The reproductive number of COVID-19 is higher compared to SARS coronavirus

Abstract

In Wuhan, China, a novel and alarmingly contagious primary atypical (viral) pneumonia broke out in December 2019. It has since been identified as a zoonotic coronavirus, similar to SARS coronavirus and MERS coronavirus and named COVID-19. As of 8 February 2020, 33 738 confirmed cases and 811 deaths have been reported in China. Here we review the basic reproduction number (R0) of the COVID-19 virus. R0 is an indication of the transmissibility of a virus, representing the average number of new infections generated by an infectious person in a totally naïve population. For R0 > 1, the number infected is likely to increase, and for R0 < 1, transmission is likely to die out. The basic reproduction number is a central concept in infectious disease epidemiology, indicating the risk of an infectious agent with respect to epidemic spread. PubMed, bioRxiv and Google Scholar were accessed to search for eligible studies. The term ‘coronavirus & basic reproduction number’ was used. The time period covered was from 1 January 2020 to 7 February 2020. For this time period, we identified 12 studies which estimated the basic reproductive number for COVID-19 from China and overseas. Table 1 shows that the estimates ranged from 1.4 to 6.49, with a mean of 3.28, a median of 2.79 and interquartile range (IQR) of 1.16. Published estimates of R0 for 2019-nCoV CI, Confidence interval. Published estimates of R0 for 2019-nCoV CI, Confidence interval. Timeline of the R0 estimates for the 2019-nCoV virus in China The first studies initially reported estimates of R0 with lower values. Estimations subsequently increased and then again returned in the most recent estimates to the levels initially reported (Figure 1). A closer look reveals that the estimation method used played a role. The two studies using stochastic methods to estimate R0, reported a range of 2.2–2.68 with an average of 2.44.1,9 The six studies using mathematical methods to estimate R0 produced a range from 1.5 to 6.49, with an average of 4.2.2,4–6,8,10 The three studies using statistical methods such as exponential growth estimated an R0 ranging from 2.2 to 3.58, with an average of 2.67.3,7,11 Our review found the average R0 to be 3.28 and median to be 2.79, which exceed WHO estimates from 1.4 to 2.5. The studies using stochastic and statistical methods for deriving R0 provide estimates that are reasonably comparable. However, the studies using mathematical methods produce estimates that are, on average, higher. Some of the mathematically derived estimates fall within the range produced the statistical and stochastic estimates. It is important to further assess the reason for the higher R0 values estimated by some the mathematical studies. For example, modelling assumptions may have played a role. In more recent studies, R0 seems to have stabilized at around 2–3. R0 estimations produced at later stages can be expected to be more reliable, as they build upon more case data and include the effect of awareness and intervention. It is worthy to note that the WHO point estimates are consistently below all published estimates, although the higher end of the WHO range includes the lower end of the estimates reviewed here. R0 estimates for SARS have been reported to range between 2 and 5, which is within the range of the mean R0 for COVID-19 found in this review. Due to similarities of both pathogen and region of exposure, this is expected. On the other hand, despite the heightened public awareness and impressively strong interventional response, the COVID-19 is already more widespread than SARS, indicating it may be more transmissible. This review found that the estimated mean R0 for COVID-19 is around 3.28, with a median of 2.79 and IQR of 1.16, which is considerably higher than the WHO estimate at 1.95. These estimates of R0 depend on the estimation method used as well as the validity of the underlying assumptions. Due to insufficient data and short onset time, current estimates of R0 for COVID-19 are possibly biased. However, as more data are accumulated, estimation error can be expected to decrease and a clearer picture should form. Based on these considerations, R0 for COVID-19 is expected to be around 2–3, which is broadly consistent with the WHO estimate. J.R. and A.W.S. had the idea, and Y.L. did the literature search and created the table and figure. Y.L. and A.W.S. wrote the first draft; A.A.G. drafted the final manuscript. All authors contributed to the final manuscript. None declared. Teaser: Our review found the average R0 for COVID-19 to be 3.28, which exceeds WHO estimates from 1.4 to 2.5.