Back

Short-term forecasts to inform the response to the COVID-19 epidemic in the UK

Funk, S.; Abbott, S.; Atkins, B. D.; Baguelin, M.; Baillie, J. K.; Birrell, P. J.; Blake, J.; Bosse, N. I.; Burton, J.; Carruthers, J.; Davies, N. G.; de Angelis, D.; Dyson, L.; Edmunds, W. J.; Eggo, R. M.; Ferguson, N. M.; Gaythorpe, K. A. M.; Gorsich, E.; Guyver-Fletcher, G.; Hellewell, J.; Hill, E. M.; Holmes, A.; House, T. A.; Jewell, C.; Jit, M.; Jombart, T.; Joshi, I.; Keeling, M. J.; Kendall, E.; Knock, E. S.; Kucharski, A. J.; Lythgoe, K. A.; Meakin, S. R.; Munday, J. D.; Openshaw, P. J.; Overton, C.; Pagani, F.; Pearson, J.; Perez-Guzman, P. N.; Pellis, L.; Scarabel, F.; Semple, M. G.

2020-11-13 epidemiology
10.1101/2020.11.11.20220962 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundShort-term forecasts of infectious disease can aid situational awareness and planning for outbreak response. Here, we report on multi-model forecasts of Covid-19 in the UK that were generated at regular intervals starting at the end of March 2020, in order to monitor expected healthcare utilisation and population impacts in real time. MethodsWe evaluated the performance of individual model forecasts generated between 24 March and 14 July 2020, using a variety of metrics including the weighted interval score as well as metrics that assess the calibration, sharpness, bias and absolute error of forecasts separately. We further combined the predictions from individual models into ensemble forecasts using a simple mean as well as a quantile regression average that aimed to maximise performance. We compared model performance to a null model of no change. ResultsIn most cases, individual models performed better than the null model, and ensembles models were well calibrated and performed comparatively to the best individual models. The quantile regression average did not noticeably outperform the mean ensemble. ConclusionsEnsembles of multi-model forecasts can inform the policy response to the Covid-19 pandemic by assessing future resource needs and expected population impact of morbidity and mortality.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.