Back

Ensemble forecasts of COVID-19 activity to support Australia's pandemic response: 2020-22

Moss, R.; Tobin, R. J.; O'Hara-Wild, M.; Adekunle, A. I.; Liu, D.; South, T.; Morris, D. J.; Ryan, G. E.; Hao, T.; Babu, A.; Senior, K. L.; Wood, J. G.; Golding, N.; Ross, J. V.; Hyndman, R. J.; Price, D. J.; McCaw, J. M.; Shearer, F. M.

2025-09-12 infectious diseases
10.1101/2025.09.10.25335544 medRxiv
Show abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries used real-time data analyses, predictive modelling, and COVID-19 case forecasts, to incorporate emerging evi-dence into their decisions. In Australia, national and jurisdictional public health re-sponses were informed by weekly ensemble forecasts of daily COVID-19 case counts for each of Australias eight states and territories, produced by a consortium of researchers under contract with the Australian Government. We evaluated ap-proximately 100,000 predictions for daily case counts 1-28 days into the future, generated between July 2020 and December 2022, and report here (a) how the ensemble forecasts supported public health responses; (b) how well the ensemble forecast performed, relative to the forecasts produced by each contributing team; and (c) how we refined our reporting and visualisations to ensure that outputs were interpreted appropriately. Similar to COVID-19 forecasting studies in other coun-tries, we found that the ensemble forecast consistently out-performed the individual model forecasts, and that performance was lowest when there were rapid changes in the epidemiology, such as periods around epidemic peaks. Our consortiums inter-nal peer-review process allowed us to explain how features of each ensemble forecast related to the design of the individual models, and this helped enable public health stakeholders to interpret the forecasts appropriately. Ultimately, our forecasts pro-vided information that supported public health responses during periods of different policy goals, and over a wide range of epidemic scenarios.

Published in PLOS Computational Biology (predicted rank #1) · training set

Matching journals

The top 4 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.