The importance of the generation interval in investigating dynamics and control of new SARS-CoV-2 variants

  1. Sang Woo Park
  2. Benjamin M. Bolker
  3. Sebastian Funk
  4. C. Jessica E. Metcalf
  5. Joshua S. Weitz
  6. Bryan T. Grenfell
  7. Jonathan Dushoff

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Inferring the relative strength (i.e. the ratio of reproduction numbers) and relative speed (i.e. the difference between growth rates) of new SARS-CoV-2 variants is critical to predicting and controlling the course of the current pandemic. Analyses of new variants have primarily focused on characterizing changes in the proportion of new variants, implicitly or explicitly assuming that the relative speed remains fixed over the course of an invasion. We use a generation-interval-based framework to challenge this assumption and illustrate how relative strength and speed change over time under two idealized interventions: a constant-strength intervention like idealized vaccination or social distancing, which reduces transmission rates by a constant proportion, and a constant-speed intervention like idealized contact tracing, which isolates infected individuals at a constant rate. In general, constant-strength interventions change the relative speed of a new variant, while constant-speed interventions change its relative strength. Differences in the generation-interval distributions between variants can exaggerate these changes and modify the effectiveness of interventions. Finally, neglecting differences in generation-interval distributions can bias estimates of relative strength.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1098/rsif.2022.0173
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.03.21256545: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.05.03.21256545 on medRxiv