Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

medRxiv - The unexpected dynamics of COVID-19 in Manaus, Brazil: Herd immunity versus interventions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • medRxiv - The unexpected dynamics of COVID-19 in Manaus, Brazil: Herd immunity versus interventions


    The unexpected dynamics of COVID-19 in Manaus, Brazil: Herd immunity versus interventions

    View ORCID Profile

    Daihai He, Yael Artzy-Randrup, Salihu S. Musa, Lewi Stone

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.18.21251809

    This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.Abstract


    The arrival of SARS-COV-2 in late March 2020 in the state of Amazonas, Brazil, captured worldwide attention and concern. The rapid growth of the epidemic, a health system that had collapsed, and mass gravesites for coping with growing numbers of dead, were broadcast by the media around the world. Moreover, a majority of the local Amazonian indigenous communities were physically distant from appropriate medical services, to the point where warnings of genocide were issued. In a recent Science paper (December 2020), Buss et al. reported that some 76% of the residents of the city of Manaus, the capital of Amazonas, had been infected by October 2020. This estimate of the COVID-19 attack rate was based on a seroprevalence analysis of blood donor data, which despite its shortcomings was thought to be a sufficiently reliable proxy of the larger population. An attack rate of this magnitude (76%) implied that herd immunity had already been reached and the community was relatively protected from further infection.

    Yet in December 2020, a harsh second wave of COVID-19 struck Manaus, and currently appears to be even larger than the first wave. Here we use mathematical modelling of mortality data in Manaus, and in various states of Brazil, to understand why a second wave appeared against all expectations. Our analysis is based on estimating a “flexible” reproductive number R0(t) from the mortality data, as it changes in time over the epidemic.

    The arrival of SARS-COV-2 in late March 2020 in the state of Amazonas, Brazil, captured worldwide attention and concern. The rapid growth of the epidemic, a health system that had collapsed, and mass gravesites for coping with growing numbers of dead, were broadcast by the media around the world. Moreover, a majority of the local Amazonian indigenous communities were physically distant from appropriate medical services, to the point where warnings of genocide were issued. In a recent Science paper (December 2020), Buss et al. reported that some 76% of the residents of the city of Manaus, the capital of Amazonas, had been infected by October 2020. This estimate of the COVID-19 attack rate was based on a seroprevalence analysis of blood donor data, which despite its shortcomings was thought to be a sufficiently reliable proxy of the larger population. An attack rate of this magnitude (76%) implied that herd immunity had already been reached and the community was relatively protected from further infection. Yet in December 2020, a harsh second wave of COVID-19 struck Manaus, and currently appears to be even larger than the first wave. Here we use mathematical modelling of mortality data in Manaus, and in various states of Brazil, to understand why a second wave appeared against all expectations. Our analysis is based on estimating a “flexible” reproductive number R ( t ) from the mortality data, as it changes in time over the epidemic. ### Competing Interest Statement DH was partly supported by Alibaba (China) Co. Ltd. Research Collaborative grant (ZG9Z). ### Funding Statement DH was partly funded by an Alibaba (China) Co. Ltd. Collaborative Research grant. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: N.A. All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable. Yes All data used in this work are publicly available.


  • #2
    Please see:

    Brazil-P1 COVID-19 variant thread

    Comment

    Working...
    X