Early analysis of the Australian COVID-19 epidemic

  1. David J Price  Is a corresponding author
  2. Freya M Shearer  Is a corresponding author
  3. Michael T Meehan
  4. Emma McBryde
  5. Robert Moss
  6. Nick Golding
  7. Eamon J Conway
  8. Peter Dawson
  9. Deborah Cromer
  10. James Wood
  11. Sam Abbott
  12. Jodie McVernon
  13. James M McCaw
  1. The University of Melbourne, Australia
  2. James Cook University, Australia
  3. Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, United Kingdom
  4. Department of Defence, Australia
  5. University of New South Wales, Australia
  6. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom

Abstract

As of 1 May 2020, there had been 6,808 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Australia. Of these, 98 had died from the disease. The epidemic had been in decline since mid-March, with 308 cases confirmed nationally since 14 April. This suggests that the collective actions of the Australian public and government authorities in response to COVID-19 were sufficiently early and assiduous to avert a public health crisis — for now. Analysing factors that contribute to individual country experiences of COVID-19, such as the intensity and timing of public health interventions, will assist in the next stage of response planning globally. We describe how the epidemic and public health response unfolded in Australia up to 13 April. We estimate that the effective reproduction number was likely below 1 in each Australian state since mid-March and forecast that clinical demand would remain below capacity thresholds over the forecast period (from mid-to-late April).

Data availability

Analysis code is included in the supplementary materials. Datasets analysed and generated during this study are included in the supplementary materials. For estimates of the time-varying effective reproduction number (Figure 2), the complete line listed data within the Australian national COVID-19 database are not publicly available. However, we provide the cases per day by notification date and state (as shown in Figures 1 and S1) which, when supplemented with the estimated distribution of the delay from symptom onset to notification (samples from this distribution are provided as a data file), analyses of the time-varying effective reproduction number can be performed.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. David J Price

    Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
    For correspondence
    david.price1@unimelb.edu.au
    Competing interests
    David J Price, This work was undertaken with direct funding support from the Australian Government Department of Health, Office of Health Protection and has assisted the Australian Government in its epidemic response activities..
  2. Freya M Shearer

    School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
    For correspondence
    freya.shearer@unimelb.edu.au
    Competing interests
    Freya M Shearer, This work was undertaken with direct funding support from the Australian Government Department of Health, Office of Health Protection and has assisted the Australian Government in its epidemic response activities..
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9600-3473
  3. Michael T Meehan

    Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
    Competing interests
    Michael T Meehan, This work was undertaken with direct funding support from the Australian Government Department of Health, Office of Health Protection and has assisted the Australian Government in its epidemic response activities..
  4. Emma McBryde

    Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
    Competing interests
    Emma McBryde, This work was undertaken with direct funding support from the Australian Government Department of Health, Office of Health Protection and has assisted the Australian Government in its epidemic response activities..
  5. Robert Moss

    School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    Robert Moss, This work was undertaken with direct funding support from the Australian Government Department of Health, Office of Health Protection and has assisted the Australian Government in its epidemic response activities..
  6. Nick Golding

    Spatial Ecology and Epidemiology Group, Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    Nick Golding, This work was undertaken with direct funding support from the Australian Government Department of Health, Office of Health Protection and has assisted the Australian Government in its epidemic response activities..
  7. Eamon J Conway

    Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory Epidemiology Unit at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    Eamon J Conway, This work was undertaken with direct funding support from the Australian Government Department of Health, Office of Health Protection and has assisted the Australian Government in its epidemic response activities..
  8. Peter Dawson

    Defence Science and Technology, Department of Defence, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    Peter Dawson, This work was undertaken with direct funding support from the Australian Government Department of Health, Office of Health Protection and has assisted the Australian Government in its epidemic response activities..
  9. Deborah Cromer

    Infection Analytics Program, Kirby Institute for Infection and Immunity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    Deborah Cromer, This work was undertaken with direct funding support from the Australian Government Department of Health, Office of Health Protection and has assisted the Australian Government in its epidemic response activities..
  10. James Wood

    School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    James Wood, This work was undertaken with direct funding support from the Australian Government Department of Health, Office of Health Protection and has assisted the Australian Government in its epidemic response activities..
  11. Sam Abbott

    Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    Sam Abbott, This work was undertaken with direct funding support from the Australian Government Department of Health, Office of Health Protection and has assisted the Australian Government in its epidemic response activities..
  12. Jodie McVernon

    Population health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
    Competing interests
    Jodie McVernon, This work was undertaken with direct funding support from the Australian Government Department of Health, Office of Health Protection and has assisted the Australian Government in its epidemic response activities..
  13. James M McCaw

    School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    James M McCaw, This work was undertaken with direct funding support from the Australian Government Department of Health, Office of Health Protection and has assisted the Australian Government in its epidemic response activities..
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2452-3098

Funding

Department of Health, Australian Government (NA)

  • James M McCaw

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2020, Price et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 6,754
    views
  • 491
    downloads
  • 67
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. David J Price
  2. Freya M Shearer
  3. Michael T Meehan
  4. Emma McBryde
  5. Robert Moss
  6. Nick Golding
  7. Eamon J Conway
  8. Peter Dawson
  9. Deborah Cromer
  10. James Wood
  11. Sam Abbott
  12. Jodie McVernon
  13. James M McCaw
(2020)
Early analysis of the Australian COVID-19 epidemic
eLife 9:e58785.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.58785

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.58785

Further reading

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Bo Zheng, Bronner P Gonçalves ... Caoyi Xue
    Research Article

    Background:

    In many settings, a large fraction of the population has both been vaccinated against and infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Hence, quantifying the protection provided by post-infection vaccination has become critical for policy. We aimed to estimate the protective effect against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection of an additional vaccine dose after an initial Omicron variant infection.

    Methods:

    We report a retrospective, population-based cohort study performed in Shanghai, China, using electronic databases with information on SARS-CoV-2 infections and vaccination history. We compared reinfection incidence by post-infection vaccination status in individuals initially infected during the April–May 2022 Omicron variant surge in Shanghai and who had been vaccinated before that period. Cox models were fit to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs).

    Results:

    275,896 individuals were diagnosed with real-time polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in April–May 2022; 199,312/275,896 were included in analyses on the effect of a post-infection vaccine dose. Post-infection vaccination provided protection against reinfection (aHR 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.79–0.85). For patients who had received one, two, or three vaccine doses before their first infection, hazard ratios for the post-infection vaccination effect were 0.84 (0.76–0.93), 0.87 (0.83–0.90), and 0.96 (0.74–1.23), respectively. Post-infection vaccination within 30 and 90 days before the second Omicron wave provided different degrees of protection (in aHR): 0.51 (0.44–0.58) and 0.67 (0.61–0.74), respectively. Moreover, for all vaccine types, but to different extents, a post-infection dose given to individuals who were fully vaccinated before first infection was protective.

    Conclusions:

    In previously vaccinated and infected individuals, an additional vaccine dose provided protection against Omicron variant reinfection. These observations will inform future policy decisions on COVID-19 vaccination in China and other countries.

    Funding:

    This study was funded the Key Discipline Program of Pudong New Area Health System (PWZxk2022-25), the Development and Application of Intelligent Epidemic Surveillance and AI Analysis System (21002411400), the Shanghai Public Health System Construction (GWVI-11.2-XD08), the Shanghai Health Commission Key Disciplines (GWVI-11.1-02), the Shanghai Health Commission Clinical Research Program (20214Y0020), the Shanghai Natural Science Foundation (22ZR1414600), and the Shanghai Young Health Talents Program (2022YQ076).

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    Marina Padilha, Victor Nahuel Keller ... Gilberto Kac
    Research Article Updated

    Background:

    The role of circulating metabolites on child development is understudied. We investigated associations between children’s serum metabolome and early childhood development (ECD).

    Methods:

    Untargeted metabolomics was performed on serum samples of 5004 children aged 6–59 months, a subset of participants from the Brazilian National Survey on Child Nutrition (ENANI-2019). ECD was assessed using the Survey of Well-being of Young Children’s milestones questionnaire. The graded response model was used to estimate developmental age. Developmental quotient (DQ) was calculated as the developmental age divided by chronological age. Partial least square regression selected metabolites with a variable importance projection ≥1. The interaction between significant metabolites and the child’s age was tested.

    Results:

    Twenty-eight top-ranked metabolites were included in linear regression models adjusted for the child’s nutritional status, diet quality, and infant age. Cresol sulfate (β=–0.07; adjusted-p <0.001), hippuric acid (β=–0.06; adjusted-p <0.001), phenylacetylglutamine (β=–0.06; adjusted-p <0.001), and trimethylamine-N-oxide (β=–0.05; adjusted-p=0.002) showed inverse associations with DQ. We observed opposite directions in the association of DQ for creatinine (for children aged –1 SD: β=–0.05; pP=0.01;+1 SD: β=0.05; p=0.02) and methylhistidine (–1 SD: β = - 0.04; p=0.04;+1 SD: β=0.04; p=0.03).

    Conclusions:

    Serum biomarkers, including dietary and microbial-derived metabolites involved in the gut-brain axis, may potentially be used to track children at risk for developmental delays.

    Funding:

    Supported by the Brazilian Ministry of Health and the Brazilian National Research Council.