace-isolate-support (FTTIS) programmes.Interpretation A dynamic causal model that incorporates heterogeneity of exposure, susceptibility and transmission suggests that the next wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic will be much smaller than conventional models predict, with less economic and health disruption. This heterogeneity means that seroprevalence underestimates effective herd immunity and, crucially, the potential of public health programmes.Evidence before this study Hundreds of modelling papers have been published recently, offering predictions and projections of the current coronavirus outbreak. These range from peer-reviewed publications to rapid reports from learned societies. Many, if not most, of these modelling initiatives commit to a particular kind of epidemiological model that precludes heterogeneity in viral exposure, susceptibility, and transmission. The ensuing projections can be fantastical in terms of fatalities and ensuing public health responses.Added value of this study This study revisits the evidence for conventional epidemiological modelling assumptions using dynamic causal modelling and Bayesian model comparison. It provides overwhelming evidence for heterogeneity, and the interaction between lockdown and herd immunity in suppressing viral transmission.Implications of all the available evidence Heterogeneity of this sort means that low seroprevalence (<20%) is consistent with levels of population immunity that play a substantive role in attenuating viral transmission and, crucially, facilitating public health measures.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging is supported by core funding from the Wellcome Trust [203147/Z/16/Z].Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Not applicableAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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.YesThe analyses in this article can be reproduced using annotated (MATLAB/Octave) code available as part of the free and open source academic software SPM (https://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/), released under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 or later. The routines are called by a demonstration script: DEM_COVID_I.m. Please visit https://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/covid-19/. The data used in this article are available for academic research purposes from the COVID-19 Data Repository by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University, hosted on GitHub at https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19. https://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/ https://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/covid-19/ https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19/ ER -