Levels of SARS-CoV-2 population exposure are considerably higher than suggested by seroprevalence surveys

  1. Siyu Chen
  2. Jennifer A. Flegg
  3. Lisa J. White
  4. Ricardo Aguas

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Accurate knowledge of prior population exposure has critical ramifications for preparedness plans for future SARS-CoV-2 epidemic waves and vaccine prioritization strategies. Serological studies can be used to estimate levels of past exposure and thus position populations in their epidemic timeline. To circumvent biases introduced by the decay in antibody titers over time, methods for estimating population exposure should account for seroreversion, to reflect that changes in seroprevalence measures over time are the net effect of increases due to recent transmission and decreases due to antibody waning. Here, we present a new method that combines multiple datasets (serology, mortality, and virus positivity ratios) to estimate seroreversion time and infection fatality ratios (IFR) and simultaneously infer population exposure levels. The results indicate that the average time to seroreversion is around six months, IFR is 0.54% to 1.3%, and true exposure may be more than double the current seroprevalence levels reported for several regions of England.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009436
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.08.21249432: (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.

    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 10.1101/2021.01.08.21249432 on medRxiv