新型冠状病毒传播模式研究

张翔宇; 王廉皓; 王雪纯; 苏鹤轩; 贾忠伟

doi:10.3784/jbjc.202203210108

新型冠状病毒传播模式研究

doi: 10.3784/jbjc.202203210108

张翔宇^1,,
王廉皓¹,
王雪纯¹,
苏鹤轩^{1, 2},
贾忠伟^{1, 3, 4, ,}

1.
北京大学公共卫生学院, 北京 100191
2.
北京大学医学信息学中心, 北京 100191
3.
北京大学人工智能研究院智慧健康研究中心, 北京 100191
4.
北京大学健康医疗大数据国家研究院药物滥用智能防控中心, 北京 100191

基金项目: 国家自然科学基金（No. 72174004）

详细信息

作者简介:
张翔宇，女，湖北省襄阳市人，硕士，主要从事传染病预防与控制研究，Email: zhangxy064@pku.edu.cn

通讯作者:
贾忠伟， Tel：010–821802457, Email: urchinjj@163.com

中图分类号: R211; R183
计量
- 文章访问数: 105
- HTML全文浏览量: 75
- PDF下载量: 42
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2022-03-21
- 网络出版日期: 2022-05-29
- 刊出日期: 2022-07-14

Research on transmission pattern of SARS-CoV-2

Zhang Xiangyu^1
,,
Wang Lianhao¹,
Wang Xuechun¹,
Su Hexuan^{1, 2},
Jia Zhongwei^{1, 3, 4
, ,}

1.
School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China
2.
Medical Informatics Center, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China
3.
Center for Intelligent Public Health, Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China
4.
Center for Drug Abuse Control and Prevention, National Institute of Health Data Science, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China

Funds: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 72174004)

More Information

Corresponding author: Jia Zhongwei, Email: urchinjj@163.com

摘要

摘要: 目的以广东省广州市、江苏省南京市、河南省郑州市3次Delta变异株引起的疫情为例，探索新型冠状病毒的不同传播模式，为科学防控提供依据。方法研究数据来源于国家及地方卫生健康委员会报告的广州、南京、郑州市相关疫情病例数据。以行政地级市为单位，根据病例人口流动特点将传播模式分为跳跃传播和社区传播，比较两种传播模式的主要特征。结果 2021年5月21日至9月3日，3次疫情共报告1 494例感染者，跳跃传播模式感染者83例，社区传播模式感染者1 411例，其中包含由跳跃传播导致的感染者884例。跳跃传播共波及45个城市，传播时间为22 d，感染人群平均年龄为37.15岁，无症状者占26.51%；社区传播持续时间65 d，感染人群平均年龄为45.21岁，无症状者占8.65%；跳跃传播感染人群年龄低于跳跃传播，无症状者占比高于跳跃传播，差异均有统计学意义（P<0.001）。结论人口流动引发的跳跃传播涉及范围广，以年轻人为主，无症状感染者居多，社区传播以中老年人为主。提示对不同人群可采取差异化管控，如对流动人群和交通枢纽岗位的人群加强核酸检测频次，对社区人群减少聚集性活动，降低接触频率可降低感染概率。
- 新型冠状病毒 /
- 传播模式 /
- 流行病学特征
Abstract: Objective Taking the three outbreaks caused by Delta variant (B.1.617.2) in Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province and Zhengzhou, Henan Province as examples, to explore different transmission pattern of SARS-CoV-2 epidemic and to provide basis for scientific prevention and control. Methods The research data was collected from the public data based on three related epidemics in Guangzhou, Nanjing and Zhengzhou reported by the national and local health commissions. Taking prefecture level city as the unit, according to the characteristics of infected cases movement, the epidemic transmission pattern was divided into jumping transmission and community transmission, and compared the two patterns of its characteristics. Results From May 21 to September 3, 2021, 1 494 infected cases were reported in the three epidemics, including 83 cases of jumping transmission infections and 1 411 cases of community transmission infections including 884 infected cases caused by jumping transmission. Jumping transmission spread to a total of 45 cities for 22 days. The average age of the infected population was 37.15 years old, and the proportion of asymptomatic was 26.51%. The duration of community transmission was 65 days, and the average age of the infected population was 45.21 years old, the proportion of asymptomatic in which was 8.65%. The age of infected population was lower than that of jumping transmission, the proportion of asymptomatic was higher, and these differences were significant (P<0.001). Conclusion The jumping transmission caused by population movement covered a wide range, with high proportion of young person and asymptomatic infected cases. Infections of community transmission were mainly middle-aged and elderly people. Therefore, it is suggested that differentiated control should be taken for different groups, such as strengthening the frequency of nucleic acid testing for mobile people and people in transportation hub, reducing gathering activities for community groups that reducing the frequency of contact can reduce the probability of infection.
- SARS-CoV-2 /
- Transmission pattern /
- Epidemiological characteristics

HTML全文

图 1 三次疫情中社区传播和跳跃传播感染者的空间流动示意图

注：框内文字为城市名；框内数字为感染例数，其中黑色数字为社区传播模式的感染例数，蓝色数字为跳跃传播模式的感染例数

Figure 1. Spatial flow diagram of infected persons with community transmission and jumping transmission in the three epidemics

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 三次疫情中跳跃传播模式和社区传播模式比较

Table 1. Comparison of jumping transmission pattern and community transmission pattern in the three epidemics

变量	跳跃传播（n=83）	社区传播（n=1 411）	合计（n=1 494）
感染数（例）^a
广州	3（3.62）	164（11.62）	167（11.18）
南京	71（85.54）	1 088（77.11）	1 159（77.64）
郑州	9（10.84）	159（11.27）	168（11.18）
传播时长（d）
广州	3	28	28
南京	19	37	37
郑州	7	24	24
传播速度（例/d）
广州	1.00	5.86	5.96
南京	3.73	29.41	31.32
郑州	1.29	6.62	7.00
注：a. 括号外数据为病例数（例），括号内数据为构成比（%）

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 不同传播模式下感染者流行病学特征

Table 2. Epidemiological characteristics of infections in different transmission patterns

组别	跳跃传播（n=83）	社区传播			总计（n =1 494）
组别	跳跃传播（n=83）	首例报告市市内社区传播（n =527）	跳跃传播导致其他市社区传播（n =884）	合计（n =1 411）	总计（n =1 494）
年龄组（岁）^a
＜20	11（17.74）	69（13.14）	132（16.26）	201（15.03）	212（15.15）
20～	24（38.71）	121（23.05）	200（24.63）	321（24.01）	345（24.66）
40～	21（33.87）	221（42.10）	225（27.71）	446（33.36）	467（33.38）
≥60	6（9.68）	114（21.71）	255（31.40）	369（27.60）	375（26.81）
性别^a
男性	42（56.00）	226（42.97）	404（47.14）	630（45.55）	672（46.09）
女性	33（44.00）	300（57.03）	453（52.86）	753（54.45）	786（53.91）
初诊时有症状
是	48（57.83）	352（66.79）	705（79.75）	1 057（74.91）	1 105（73.96）
否	35（42.17）	175（33.21）	179（20.25）	354（25.09）	389（26.04）
病例类型
确诊病例	61（73.49）	485（92.03）	804（90.95）	1 289（91.35）	1 350（90.36）
无症状感染	22（26.51）	42（7.97）	80（9.05）	122（8.65）	144（9.64）
注：括号外数据为病例数，括号内数据为构成比（%）；a. 存在缺失值

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(20)

[1]	World Health Organization. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard[EB/OL]. (2021-11-08)[2021-11-08]. https://covid19.who.int/.
[2]	World Health Organization. Tracking SARS-CoV-2 variants[EB/OL]. (2021-11-08)[2021-11-08]. https://www.who.int/en/activities/tracking-SARS-CoV-2-variants/.
[3]	Zhang JJ, Litvinova M, Liang YX, et al. Changes in contact patterns shape the dynamics of the COVID-19 outbreak in China[J]. Science, 2020, 368(6498): 1481–1486. DOI: 10.1126/science.abb8001.
[4]	Ng OT, Marimuthu K, Koh V, et al. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and transmission risk factors among high-risk close contacts: a retrospective cohort study[J]. Lancet Infect Dis, 2021, 21(3): 333–343. DOI: 10.1016/S1473−3099(20)30833−1.
[5]	王姣娥, 杜德林, 魏冶, 等. 新冠肺炎疫情的空间扩散过程与模式研究[J]. 地理研究,2020,39(7):1450–1462. DOI: 10.11821/dlyj020200329. Wang JE, Du DL, Wei Y, et al. The development of COVID-19 in China: Spatial diffusion and geographical pattern[J]. Geogr Res, 2020, 39(7): 1450–1462. DOI: 10.11821/dlyj020200329.
[6]	Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and Meta-analysis[J]. Lancet, 2020, 395(10242): 1973–1987. DOI: 10.1016/S0140−6736(20)31142−9.
[7]	陈晓, 黄宇金, 李佳慧, 等. COVID-19疫情时空聚集性特征及影响因素分析——以重庆市为例[J]. 地理科学进展,2020,39(11):1798–1808. DOI: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2020.11.002. Chen X, Huang YJ, Li JH, et al. Clustering characteristics of COVID-19 cases and influencing factors in Chongqing Municipality[J]. Prog Geogr, 2020, 39(11): 1798–1808. DOI: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2020.11.002.
[8]	周成虎, 裴韬, 杜云艳, 等. 新冠肺炎疫情大数据分析与区域防控政策建议[J]. 中国科学院院刊,2020,35(2):200–203. DOI:10.16418/j.issn.1000−3045.20200209001. Zhou CH, Pei T, Du YY, et al. Big data analysis on COVID-19 epidemic and suggestions on regional prevention and control policy[J]. Bull Chin Acad Sci, 2020, 35(2): 200–203. DOI: 10.16418/j.issn.1000−3045.20200209001.
[9]	Burns J, Movsisyan A, Stratil JM, et al. Travel-related control measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review[J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2020, 10: Cd013717. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013717.
[10]	金丽娟, 许泉立. 中国COVID-19疫情的空间格局和时空演化[J]. 中华疾病控制杂志,2021,25(11):1320–1326. DOI: 10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2021.11.015. Jin LJ, Xu QL. The spatial pattern and spatio-temporal evolution of COVID-19 in China[J]. Chin J Dis Control Prev, 2021, 25(11): 1320–1326. DOI: 10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2021.11.015.
[11]	Viner RM, Mytton OT, Bonell C, et al. Susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection among children and adolescents compared with adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. JAMA Pediatr, 2021, 175(2): 143–156. DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.4573.
[12]	Jia JS, Lu X, Yuan Y, et al. Population flow drives spatio-temporal distribution of COVID-19 in China[J]. Nature, 2020, 582(7812): 389–394. DOI: 10.1038/s41586−020−2284−y.
[13]	Stoddard ST, Forshey BM, Morrison AC, et al. House-to-house human movement drives dengue virus transmission[J]. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2013, 110(3): 994–999. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1213349110.
[14]	Wells CR, Sah P, Moghadas SM, et al. Impact of international travel and border control measures on the global spread of the novel 2019 coronavirus outbreak[J]. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2020, 117(13): 7504–7509. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2002616117.
[15]	Wong J, Abdul Aziz ABZ, Chaw L, et al. High proportion of asymptomatic and presymptomatic COVID-19 infections in air passengers to Brunei[J]. J Travel Med, 2020, 27(5): taaa066. DOI: 10.1093/jtm/taaa066.
[16]	Johansson MA, Quandelacy TM, Kada S, et al. SARS-CoV-2 transmission from people without COVID-19 symptoms[J]. JAMA Netw Open, 2021, 4(1): e2035057. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.35057.
[17]	Wesolowski A, Qureshi T, Boni MF, et al. Impact of human mobility on the emergence of dengue epidemics in Pakistan[J]. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2015, 112(38): 11887–11892. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1504964112.
[18]	Sharun K, Tiwari R, Natesan S, et al. International travel during the COVID-19 pandemic: implications and risks associated with 'travel bubbles'[J]. J Travel Med, 2020, 27(8): taaa184. DOI: 10.1093/jtm/taaa184.
[19]	Hanlon P, Nicholl BI, Jani BD, et al. Frailty and pre-frailty in middle-aged and older adults and its association with multimorbidity and mortality: a prospective analysis of 493 737 UK Biobank participants[J]. Lancet Public Health, 2018, 3(7): e323–e332. DOI: 10.1016/S2468−2667(18)30091−4.
[20]	严光, 殷实. 老年医学科新型冠状病毒肺炎防控管理策略[J]. 安徽医学,2020,41(3):243–245. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1000−0399.2020.03.003. Yan G, Yin S. COVID-19 prevention and control management strategy in geriatrics department[J]. Anhui Med J, 2020, 41(3): 243–245. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000−0399.2020.03.003.