4.8 Article

Serial interval of SARS-CoV-2 was shortened over time by nonpharmaceutical interventions

期刊

SCIENCE
卷 369, 期 6507, 页码 1106-+

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/science.abc9004

关键词

-

资金

  1. Health and Medical Research Fund, Food and Health Bureau, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China [COVID190118]
  2. Investissement d'Avenir program, the Laboratoire d'Excellence Integrative Biology of Emerging Infectious Diseases program [ANR-10-LABX-62-IBEID]
  3. European Research Council [804744]
  4. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program [101003589]
  5. National Institutes of Health [U01 GM087719]
  6. Open Fund of Key Laboratory of Urban Land Resources Monitoring and Simulation, Ministry of Land and Resources, China [KF-2019-04-034]
  7. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61773091, 11875005, 61976025, 11975025]
  8. University of Cambridge COVID-19 Rapid Response Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), have reported varying estimates of epidemiological parameters, including serial interval distributions i.e., the time between illness onset in successive cases in a transmission chain and reproduction numbers. By compiling a line-list database of transmission pairs in mainland China, we show that mean serial intervals of COVID-19 shortened substantially from 7.8 to 2.6 days within a month (9 January to 13 February 2020). This change was driven by enhanced nonpharmaceutical interventions, particularly case isolation. We also show that using real-time estimation of serial intervals allowing for variation over time provides more accurate estimates of reproduction numbers than using conventionally fixed serial interval distributions. These findings could improve our ability to assess transmission dynamics, forecast future incidence, and estimate the impact of control measures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据