Gina Cuomo-Dannenburg

Gina Cuomo-Dannenburg

Auto-generated profile, based on publicly available information

Gina Cuomo-Dannenburg

MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, School of Public Health, Imperial College, London, UK

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

7Years (2020-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
30 June 2020 in Nature
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Enrico LavezzoEnrico Lavezzo
Enrico Lavezzo
EFElisa Franchin
Elisa Franchin
CCConstanze Ciavarella
Constanze Ciavarella
GCGina Cuomo-Dannenburg
Gina Cuomo-Dannenburg
Luisa BarzonLuisa Barzon
Luisa Barzon
Andrea CrisantiAndrea Crisanti
Andrea Crisanti

24 July 2020 in Science
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PWPatrick G. T. Walker
Patrick G. T. Walker
CWCharles Whittaker
Charles Whittaker
OWOliver J. Watson
Oliver J. Watson
MBMarc Baguelin
Marc Baguelin
PWPeter Winskill
Peter Winskill
AGAzra C. Ghani
Azra C. Ghani
Global prospects for COVID-19 control: Lower-income countries have recognized the potential impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from observing ongoing epidemics. Many have intervened quickly and early with measures to slow viral transmission, which may partly explain the low rates observed so far in these countries. Walker et al. calibrated a global model with country-specific data (see the Perspective by Metcalf et al. ). Despite the potentially protective effects of younger demographics, the closer intergenerational contact, limitations on health care facilities, and frequency of comorbidities in lower-income countries require sustained nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to avoid overwhelming health care capacity. As a result of strict NPIs, the protective effects of immunity will be reduced, and it will be important to improve testing capacity. Ensuring equitable provision of oxygen and—when they are ready—pharmaceutical interventions should be a global priority. Science , this issue p. 413 ; see also p. 368

17 February 2021 in Nature Communications
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PNPierre Nouvellet
Pierre Nouvellet
SBSangeeta Bhatia
Sangeeta Bhatia
ACAnne Cori
Anne Cori
KAKylie E. C. Ainslie
Kylie E. C. Ainslie
MBMarc Baguelin
Marc Baguelin
CDChristl A Donnelly
Christl A Donnelly
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, countries have sought to control SARS-CoV-2 transmission by restricting population movement through social distancing interventions, thus reducing the number of contacts. Mobility data represent an important proxy measure of social distancing, and here, we characterise the relationship between transmission and mobility for 52 countries around the world. Transmission significantly decreased with the initial reduction in mobility in 73% of the countries analysed, but we found evidence of decoupling of transmission and mobility following the relaxation of strict control measures for 80% of countries. For the majority of countries, mobility explained a substantial proportion of the variation in transmissibility (median adjusted R-squared: 48%, interquartile range - IQR - across countries [27–77%]). Where a change in the relationship occurred, predictive ability decreased after the relaxation; from a median adjusted R-squared of 74% (IQR across countries [49–91%]) pre-relaxation, to a median adjusted R-squared of 30% (IQR across countries [12–48%]) post-relaxation. In countries with a clear relationship between mobility and transmission both before and after strict control measures were relaxed, mobility was associated with lower transmission rates after control measures were relaxed indicating that the beneficial effects of ongoing social distancing behaviours were substantial.

3 December 2020 in Nature Communications
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
HUH. Juliette T. Unwin
H. Juliette T. Unwin
SMSwapnil Mishra
Swapnil Mishra
VBValerie C. Bradley
Valerie C. Bradley
AGAxel Gandy
Axel Gandy
TMThomas A. Mellan
Thomas A. Mellan
SFSeth Flaxman
Seth Flaxman
As of 1st June 2020, the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention reported 104,232 confirmed or probable COVID-19-related deaths in the US. This was more than twice the number of deaths reported in the next most severely impacted country. We jointly model the US epidemic at the state-level, using publicly available death data within a Bayesian hierarchical semi-mechanistic framework. For each state, we estimate the number of individuals that have been infected, the number of individuals that are currently infectious and the time-varying reproduction number (the average number of secondary infections caused by an infected person). We use changes in mobility to capture the impact that non-pharmaceutical interventions and other behaviour changes have on the rate of transmission of SARS-CoV-2. We estimate that Rt was only below one in 23 states on 1st June. We also estimate that 3.7% [3.4%–4.0%] of the total population of the US had been infected, with wide variation between states, and approximately 0.01% of the population was infectious. We demonstrate good 3 week model forecasts of deaths with low error and good coverage of our credible intervals.

13 March 2020 in medRxiv
Verified
Preprint
Open access
PDF file
RVRobert Verity
Robert Verity
LOLucy C Okell
Lucy C Okell
IDIlaria Dorigatti
Ilaria Dorigatti
PWPeter Winskill
Peter Winskill
CWCharles Whittaker
Charles Whittaker
NFNeil M Ferguson
Neil M Ferguson
Summary: Background: A range of case fatality ratio (CFR) estimates for COVID-19 have been produced that differ substantially in magnitude. Methods: We used individual-case data from mainland China and cases detected outside mainland China to estimate the time between onset of symptoms and outcome (death or discharge from hospital). We next obtained age-stratified estimates of the CFR by relating the aggregate distribution of cases by dates of onset to the observed cumulative deaths in China, assuming a constant attack rate by age and adjusting for the demography of the population, and age- and location-based under-ascertainment. We additionally estimated the CFR from individual line-list data on 1,334 cases identified outside mainland China. We used data on the PCR prevalence in international residents repatriated from China at the end of January 2020 to obtain age-stratified estimates of the infection fatality ratio (IFR). Using data on age-stratified severity in a subset of 3,665 cases from China, we estimated the proportion of infections that will likely require hospitalisation. Findings: We estimate the mean duration from onset-of-symptoms to death to be 17.8 days (95% credible interval, crI 16.9–19.2 days) and from onset-of-symptoms to hospital discharge to be 22.6 days (95% crI 21.1-24.4 days). We estimate a crude CFR of 3.67% (95% crI 3.56%-3.80%) in cases from mainland China. Adjusting for demography and under-ascertainment of milder cases in Wuhan relative to the rest of China, we obtain a best estimate of the CFR in China of 1.38% (95% crI 1.23%-1.53%) with substantially higher values in older ages. Our estimate of the CFR from international cases stratified by age (under 60 / 60 and above) are consistent with these estimates from China. We obtain an overall IFR estimate for China of 0.66% (0.39%-1.33%), again with an increasing profile with age. Interpretation: These early estimates give an indication of the fatality ratio across the spectrum of COVID-19 disease and demonstrate a strong age-gradient in risk.

17 July 2020 in Wellcome Open Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
BJBenjamin Jeffrey
Benjamin Jeffrey
CWCaroline E. Walters
Caroline E. Walters
KAKylie E. C. Ainslie
Kylie E. C. Ainslie
OEOliver Eales
Oliver Eales
CCConstanze Ciavarella
Constanze Ciavarella
SRSteven Riley
Steven Riley
Background: Since early March 2020, the COVID-19 epidemic across the United Kingdom has led to a range of social distancing policies, which have resulted in reduced mobility across different regions. Crowd level data on mobile phone usage can be used as a proxy for actual population mobility patterns and provide a way of quantifying the impact of social distancing measures on changes in mobility. Methods: Here, we use two mobile phone-based datasets (anonymised and aggregated crowd level data from O2 and from the Facebook app on mobile phones) to assess changes in average mobility, both overall and broken down into high and low population density areas, and changes in the distribution of journey lengths. Results: We show that there was a substantial overall reduction in mobility, with the most rapid decline on the 24th March 2020, the day after the Prime Minister’s announcement of an enforced lockdown. The reduction in mobility was highly synchronized across the UK. Although mobility has remained low since 26th March 2020, we detect a gradual increase since that time. We also show that the two different datasets produce similar trends, albeit with some location-specific differences. We see slightly larger reductions in average mobility in high-density areas than in low-density areas, with greater variation in mobility in the high-density areas: some high-density areas eliminated almost all mobility. Conclusions: These analyses form a baseline from which to observe changes in behaviour in the UK as social distancing is eased and inform policy towards the future control of SARS-CoV-2 in the UK.