Characterizing transmission is critical to control the spread of an emerging infectious disease. The reproductive number is the widely adopted measure of infectiousness. However, it only measures the average number of secondary cases infected by an infected person, not the heterogeneity in the number of transmissions. Variation of individual infectiousness is particularly highlighted by superspreading events (SSEs), in which a minority of cases are responsible for a majority of transmission events. Such phenomena, illustrated by the ‘80/20 rule’ (i.e., 20% of cases responsible for 80% transmission; Adam et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2021), have been observed in emerging infectious disease outbreaks (Lloyd-Smith et al., 2005), including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) (Shen et al., 2004), Middle East respiratory syndrome (Cauchemez et al., 2016; Cowling et al., 2015), and most recently the COVID-19 pandemic (Adam et al., 2020; Lau et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2021; Wong and Collins, 2020; Zhao et al., 2021). In these outbreaks, the proportion of cases attributed to 80% transmission, and the dispersion parameter that is estimated by fitting the negative binomial distribution to the number of secondary cases (Lloyd-Smith et al., 2005), are considered as measures of transmission heterogeneity.

However, the number of contacts per index cases is often not reported in SSE studies, and hence not incorporated in the analyses. In addition, SSE studies usually analyze clusters from different settings, in which the baseline transmission risk and density of exposure could be different (Thompson, 2021). Finally, studies of transmission heterogeneity that focus on SSEs described in the literature may suffer from publication bias, with larger clusters having higher probability of being observed and reported (Zhao et al., 2021). Therefore, the observed heterogeneity in the number of secondary cases could be the result of large number of contacts in SSE settings, or confounding from these factors (Althouse et al., 2020; Bagdasarian and Fisher, 2020), instead of variation in individual infectiousness.

Households are one of the most important settings for SARS-CoV-2 transmission, with 4- to 10-fold higher transmission risk than other places (Thompson, 2021). Hence, household transmission studies provide an ideal setting to quantify variations in individual infectiousness. In a household transmission study, an index case is identified, and their household contacts are followed up for 1–2 weeks, during which there is high transmission potential (Tsang et al., 2016). Therefore, the number of contacts is known while transmission risks and reporting biases can be controlled. We aim to characterize the variation of individual infectiousness by analyzing data from household transmission studies.

We conducted a systematic review to gather information on the number of secondary cases with the number of household contacts for each household, in the form of number of households with X cases among households of size Y. In total, we identified 17 studies, comprising 13,098 index cases and 31,359 household contacts (Appendix 1—figure 1, Appendix 1—table 1; Bernardes-Souza et al., 2021; Carazo et al., 2022; Dattner et al., 2021; Han et al., 2022; Hart et al., 2022; Hsu et al., 2021; Hubiche et al., 2021; Koureas et al., 2021; Laxminarayan et al., 2020; Layan et al., 2022; Lyngse et al., 2022; Méndez-Echevarría et al., 2021; Posfay-Barbe et al., 2020; Reukers et al., 2021; Wilkinson et al., 2021). Most studies covered a period from January to November 2020, which was dominated by ancestral strains, except for Layan et al. (from December 2020 to April 2021) and Hsu et al. (from January 2020 to February 2021), which covered both ancestral strains and the alpha variant.

We then developed a statistical model to quantify the degree and the impact of variation of infectiousness of cases on transmission dynamics. The individual-based household transmission model describes the probability of infection of household contacts as depending on the time since infection in other infected persons in the household, so that infections from outside the household (community infections), or infections via other household contacts rather than the index case (tertiary infections) are allowed (Cauchemez et al., 2009; Tsang et al., 2014; Tsang et al., 2021). Therefore, the model could estimate the per-contact hazard of infection, which implicitly controls for number of household contacts in households. We extend this model by adding a random effect (${\delta }_i$) on the individual infectiousness of cases. Here, the relative infectiousness of case i compared with case j is exp(${\delta }_i$)/exp(${\delta }_j$). The parameter for variation in individual infectiousness (hereafter denoted as infectiousness variation, ${\sigma }_{var}$) is the standard deviation (SD) of the random effect characterizing individual infectiousness, so that ${\delta }_i$ follows a normal distribution with mean equal to 0 and SD equal to ${\sigma }_{var}$ .

We separately fit the models to 14 studies with more than 150 contacts (Carazo et al., 2022; Dattner et al., 2021; Dutta et al., 2020; Han et al., 2022; Hart et al., 2022; Hubiche et al., 2021; Koureas et al., 2021; Laxminarayan et al., 2020; Layan et al., 2022; Lyngse et al., 2022; Méndez-Echevarría et al., 2021; Reukers et al., 2021; Tsang et al., 2022; Wilkinson et al., 2021; Figure 1, Appendix 1—table 2). For 12 studies out of 14, models with infectiousness variation perform substantially better (range of ∆DIC: 5.8–268) (Figure 2, Appendix 1—table 2). From these 12 studies, the estimated infectiousness variation (${\sigma }_{var})$ ranged from 1.03 to 2.83. This suggests that, the 20% most infectious cases are 2.4- to 10-fold more infectious than the average case. Based on the two largest studies with 6782 and 3727 households (Carazo et al., 2022; Lyngse et al., 2022), the estimated infectiousness variation is 1.48 (95% credible interval [CrI]: 1.29, 1.7) and 1.41 (95% CrI: 1.19, 1.72), suggesting that, among all cases, the 20% most infectious are 3.5-fold (95% CrI: 3.0- to 4.2-fold) and 3.3-fold (95% CrI: 2.7- to 4.3-fold) more infectious than the average case. The estimated daily probability of infection from outside the household and estimated person-to-person transmission probability within households range from 0.0003 to 0.017, and from 0.06 to 0.51, respectively. The estimates of parameters for the relationship between number of contacts and transmission (larger value indicates stronger inverse association) range from 0.43 to 0.92, except for the study by Layan et al., 2022, where it is equal to 0.2. For all studies, the predicted final size distribution is consistent with the observed data and the model fit is judged adequate (Appendix 1—Tables 3–7, Appendix 1—figure 2). Simulation studies demonstrated that there is no important systematic bias, with 88–100% (depending on the parameter) of the 95% credible intervals covering the simulation value (Appendix 1—table 8). This suggests that the algorithm could estimate adequately the posterior distribution. We conduct a sensitivity analysis that assumes the individual infectiousness of cases follows a Gamma distribution, but the fit worsens substantially (Appendix 1—table 9).

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

We conduct random effects meta-analyses on estimates of individual infectiousness from the 14 identified studies. The pooled estimate of infectiousness variation is 1.33 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95, 1.70), suggesting that the 20% most infectious cases are 3.1-fold (95% CI: 2.2- to 4.2-fold) more infectious than the average case (Figure 3). Based on this fitted distribution, we estimate that 5.9% (95% CI: 1.4%, 11.1%) and 14.9% (95% CI: 7.2%, 20.7%) of cases could be at least 8- and 4-fold more infectious than average cases, respectively.

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

We further explore if the secondary attack rate (SAR, the proportion of infected contacts), and the SD of the distribution of number of secondary cases (${\sigma }_{sec})$ (Figure 4; Appendix 1—table 10) may be correlated with the infectiousness variation. In meta-regression, we find the infectiousness variation is associated with SAR (Appendix 1—table 11). We estimate that doubling SAR are associated with 0.55 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.89) unit decrease in infectiousness variation, with R-squared equal to 67% respectively. In addition, we find that higher infectiousness variation is associated with only using PCR to ascertain secondary cases. Regarding other statistics, we find that ${\sigma }_{sec}$ is positively associated with mean and SD of number of contacts. Other than these associations, we find no association between these statistics and implementation of lockdown, ascertainment method of index and secondary cases, and the circulating virus of SARS-CoV-2 in the study period.

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

In this study, we characterize the impact of variation of individual infectiousness on heterogeneity of transmission of COVID-19 in households. We demonstrate that it can be estimated from household data using a modeling approach. The pooled estimate of infectiousness variation from 14 studies suggests that the 20% most infectious cases have 3.1-fold (95% CI: 2.2- to 4.2-fold) higher infectiousness compared with average index cases. This implies there is substantial variation in individual infectiousness of cases in households. Given that we focused our analysis on households with known number of contacts in studies conducted in the early outbreaks caused by ancestral strains, the estimated infectiousness variations are corrected for the variations caused by number of contacts and transmission risks in different settings, difference in pre-existing immunity among contacts (almost everyone is naïve and unvaccinated), and the difference in transmissibility among variants. Hence, this estimated infectiousness variation measures the variation caused by difference in individuals, which may be contributed by both biological factors and host behaviors, but not other potential confounding factors mentioned above.

Regarding host behaviors, multiple contact patterns, particularly by age, could contribute to the variations in infectiousness of cases. For example, mother-child contacts are usually more intense than father-child contacts, and adult cases are more capable of self-isolation within a household compared with children. Furthermore, contact pattern studies suggested that school-age children and young adults tended to mix with people of the same age (Mossong et al., 2008; Mousa et al., 2021). Also, the duration of contact could vary, which could also contribute to the variations in infectiousness of cases (Toth et al., 2015). It should be noted that contacts have different features, including their number, frequency, and duration that may contribute to variations in infectiousness. Previous studies also suggest that the relative importance of contact characteristics on transmission may be different among viruses (De Cao et al., 2014). Individual behaviors may also be influenced by control measures and recommendation from public health agencies. For example, lockdown and stay-at-home orders may increase the time spending at home. Mask-wearing when in contact with other household members, using separate bedrooms and bathrooms, avoiding having meals together may reduce the transmission in households (Ng et al., 2021). Also, social disparity such as occupation may increase or reduce the risk of transmission in households, including the availability of personal protective equipment (PPE), or being healthcare worker (Yang et al., 2021). These factors may have impact of the transmission risk and hence SAR in households. In addition, heterogeneity in these different factors may have contributed infectiousness variation.

Biological factors may also contribute to such variations. For example, the SAR for index cases with fever and cough are 1.4- and 1.3-fold higher than index cases without fever and cough, respectively (Madewell et al., 2021). Viral shedding is used as a proxy measure of infectiousness, and consistently it also has substantial variations, as suggested by 11 systematic reviews (Appendix 1—Tables 12–14). Regarding the magnitude of viral shedding, studies report high variations of temporal viral shedding patterns among individuals (He et al., 2020; Jones et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2022). In addition, the duration of viral shedding can be highly heterogeneous, with pooled estimates of mean durations ranging from 11.1 to 30.3 days, and almost all reviews reporting high heterogeneity of estimates (Cevik et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2021b; Díaz et al., 2022; Fontana et al., 2021; Li et al., 2020b; Okita et al., 2022; Qutub et al., 2022; Rahmani et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2020; Yan et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021). Such heterogeneities still exist in subgroup analyses by age and severity (Cevik et al., 2021; Fontana et al., 2021; Okita et al., 2022; Qutub et al., 2022; Rahmani et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2020; Yan et al., 2021). The infectious period, proxied by duration of replicant competent virus isolation, is also heterogeneous (Rahmani et al., 2022; Appendix 1—table 14). One review also suggests that heterogeneity in viral shedding is an intrinsic virological factor facilitating higher dispersion parameter for SARS-CoV-2 if we compare it with the corresponding patterns in SARS-CoV-1 and pandemic influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 (Chen et al., 2021a).

The observed variation in individual infectiousness is consistent with past analyses of the dispersion parameter in a negative binomial distribution fitted to number of secondary cases per index case of COVID-19 (Sun et al., 2021; Wong et al., 2015). However, in these studies, the number of contacts was not considered. Therefore, the observed variations may not apply directly to households with limited number of contacts. It should be noted that the SD of the distribution of number of secondary cases (${\sigma }_{sec}$) is only weakly correlated with infectiousness variation. This is because ${\sigma }_{sec}$ is highly correlated with the mean and SD of the number of contacts, suggesting that it may depend on distribution of number of contacts, and hence may not be comparable among studies. Infectiousness variation is also correlated with the SAR. When SAR is higher, it is expected that more contacts are infected and therefore the observed number of secondary cases is less heterogeneous (Adam et al., 2022). We find higher infectiousness variation is associated with only using PCR to confirm secondary cases. One potential reason is that using other methods may lower the sensitivity of detecting infection, resulting in lower estimates of SAR and hence higher estimates of infectiousness variation. Further investigations are needed to explore roles of other potential factors affecting infectiousness variation, such as contact frequency among different regions (Mousa et al., 2021).

An important limitation of our study is that we do not have individual-level data. Therefore, we are unable to determine the impact of demographic factors like age and sex on infectiousness variation. Also, we cannot disentangle the host behaviors from biological factors. Previous analysis suggested no evidence of the impact of age on infectiousness of cases (Lau et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2021). In addition, we could not include factors affecting susceptibility to infection. Our estimates of infectiousness variation should be interpreted in light of these limitations: they capture heterogeneity in infectiousness due to demographic, host, and biological factors. However, in one study that included susceptibility component in the estimation of individual infectiousness, substantial heterogeneity remained with 20% of cases estimated to contribute to 80% of transmission (Tsang et al., 2022). Second, the recruitment methods among studies are different. This may affect the comparability of the results, although all index cases are laboratory-confirmed in all studies (Tsang et al., 2021). Third, we assumed that risks of infection from community for all households are the same, but there were different factors that may affecting this, including occupations, such as healthcare workers, social economic status that related to assess to PPEs (Yang et al., 2021). Finally, most of our identified studies were conducted in the period of circulation of ancestral strains, and therefore the identified infectiousness variation may not be directly applicable to other variants.

In conclusion, we developed a modeling approach to estimate variation in individual infectiousness from household data. Result indicates that there is substantial variation in individual infectiousness, which is important for epidemic management.

The data and computer code (in R language) for conducting the data analysis can be downloaded from https://github.com/timktsang/covid19_transmission_heterogeneity (copy archived at swh:1:rev:634390fa66a4bfb998da691e7cd81cf45e38c6db).

1. 1. Adam DC
   2. Wu P
   3. Wong JY
   4. Lau EHY
   5. Tsang TK
   6. Cauchemez S
   7. Leung GM
   8. Cowling BJ

   (2020) Clustering and superspreading potential of SARS-cov-2 infections in hong kong

   Nature Medicine 26:1714–1719.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-1092-0

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. Preprint

   1. Adam D
   2. Gostic K
   3. Tsang T
   4. Wu P
   5. Lim WW
   6. Yeung A
   7. Wong J
   8. Lau E
   9. Du Z
   10. Chen D
   11. Ho LM
   12. Martín-Sánchez M
   13. Cauchemez S
   14. Cobey S
   15. Leung G
   16. Cowling B

   (2022) Time-Varying Transmission Heterogeneity of SARS and COVID-19 in Hong Kong

   Research Square.

   https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1407962/v1

   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Althouse BM
   2. Wenger EA
   3. Miller JC
   4. Scarpino SV
   5. Allard A
   6. Hébert-Dufresne L
   7. Hu H

   (2020) Superspreading events in the transmission dynamics of SARS-cov-2: opportunities for interventions and control

   PLOS Biology 18:e3000897.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000897

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Bagdasarian N
   2. Fisher D

   (2020) Heterogenous COVID-19 transmission dynamics within singapore: a clearer picture of future national responses

   BMC Medicine 18:164.

   https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01625-7

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Bernardes-Souza B
   2. Júnior SRC
   3. Santos CA
   4. Neto R
   5. Bottega FDC
   6. Godoy DC
   7. Freitas BL
   8. Silva DLG
   9. Brinker TJ
   10. Nascimento RA
   11. Tupinambás U
   12. Reis AB
   13. Coura-Vital W

   (2021) Logistics workers are a key factor for SARS-cov-2 spread in brazilian small towns: case-control study

   JMIR Public Health and Surveillance 7:e30406.

   https://doi.org/10.2196/30406

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Carazo S
   2. Laliberté D
   3. Villeneuve J
   4. Martin R
   5. Deshaies P
   6. Denis G
   7. Adib G
   8. Tissot F
   9. Dionne M
   10. De Serres G

   (2022) Characterization and evolution of infection control practices among severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-cov-2)-infected healthcare workers in acute-care hospitals and long-term care facilities in québec, canada, spring 2020

   Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 43:481–489.

   https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2021.160

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Cauchemez S
   2. Donnelly CA
   3. Reed C
   4. Ghani AC
   5. Fraser C
   6. Kent CK
   7. Finelli L
   8. Ferguson NM

   (2009) Household transmission of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus in the united states

   The New England Journal of Medicine 361:2619–2627.

   https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0905498

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Cauchemez S
   2. Ferguson NM
   3. Fox A
   4. Mai LQ
   5. Thanh LT
   6. Thai PQ
   7. Thoang DD
   8. Duong TN
   9. Minh Hoa LN
   10. Tran Hien N
   11. Horby P

   (2014) Determinants of influenza transmission in south east asia: insights from a household cohort study in vietnam

   PLOS Pathogens 10:e1004310.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1004310

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Cauchemez S
   2. Nouvellet P
   3. Cori A
   4. Jombart T
   5. Garske T
   6. Clapham H
   7. Moore S
   8. Mills HL
   9. Salje H
   10. Collins C
   11. Rodriquez-Barraquer I
   12. Riley S
   13. Truelove S
   14. Algarni H
   15. Alhakeem R
   16. AlHarbi K
   17. Turkistani A
   18. Aguas RJ
   19. Cummings DAT
   20. Van Kerkhove MD
   21. Donnelly CA
   22. Lessler J
   23. Fraser C
   24. Al-Barrak A
   25. Ferguson NM

   (2016) Unraveling the drivers of MERS-cov transmission

   PNAS 113:9081–9086.

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1519235113

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Celeux G
    2. Forbes F
    3. Robert CP
    4. Titterington DM

    (2006) Deviance information criteria for missing data models

    Bayesian Analysis 1:651–673.

    https://doi.org/10.1214/06-BA122

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Cevik M
    2. Tate M
    3. Lloyd O
    4. Maraolo AE
    5. Schafers J
    6. Ho A

    (2021) SARS-cov-2, SARS-cov, and MERS-cov viral load dynamics, duration of viral shedding, and infectiousness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    The Lancet. Microbe 2:e13–e22.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30172-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Chen PZ
    2. Bobrovitz N
    3. Premji Z
    4. Koopmans M
    5. Fisman DN
    6. Gu FX

    (2021a) Heterogeneity in transmissibility and shedding SARS-cov-2 via droplets and aerosols

    eLife 10:e65774.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.65774

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Chen C
    2. Zhu C
    3. Yan D
    4. Liu H
    5. Li D
    6. Zhou Y
    7. Fu X
    8. Wu J
    9. Ding C
    10. Tian G
    11. Lan L
    12. Liu X
    13. Huang C
    14. Hecht R
    15. Li L
    16. Yang S

    (2021b) The epidemiological and radiographical characteristics of asymptomatic infections with the novel coronavirus (COVID-19): a systematic review and meta-analysis

    International Journal of Infectious Diseases 104:458–464.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2021.01.017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Cochran WG

    (1954) The combination of estimates from different experiments

    Biometrics 10:101.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/3001666

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Cowling BJ
    2. Park M
    3. Fang VJ
    4. Wu P
    5. Leung GM
    6. Wu JT

    (2015) Preliminary epidemiological assessment of MERS-cov outbreak in south korea, may to june 2015

    Euro Surveillance 20:7–13.

    https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.es2015.20.25.21163

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Dattner I
    2. Goldberg Y
    3. Katriel G
    4. Yaari R
    5. Gal N
    6. Miron Y
    7. Ziv A
    8. Sheffer R
    9. Hamo Y
    10. Huppert A

    (2021) The role of children in the spread of COVID-19: using household data from bnei BRAK, israel, to estimate the relative susceptibility and infectivity of children

    PLOS Computational Biology 17:e1008559.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008559

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. De Cao E
    2. Zagheni E
    3. Manfredi P
    4. Melegaro A

    (2014) The relative importance of frequency of contacts and duration of exposure for the spread of directly transmitted infections

    Biostatistics 15:470–483.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxu008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Díaz LA
    2. García-Salum T
    3. Fuentes-López E
    4. Reyes D
    5. Ortiz J
    6. Chahuan J
    7. Levican J
    8. Almonacid LI
    9. Valenzuela GH
    10. Serrano E
    11. Budnik S
    12. Gandara V
    13. Gallardo A
    14. Seydewitz MF
    15. Ferrés M
    16. Cofré C
    17. Álvarez M
    18. Pavez C
    19. Candia R
    20. Monrroy H
    21. Espino A
    22. Rada G
    23. Ortiz L
    24. Valderrama S
    25. Salinas E
    26. Toro A
    27. Ortega M
    28. Pizarro M
    29. Medina RA
    30. Riquelme A

    (2022) High prevalence of SARS-cov-2 detection and prolonged viral shedding in stools: a systematic review and cohort study

    Gastroenterologia y Hepatologia 45:593–604.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gastrohep.2021.12.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Dutta S
    2. Kaur RJ
    3. Bhardwaj P
    4. Charan J
    5. Bist SKS
    6. Detha MD
    7. Kanchan T
    8. Sharma P
    9. Misra S

    (2020) Household transmission of COVID-19: a cross-sectional study

    Infection and Drug Resistance 13:4637–4642.

    https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S285446

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Fontana LM
    2. Villamagna AH
    3. Sikka MK
    4. McGregor JC

    (2021) Understanding viral shedding of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-cov-2): review of current literature

    Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 42:659–668.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2020.1273

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Han WGH
    2. Swart A
    3. Bonačić Marinović A
    4. Eggink D
    5. Reimerink J
    6. Wijsman LA
    7. van der Veer B
    8. van den Brink S
    9. van den Brandt A-M
    10. van Tol S
    11. Godeke G-J
    12. Brouwer F
    13. Hoogerwerf M
    14. Reukers DFM
    15. Rots N
    16. Reusken C
    17. Meijer A
    18. Dutch F. F. X.-COVID-19 Research Group

    (2022) SARS-cov-2 RNA and antibody dynamics in a dutch household study with dense sampling frame

    Scientific Reports 12:7937.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-11480-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Hart WS
    2. Abbott S
    3. Endo A
    4. Hellewell J
    5. Miller E
    6. Andrews N
    7. Maini PK
    8. Funk S
    9. Thompson RN

    (2022) Inference of the SARS-cov-2 generation time using UK household data

    eLife 11:e70767.

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

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. He X
    2. Lau EHY
    3. Wu P
    4. Deng X
    5. Wang J
    6. Hao X
    7. Lau YC
    8. Wong JY
    9. Guan Y
    10. Tan X
    11. Mo X
    12. Chen Y
    13. Liao B
    14. Chen W
    15. Hu F
    16. Zhang Q
    17. Zhong M
    18. Wu Y
    19. Zhao L
    20. Zhang F
    21. Cowling BJ
    22. Li F
    23. Leung GM

    (2020) Temporal dynamics in viral shedding and transmissibility of COVID-19

    Nature Medicine 26:672–675.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0869-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Hedges LV
    2. Vevea JL

    (1998) Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis

    Psychological Methods 3:486–504.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486

    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Higgins JPT
    2. Thompson SG
    3. Deeks JJ
    4. Altman DG

    (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses

    BMJ 327:557–560.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Hsu CY
    2. Wang JT
    3. Huang KC
    4. Fan ACH
    5. Yeh YP
    6. Chen SLS

    (2021) Household transmission but without the community-acquired outbreak of COVID-19 in taiwan

    Journal of the Formosan Medical Association 120 Suppl 1:S38–S45.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2021.04.021

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Hubiche T
    2. Phan A
    3. Leducq S
    4. Rapp J
    5. Fertitta L
    6. Aubert H
    7. Barbarot S
    8. Chiaverini C
    9. Giraudeau B
    10. Lasek A
    11. Mallet S
    12. Labarelle A
    13. Piram M
    14. McCuaig C
    15. Martin L
    16. Monitor L
    17. Nicol I
    18. Bissuel M
    19. Bellissen A
    20. Jullien D
    21. Lesort C
    22. Vabres P
    23. Maruani A
    24. Research Group of the Société Française de Dermatologie Pédiatrique (French Society of Pediatric Dermatology)

    (2021) Acute acral eruptions in children during the COVID-19 pandemic: characteristics of 103 children and their family clusters

    Annales de Dermatologie et de Venereologie 148:94–100.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annder.2020.11.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Jing QL
    2. Liu MJ
    3. Zhang ZB
    4. Fang LQ
    5. Yuan J
    6. Zhang AR
    7. Dean NE
    8. Luo L
    9. Ma MM
    10. Longini I
    11. Kenah E
    12. Lu Y
    13. Ma Y
    14. Jalali N
    15. Yang ZC
    16. Yang Y

    (2020) Household secondary attack rate of COVID-19 and associated determinants in guangzhou, china: a retrospective cohort study

    The Lancet. Infectious Diseases 20:1141–1150.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30471-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Jones TC
    2. Biele G
    3. Mühlemann B
    4. Veith T
    5. Schneider J
    6. Beheim-Schwarzbach J
    7. Bleicker T
    8. Tesch J
    9. Schmidt ML
    10. Sander LE
    11. Kurth F
    12. Menzel P
    13. Schwarzer R
    14. Zuchowski M
    15. Hofmann J
    16. Krumbholz A
    17. Stein A
    18. Edelmann A
    19. Corman VM
    20. Drosten C

    (2021) Estimating infectiousness throughout SARS-cov-2 infection course

    Science 373:eabi5273.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abi5273

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Koureas M
    2. Speletas M
    3. Bogogiannidou Z
    4. Babalis D
    5. Pinakas V
    6. Pinaka O
    7. Komnos A
    8. Tsoutsa S
    9. Papadamou G
    10. Kyritsi MA
    11. Vontas A
    12. Nakoulas V
    13. Sapoynas S
    14. Kanellopoulos N
    15. Kalompatsios D
    16. Papadouli V
    17. Dadouli K
    18. Soteriades S
    19. Mina P
    20. Mouchtouri VA
    21. Anagnostopoulos L
    22. Stamoulis KE
    23. Agorastos K
    24. Petinaki EA
    25. Prezerakos P
    26. Tsiodras S
    27. Hadjichristodoulou C

    (2021) Transmission dynamics of SARS-cov-2 during an outbreak in a roma community in thessaly, greece-control measures and lessons learned

    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18:2878.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18062878

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Langan D
    2. Higgins JPT
    3. Jackson D
    4. Bowden J
    5. Veroniki AA
    6. Kontopantelis E
    7. Viechtbauer W
    8. Simmonds M

    (2019) A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random-effects meta-analyses

    Research Synthesis Methods 10:83–98.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1316

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Lau MSY
    2. Grenfell B
    3. Thomas M
    4. Bryan M
    5. Nelson K
    6. Lopman B

    (2020) Characterizing superspreading events and age-specific infectiousness of SARS-cov-2 transmission in georgia, USA

    PNAS 117:22430–22435.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2011802117

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Laxminarayan R
    2. Wahl B
    3. Dudala SR
    4. Gopal K
    5. Mohan B C
    6. Neelima S
    7. Jawahar Reddy KS
    8. Radhakrishnan J
    9. Lewnard JA

    (2020) Epidemiology and transmission dynamics of COVID-19 in two indian states

    Science 370:691–697.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd7672

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Layan M
    2. Gilboa M
    3. Gonen T
    4. Goldenfeld M
    5. Meltzer L
    6. Andronico A
    7. Hozé N
    8. Cauchemez S
    9. Regev-Yochay G

    (2022) Impact of bnt162b2 vaccination and isolation on SARS-cov-2 transmission in israeli households: an observational study

    American Journal of Epidemiology 191:1224–1234.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwac042

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Li Q
    2. Guan X
    3. Wu P
    4. Wang X
    5. Zhou L
    6. Tong Y
    7. Ren R
    8. Leung KSM
    9. Lau EHY
    10. Wong JY
    11. Xing X
    12. Xiang N
    13. Wu Y
    14. Li C
    15. Chen Q
    16. Li D
    17. Liu T
    18. Zhao J
    19. Liu M
    20. Tu W
    21. Chen C
    22. Jin L
    23. Yang R
    24. Wang Q
    25. Zhou S
    26. Wang R
    27. Liu H
    28. Luo Y
    29. Liu Y
    30. Shao G
    31. Li H
    32. Tao Z
    33. Yang Y
    34. Deng Z
    35. Liu B
    36. Ma Z
    37. Zhang Y
    38. Shi G
    39. Lam TTY
    40. Wu JT
    41. Gao GF
    42. Cowling BJ
    43. Yang B
    44. Leung GM
    45. Feng Z

    (2020a) Early transmission dynamics in wuhan, china, of novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia

    The New England Journal of Medicine 382:1199–1207.

    https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2001316

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Li B
    2. Zhang S
    3. Zhang R
    4. Chen X
    5. Wang Y
    6. Zhu C

    (2020b) Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis

    Frontiers in Pediatrics 8:591132.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2020.591132

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. Book

    1. Liu JS

    (2001)

    Monte Carlo Strategies in Scientific Computing

    Springer-Verlag.

    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Lloyd-Smith JO
    2. Schreiber SJ
    3. Kopp PE
    4. Getz WM

    (2005) Superspreading and the effect of individual variation on disease emergence

    Nature 438:355–359.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04153

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Lyngse FP
    2. Kirkeby C
    3. Halasa T
    4. Andreasen V
    5. Skov RL
    6. Møller FT
    7. Krause TG
    8. Mølbak K

    (2022) Nationwide study on SARS-cov-2 transmission within households from lockdown to reopening, denmark, 27 february 2020 to 1 august 2020

    Euro Surveillance 27:2001800.

    https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.6.2001800

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Madewell ZJ
    2. Yang Y
    3. Longini IM
    4. Halloran ME
    5. Dean NE

    (2021) Factors associated with household transmission of SARS-cov-2: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

    JAMA Network Open 4:e2122240.

    https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22240

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Méndez-Echevarría A
    2. Sainz T
    3. de Felipe B
    4. Alcolea S
    5. Olbrich P
    6. Goycochea-Valdivia WA
    7. Escosa-García L
    8. Cobo L
    9. Calvo C
    10. Neth O

    (2021) High rates of SARS-cov-2 family transmission in children of healthcare workers during the first pandemic wave in madrid, spain: serologic study

    The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 40:e185–e188.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/INF.0000000000003088

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Moher D
    2. Liberati A
    3. Tetzlaff J
    4. Altman DG
    5. Group P

    (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

    BMJ 339:b2535.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Mossong J
    2. Hens N
    3. Jit M
    4. Beutels P
    5. Auranen K
    6. Mikolajczyk R
    7. Massari M
    8. Salmaso S
    9. Tomba GS
    10. Wallinga J
    11. Heijne J
    12. Sadkowska-Todys M
    13. Rosinska M
    14. Edmunds WJ

    (2008) Social contacts and mixing patterns relevant to the spread of infectious diseases

    PLOS Medicine 5:e74.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050074

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Mousa A
    2. Winskill P
    3. Watson OJ
    4. Ratmann O
    5. Monod M
    6. Ajelli M
    7. Diallo A
    8. Dodd PJ
    9. Grijalva CG
    10. Kiti MC
    11. Krishnan A
    12. Kumar R
    13. Kumar S
    14. Kwok KO
    15. Lanata CF
    16. de Waroux OLP
    17. Leung K
    18. Mahikul W
    19. Melegaro A
    20. Morrow CD
    21. Mossong J
    22. Neal EF
    23. Nokes DJ
    24. Pan-Ngum W
    25. Potter GE
    26. Russell FM
    27. Saha S
    28. Sugimoto JD
    29. Wei WI
    30. Wood RR
    31. Wu J
    32. Zhang J
    33. Walker P
    34. Whittaker C

    (2021) Social contact patterns and implications for infectious disease transmission - a systematic review and meta-analysis of contact surveys

    eLife 10:e70294.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.70294

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Ng OT
    2. Marimuthu K
    3. Koh V
    4. Pang J
    5. Linn KZ
    6. Sun J
    7. De Wang L
    8. Chia WN
    9. Tiu C
    10. Chan M
    11. Ling LM
    12. Vasoo S
    13. Abdad MY
    14. Chia PY
    15. Lee TH
    16. Lin RJ
    17. Sadarangani SP
    18. Chen MI-C
    19. Said Z
    20. Kurupatham L
    21. Pung R
    22. Wang L-F
    23. Cook AR
    24. Leo Y-S
    25. Lee VJ

    (2021) SARS-cov-2 seroprevalence and transmission risk factors among high-risk close contacts: a retrospective cohort study

    The Lancet. Infectious Diseases 21:333–343.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30833-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Okita Y
    2. Morita T
    3. Kumanogoh A

    (2022) Duration of SARS-cov-2 RNA positivity from various specimens and clinical characteristics in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Inflammation and Regeneration 42:16.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s41232-022-00205-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Posfay-Barbe KM
    2. Wagner N
    3. Gauthey M
    4. Moussaoui D
    5. Loevy N
    6. Diana A
    7. L’Huillier AG

    (2020) COVID-19 in children and the dynamics of infection in families

    Pediatrics 146:e20201576.

    https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-1576

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Qutub M
    2. Aldabbagh Y
    3. Mehdawi F
    4. Alraddadi A
    5. Alhomsy M
    6. Alnahdi A
    7. Fakeeh M
    8. Maghrabi A
    9. Alwagdani M
    10. Bahabri N

    (2022) Duration of viable SARS-cov-2 shedding from respiratory tract in different human hosts and its impact on isolation discontinuation polices revision; a narrative review

    Clinical Infection in Practice 13:100140.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinpr.2022.100140

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Rahmani A
    2. Dini G
    3. Leso V
    4. Montecucco A
    5. Kusznir Vitturi B
    6. Iavicoli I
    7. Durando P

    (2022) Duration of SARS-cov-2 shedding and infectivity in the working age population: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    La Medicina Del Lavoro 113:e2022014.

    https://doi.org/10.23749/mdl.v113i2.12724

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Reukers DFM
    2. van Boven M
    3. Meijer A
    4. Rots N
    5. Reusken C
    6. Roof I
    7. van Gageldonk-Lafeber AB
    8. van der Hoek W
    9. van den Hof S

    (2021) High infection attack rates of SARS-cov-2 in dutch households revealed by dense sampling

    Infectious Diseases 74:52–58.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.26.21250512

    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Shen Z
    2. Ning F
    3. Zhou W
    4. He X
    5. Lin C
    6. Chin DP
    7. Zhu Z
    8. Schuchat A

    (2004) Superspreading SARS events, Beijing, 2003

    Emerging Infectious Diseases 10:256–260.

    https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1002.030732

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. Book

    1. Spiegelhalter DJ
    2. Thomas A
    3. Best NG

    (2000)

    WinBUGS Version 1.3 User Manual

    Cambridge: Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit.

    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Spiegelhalter DJ
    2. Best NG
    3. Carlin BP
    4. van der Linde A

    (2002) Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 64:583–639.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00353

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Sun K
    2. Wang W
    3. Gao L
    4. Wang Y
    5. Luo K
    6. Ren L
    7. Zhan Z
    8. Chen X
    9. Zhao S
    10. Huang Y
    11. Sun Q
    12. Liu Z
    13. Litvinova M
    14. Vespignani A
    15. Ajelli M
    16. Viboud C
    17. Yu H

    (2021) Transmission heterogeneities, kinetics, and controllability of SARS-cov-2

    Science 371:eabe2424.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe2424

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Sun K
    2. Tempia S
    3. Kleynhans J
    4. von Gottberg A
    5. McMorrow ML
    6. Wolter N
    7. Bhiman JN
    8. Moyes J
    9. du Plessis M
    10. Carrim M
    11. Buys A
    12. Martinson NA
    13. Kahn K
    14. Tollman S
    15. Lebina L
    16. Wafawanaka F
    17. du Toit JD
    18. Gómez-Olivé FX
    19. Mkhencele T
    20. Viboud C
    21. Cohen C

    (2022) SARS-cov-2 transmission, persistence of immunity, and estimates of omicron’s impact in south african population cohorts

    Science Translational Medicine 14:eabo7081.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.abo7081

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Thompson SG
    2. Sharp SJ

    (1999) Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods

    Statistics in Medicine 18:2693–2708.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19991030)18:20<2693::aid-sim235>3.0.co;2-v

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Thompson HA

    (2021) SARS-cov-2 setting-specific transmission rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Clinical Infectious Diseases: An Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 73:e754–e764.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab100

    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Toth DJA
    2. Leecaster M
    3. Pettey WBP
    4. Gundlapalli AV
    5. Gao H
    6. Rainey JJ
    7. Uzicanin A
    8. Samore MH

    (2015) The role of heterogeneity in contact timing and duration in network models of influenza spread in schools

    Journal of the Royal Society, Interface 12:20150279.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2015.0279

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Tsang TK
    2. Cauchemez S
    3. Perera RAPM
    4. Freeman G
    5. Fang VJ
    6. Ip DKM
    7. Leung GM
    8. Malik Peiris JS
    9. Cowling BJ

    (2014) Association between antibody titers and protection against influenza virus infection within households

    The Journal of Infectious Diseases 210:684–692.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiu186

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Tsang TK
    2. Lau LLH
    3. Cauchemez S
    4. Cowling BJ

    (2016) Household transmission of influenza virus

    Trends in Microbiology 24:123–133.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2015.10.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Tsang TK
    2. Wang C
    3. Yang B
    4. Cauchemez S
    5. Cowling BJ

    (2021) Using secondary cases to characterize the severity of an emerging or re-emerging infection

    Nature Communications 12:6372.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26709-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. Software

    1. Tsang T

    (2022) Covid19_transmission_heterogeneity, version swh:1:rev:634390fa66a4bfb998da691e7cd81cf45e38c6db

    Software Heritage.

    https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:4d4436affc6aa5ddf265a9a9acb638f66eb0cd5d;origin=https://github.com/timktsang/covid19_transmission_heterogeneity;visit=swh:1:snp:6e5eab4d82393ee3420ab8827a701a0129569d57;anchor=swh:1:rev:634390fa66a4bfb998da691e7cd81cf45e38c6db
63. 1. Tsang TK
    2. Fang LQ
    3. Zhang A
    4. Jiang FC
    5. Ruan SM
    6. Liu LZ
    7. Cowling BJ
    8. Liu W
    9. Yang Y

    (2022) Variability in transmission risk of SARS-cov-2 in close contact settings: A contact tracing study in shandong province, china

    Epidemics 39:100553.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epidem.2022.100553

    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Veroniki AA
    2. Jackson D
    3. Bender R
    4. Kuss O
    5. Langan D
    6. Higgins JPT
    7. Knapp G
    8. Salanti G

    (2019) Methods to calculate uncertainty in the estimated overall effect size from a random-effects meta-analysis

    Research Synthesis Methods 10:23–43.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1319

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Wilkinson K
    2. Chen X
    3. Shaw S

    (2021) Secondary attack rate of COVID-19 in household contacts in the winnipeg health region, canada

    Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Sante Publique 112:12–16.

    https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-020-00451-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Wong G
    2. Liu W
    3. Liu Y
    4. Zhou B
    5. Bi Y
    6. Gao GF

    (2015) MERS, SARS, and ebola: the role of super-spreaders in infectious disease

    Cell Host & Microbe 18:398–401.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2015.09.013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Wong F
    2. Collins JJ

    (2020) Evidence that coronavirus superspreading is fat-tailed

    PNAS 117:29416–29418.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2018490117

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Xu CLH
    2. Raval M
    3. Schnall JA
    4. Kwong JC
    5. Holmes NE

    (2020) Duration of respiratory and gastrointestinal viral shedding in children with SARS-cov-2: A systematic review and synthesis of data

    The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 39:e249–e256.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/INF.0000000000002814

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Yan D
    2. Zhang X
    3. Chen C
    4. Jiang D
    5. Liu X
    6. Zhou Y
    7. Huang C
    8. Zhou Y
    9. Guan Z
    10. Ding C
    11. Chen L
    12. Lan L
    13. Fu X
    14. Wu J
    15. Li L
    16. Yang S

    (2021) Characteristics of viral shedding time in SARS-cov-2 infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

    Frontiers in Public Health 9:652842.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.652842

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Yang B
    2. Wu P
    3. Lau EHY
    4. Wong JY
    5. Ho F
    6. Gao H
    7. Xiao J
    8. Adam DC
    9. Ng TWY
    10. Quan J
    11. Tsang TK
    12. Liao Q
    13. Cowling BJ
    14. Leung GM

    (2021) Changing disparities in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) burden in the ethnically homogeneous population of hong kong through pandemic waves: an observational study

    Clinical Infectious Diseases 73:2298–2305.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Zhang Y
    2. Cen M
    3. Hu M
    4. Du L
    5. Hu W
    6. Kim JJ
    7. Dai N

    (2021) Prevalence and persistent shedding of fecal SARS-cov-2 RNA in patients with COVID-19 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

    Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology 12:e00343.

    https://doi.org/10.14309/ctg.0000000000000343

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Zhao S
    2. Shen M
    3. Musa SS
    4. Guo Z
    5. Ran J
    6. Peng Z
    7. Zhao Y
    8. Chong MKC
    9. He D
    10. Wang MH

    (2021) Inferencing superspreading potential using zero-truncated negative binomial model: exemplification with COVID-19

    BMC Medical Research Methodology 21:30.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01225-w

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Tim K Tsang

   1. WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
   2. Laboratory of Data Discovery for Health, Hong Kong, China

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   timtsang@connect.hku.hk

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5037-6776

2. Xiaotong Huang

   WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

   Contribution

   Data curation, Investigation, Visualization

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Can Wang

   WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

   Contribution

   Data curation, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Sijie Chen

   WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

   Contribution

   Investigation, Visualization

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Bingyi Yang

   WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

   Contribution

   Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Simon Cauchemez

   Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases Unit, Institut Pasteur, Paris, France

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Benjamin John Cowling

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9186-4549

7. Benjamin John Cowling

   Laboratory of Data Discovery for Health, Hong Kong, China

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Simon Cauchemez

   For correspondence

   bcowling@hku.hk

   Competing interests

   consults for AstraZeneca, Fosun Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Moderna, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi Pasteur. The authors report no other potential conflicts of interest

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6297-7154

• 1,196

  views

• 168

  downloads

• 9

  citations

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