Inference of the SARS-CoV-2 generation time using UK household data

  1. William Stephen Hart  Is a corresponding author
  2. Sam Abbott
  3. Akira Endo
  4. Joel Hellewell
  5. Elizabeth Miller
  6. Nick Andrews
  7. Philip K Maini
  8. Sebastian Funk
  9. Robin N Thompson
  1. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  2. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom
  3. Public Health England, United Kingdom
  4. University of Warwick, United Kingdom

Abstract

The distribution of the generation time (the interval between individuals becoming infected and transmitting the virus) characterises changes in the transmission risk during SARS-CoV-2 infections. Inferring the generation time distribution is essential to plan and assess public health measures. We previously developed a mechanistic approach for estimating the generation time, which provided an improved fit to data from the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic (December 2019-March 2020) compared to existing models (Hart et al., 2021). However, few estimates of the generation time exist based on data from later in the pandemic. Here, using data from a household study conducted from March-November 2020 in the UK, we provide updated estimates of the generation time. We considered both a commonly used approach in which the transmission risk is assumed to be independent of when symptoms develop, and our mechanistic model in which transmission and symptoms are linked explicitly. Assuming independent transmission and symptoms, we estimated a mean generation time (4.2 days, 95% credible interval 3.3-5.3 days) similar to previous estimates from other countries, but with a higher standard deviation (4.9 days, 3.0-8.3 days). Using our mechanistic approach, we estimated a longer mean generation time (5.9 days, 5.2-7.0 days) and a similar standard deviation (4.8 days, 4.0-6.3 days). As well as estimating the generation time using data from the entire study period, we also considered whether the generation time varied temporally. Both models suggest a shorter mean generation time in September-November 2020 compared to earlier months. Since the SARS-CoV-2 generation time appears to be changing, further data collection and analysis is necessary to continue to monitor ongoing transmission and inform future public health policy decisions.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and its supporting files; a Source Data file has been provided for Figure 1. Code for reproducing our results is available at https://github.com/will-s-hart/UK-generation-times.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. William Stephen Hart

    Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    william.hart@keble.ox.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2504-6860
  2. Sam Abbott

    Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Akira Endo

    Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    Akira Endo, received a research grant from Taisho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd..
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6377-7296
  4. Joel Hellewell

    Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Elizabeth Miller

    Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1884-0097
  6. Nick Andrews

    Data and Analytical Sciences, UK Health Security Agency, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Philip K Maini

    Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0146-9164
  8. Sebastian Funk

    Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2842-3406
  9. Robin N Thompson

    Mathematics Institute, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8545-5212

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (Excellence Award,EP/R513295/1)

  • William Stephen Hart

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR200929)

  • Elizabeth Miller

Taisho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd (Research grant)

  • Akira Endo

UKRI (EP/V053507/1)

  • Robin N Thompson

The authors had sole responsibility for the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, and writing of the report.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Jennifer Flegg, The University of Melbourne, Australia

Version history

  1. Received: May 29, 2021
  2. Preprint posted: May 30, 2021 (view preprint)
  3. Accepted: February 7, 2022
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: February 9, 2022 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: March 30, 2022 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2022, Hart 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

  • 1,308
    views
  • 189
    downloads
  • 35
    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. William Stephen Hart
  2. Sam Abbott
  3. Akira Endo
  4. Joel Hellewell
  5. Elizabeth Miller
  6. Nick Andrews
  7. Philip K Maini
  8. Sebastian Funk
  9. Robin N Thompson
(2022)
Inference of the SARS-CoV-2 generation time using UK household data
eLife 11:e70767.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.70767

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.70767

Further reading

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    Zhanwei Du, Lin Wang ... Lauren A Meyers
    Short Report

    Paxlovid, a SARS-CoV-2 antiviral, not only prevents severe illness but also curtails viral shedding, lowering transmission risks from treated patients. By fitting a mathematical model of within-host Omicron viral dynamics to electronic health records data from 208 hospitalized patients in Hong Kong, we estimate that Paxlovid can inhibit over 90% of viral replication. However, its effectiveness critically depends on the timing of treatment. If treatment is initiated three days after symptoms first appear, we estimate a 17% chance of a post-treatment viral rebound and a 12% (95% CI: 0%-16%) reduction in overall infectiousness for non-rebound cases. Earlier treatment significantly elevates the risk of rebound without further reducing infectiousness, whereas starting beyond five days reduces its efficacy in curbing peak viral shedding. Among the 104 patients who received Paxlovid, 62% began treatment within an optimal three-to-five-day day window after symptoms appeared. Our findings indicate that broader global access to Paxlovid, coupled with appropriately timed treatment, can mitigate the severity and transmission of SARS-Cov-2.

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    Yuchen Zhang, Yitang Sun ... Kaixiong Ye
    Research Article

    Background:

    Circulating omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) have been associated with various chronic diseases and mortality, but results are conflicting. Few studies examined the role of omega-6/omega-3 ratio in mortality.

    Methods:

    We investigated plasma omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs and their ratio in relation to all-cause and cause-specific mortality in a large prospective cohort, the UK Biobank. Of 85,425 participants who had complete information on circulating PUFAs, 6461 died during follow-up, including 2794 from cancer and 1668 from cardiovascular disease (CVD). Associations were estimated by multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression with adjustment for relevant risk factors.

    Results:

    Risk for all three mortality outcomes increased as the ratio of omega-6/omega-3 PUFAs increased (all Ptrend <0.05). Comparing the highest to the lowest quintiles, individuals had 26% (95% CI, 15–38%) higher total mortality, 14% (95% CI, 0–31%) higher cancer mortality, and 31% (95% CI, 10–55%) higher CVD mortality. Moreover, omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs in plasma were all inversely associated with all-cause, cancer, and CVD mortality, with omega-3 showing stronger effects.

    Conclusions:

    Using a population-based cohort in UK Biobank, our study revealed a strong association between the ratio of circulating omega-6/omega-3 PUFAs and the risk of all-cause, cancer, and CVD mortality.

    Funding:

    Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institute of Health under the award number R35GM143060 (KY). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.