In infectious disease surveillance, incidence data are frequently subject to reporting delays and retrospective corrections, making it hard to assess current trends in real time. A variety of probabilistic nowcasting methods have been suggested to correct for the resulting biases. Building upon a recent comparison of eight of these methods in an application to COVID-19 hospitalization data from Germany, the objective of this paper is twofold. Firstly, we investigate how nowcasts from different models can be improved using statistical post-processing methods as employed, e.g., in weather forecasting. Secondly, we assess the potential of weighted ensemble nowcasts, i.e., weighted combinations of different probabilistic nowcasts. These are a natural extension of unweighted nowcast ensembles, which have previously been found to outperform most individual models. Both in post-processing and ensemble building, specific challenges arise from the fact that data are constantly revised, hindering the use of standard approaches. We find that post-processing can improve the individual performance of almost all considered models both in terms of evaluation scores and forecast interval coverage. Improving upon the performance of unweighted ensemble nowcasts via weighting schemes, on the other hand, poses a substantial challenge. Across an array of approaches, we find modest improvement in scores for some and decreased performance for most, with overall more favorable results for simple methods. In terms of forecast interval coverage, however, our methods lead to rather consistent improvements over the unweighted ensembles.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, forecasting COVID-19 trends to support planning and response was a priority for scientists and decision makers alike. In the United States, COVID-19 forecasting was coordinated by a large group of universities, companies, and government entities led by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US COVID-19 Forecast Hub (https://covid19forecasthub.org). We evaluated approximately 9.7 million forecasts of weekly state-level COVID-19 cases for predictions 1-4 weeks into the future submitted by 24 teams from August 2020 to December 2021. We assessed coverage of central prediction intervals and weighted interval scores (WIS), adjusting for missing forecasts relative to a baseline forecast, and used a Gaussian generalized estimating equation (GEE) model to evaluate differences in skill across epidemic phases that were defined by the effective reproduction number. Overall, we found high variation in skill across individual models, with ensemble-based forecasts outperforming other approaches. Forecast skill relative to the baseline was generally higher for larger jurisdictions (e.g., states compared to counties). Over time, forecasts generally performed worst in periods of rapid changes in reported cases (either in increasing or decreasing epidemic phases) with 95% prediction interval coverage dropping below 50% during the growth phases of the winter 2020, Delta, and Omicron waves. Ideally, case forecasts could serve as a leading indicator of changes in transmission dynamics. However, while most COVID-19 case forecasts outperformed a naïve baseline model, even the most accurate case forecasts were unreliable in key phases. Further research could improve forecasts of leading indicators, like COVID-19 cases, by leveraging additional real-time data, addressing performance across phases, improving the characterization of forecast confidence, and ensuring that forecasts were coherent across spatial scales. In the meantime, it is critical for forecast users to appreciate current limitations and use a broad set of indicators to inform pandemic-related decision making.

Forecast evaluation is essential for the development of predictive epidemic models and can inform their use for public health decision-making. Common scores to evaluate epidemiological forecasts are the Continuous Ranked Probability Score (CRPS) and the Weighted Interval Score (WIS), which can be seen as measures of the absolute distance between the forecast distribution and the observation. However, applying these scores directly to predicted and observed incidence counts may not be the most appropriate due to the exponential nature of epidemic processes and the varying magnitudes of observed values across space and time. In this paper, we argue that transforming counts before applying scores such as the CRPS or WIS can effectively mitigate these difficulties and yield epidemiologically meaningful and easily interpretable results. Using the CRPS on log-transformed values as an example, we list three attractive properties: Firstly, it can be interpreted as a probabilistic version of a relative error. Secondly, it reflects how well models predicted the time-varying epidemic growth rate. And lastly, using arguments on variance-stabilizing transformations, it can be shown that under the assumption of a quadratic mean-variance relationship, the logarithmic transformation leads to expected CRPS values which are independent of the order of magnitude of the predicted quantity. Applying a transformation of log(x + 1) to data and forecasts from the European COVID-19 Forecast Hub, we find that it changes model rankings regardless of stratification by forecast date, location or target types. Situations in which models missed the beginning of upward swings are more strongly emphasised while failing to predict a downturn following a peak is less severely penalised when scoring transformed forecasts as opposed to untransformed ones. We conclude that appropriate transformations, of which the natural logarithm is only one particularly attractive option, should be considered when assessing the performance of different models in the context of infectious disease incidence.

The effective reproductive number Rt has taken a central role in the scientific, political, and public discussion during the COVID-19 pandemic, with numerous real-time estimates of this quantity routinely published. Disagreement between estimates can be substantial and may lead to confusion among decision-makers and the general public. In this work, we compare different estimates of the national-level effective reproductive number of COVID-19 in Germany in 2020 and 2021. We consider the agreement between estimates from the same method but published at different time points (within-method agreement) as well as retrospective agreement across eight different approaches (between-method agreement). Concerning the former, estimates from some methods are very stable over time and hardly subject to revisions, while others display considerable fluctuations. To evaluate between-method agreement, we reproduce the estimates generated by different groups using a variety of statistical approaches, standardizing analytical choices to assess how they contribute to the observed disagreement. These analytical choices include the data source, data pre-processing, assumed generation time distribution, statistical tuning parameters, and various delay distributions. We find that in practice, these auxiliary choices in the estimation of Rt may affect results at least as strongly as the selection of the statistical approach. They should thus be communicated transparently along with the estimates.

Real-time surveillance is a crucial element in the response to infectious disease outbreaks. However, the interpretation of incidence data is often hampered by delays occurring at various stages of data gathering and reporting. As a result, recent values are biased downward, which obscures current trends. Statistical nowcasting techniques can be employed to correct these biases, allowing for accurate characterization of recent developments and thus enhancing situational awareness. In this paper, we present a preregistered real-time assessment of eight nowcasting approaches, applied by independent research teams to German 7-day hospitalization incidences during the COVID-19 pandemic. This indicator played an important role in the management of the outbreak in Germany and was linked to levels of non-pharmaceutical interventions via certain thresholds. Due to its definition, in which hospitalization counts are aggregated by the date of case report rather than admission, German hospitalization incidences are particularly affected by delays and can take several weeks or months to fully stabilize. For this study, all methods were applied from 22 November 2021 to 29 April 2022, with probabilistic nowcasts produced each day for the current and 28 preceding days. Nowcasts at the national, state, and age-group levels were collected in the form of quantiles in a public repository and displayed in a dashboard. Moreover, a mean and a median ensemble nowcast were generated. We find that overall, the compared methods were able to remove a large part of the biases introduced by delays. Most participating teams underestimated the importance of very long delays, though, resulting in nowcasts with a slight downward bias. The accompanying prediction intervals were also too narrow for almost all methods. Averaged over all nowcast horizons, the best performance was achieved by a model using case incidences as a covariate and taking into account longer delays than the other approaches. For the most recent days, which are often considered the most relevant in practice, a mean ensemble of the submitted nowcasts performed best. We conclude by providing some lessons learned on the definition of nowcasting targets and practical challenges.

Forecasts based on epidemiological modelling have played an important role in shaping public policy throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. This modelling combines knowledge about infectious disease dynamics with the subjective opinion of the researcher who develops and refines the model and often also adjusts model outputs. Developing a forecast model is difficult, resource- and time-consuming. It is therefore worth asking what modelling is able to add beyond the subjective opinion of the researcher alone. To investigate this, we analysed different real-time forecasts of cases of and deaths from COVID-19 in Germany and Poland over a 1-4 week horizon submitted to the German and Polish Forecast Hub. We compared crowd forecasts elicited from researchers and volunteers, against a) forecasts from two semi-mechanistic models based on common epidemiological assumptions and b) the ensemble of all other models submitted to the Forecast Hub. We found crowd forecasts, despite being overconfident, to outperform all other methods across all forecast horizons when forecasting cases (weighted interval score relative to the Hub ensemble 2 weeks ahead: 0.89). Forecasts based on computational models performed comparably better when predicting deaths (rel. WIS 1.26), suggesting that epidemiological modelling and human judgement can complement each other in important ways.

In subsection 3.2 two example values of the weighted interval score (a score for forecast accuracy described in the paper) were incorrect.The respective sentence should read:"The WIS (with K = 11 as in the previous section), on the other hand, favors G as its quantiles are generally closer to the observed value y (WIS(F, 190) = 105.3,WIS(G, 190) = 88.9)."These values had erroneously been given as (WIS(F, 190) = 103.9,WIS(G, 190) = 87.

For practical reasons, many forecasts of case, hospitalization, and death counts in the context of the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are issued in the form of central predictive intervals at various levels. This is also the case for the forecasts collected in the COVID-19 Forecast Hub (https://covid19forecasthub.org/). Forecast evaluation metrics like the logarithmic score, which has been applied in several infectious disease forecasting challenges, are then not available as they require full predictive distributions. This article provides an overview of how established methods for the evaluation of quantile and interval forecasts can be applied to epidemic forecasts in this format. Specifically, we discuss the computation and interpretation of the weighted interval score, which is a proper score that approximates the continuous ranked probability score. It can be interpreted as a generalization of the absolute error to probabilistic forecasts and allows for a decomposition into a measure of sharpness and penalties for over- and underprediction.