Volume 26, Number 11—November 2020
Research
Nowcasting (Short-Term Forecasting) of Influenza Epidemics in Local Settings, Sweden, 2008–2019
Table 2
Influenza virus activity | Time-to-peak* |
Peak-intensity category, cases/day/100,000 population†§ |
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Prediction date | Predicted | Error | Interpretation | Predicted | Factual | Interpretation | ||
2009 A(H1N1) | ||||||||
Stockholm | 2009 Sep 13 | 8 | 56 | Poor | Medium (5.0) | Very high (12.4) | Poor | |
West Gothia | 2009 Sep 13 | 8 | 56 | Poor | Low (2.2) | Very high (13.7) | Poor | |
Scania |
2009 Sep 25 |
10 |
42 |
Poor |
Low (1.4) |
High (6.4) |
Poor |
|
2010–11 A(H1N1) and B | ||||||||
Stockholm | 2011 Jan 14 | 10 | 28 | Poor | Medium (3.4) | Medium (3.5) | Excellent | |
West Gothia | 2011 Jan 14 | 10 | 14 | Poor | Medium (4.3) | High (6.1) | Tolerable | |
Scania |
2011 Jan 10 |
11 |
22 |
Poor |
Medium (2.9) |
High (5.5) |
Poor |
|
2011–12 A(H3N2) | ||||||||
Stockholm | 2012 Feb 27 | 8 | −8 | Tolerable | High (7.4) | Very high (9.4) | Good | |
West Gothia | 2012 Feb 27 | 8 | −8 | Tolerable | High (7.8) | Very high (9.6) | Good | |
Scania |
2012 Feb 27 |
8 |
−8 |
Tolerable |
Medium (4.0) |
High (6.8) |
Poor |
|
2012–13 A(H3N2), A(H1N1), and B | ||||||||
Stockholm | 2013 Feb 10 | 8 | −7 | Good | Very high (10.3) | Very high (12.2) | Excellent | |
West Gothia | 2013 Feb 10 | 8 | −7 | Good | Very high (10.3) | Very high (11.9) | Excellent | |
Scania |
2019 Feb 8 |
10 |
−7 |
Good |
High (7.3) |
Very high (10.7) |
Good |
|
2013–14 A(H3N2), A(H1N1), and B | ||||||||
Stockholm | 2014 Feb 16 | 8 | −7 | Good | Medium (2.7) | Medium (3.0) | Excellent | |
West Gothia | 2014 Feb 16 | 8 | −7 | Good | Medium (3.5) | Medium (2.9) | Excellent | |
Scania |
2014 Feb 17 |
8 |
−1 |
Excellent |
Medium (3.2) |
Medium (4.2) |
Excellent |
|
2014–15 A(H3N2) and B | ||||||||
Stockholm | 2015 Feb 22 | 8 | 6 | Good | Medium (4.5) | High (6.5) | Tolerable | |
West Gothia | 2015 Feb 22 | 8 | 6 | Good | Very high (7.9) | Very high (8.3) | Excellent | |
Scania |
2015 Feb 14 |
9 |
0 |
Excellent |
Medium (3.9) |
Very high (8.1) |
Poor |
|
2015–16 A(H1N1) and B | ||||||||
Stockholm | 2016 Feb 7 | 8 | 0 | Excellent | High (6.7) | Very high (8.2) | Tolerable | |
West Gothia | 2016 Feb 7 | 8 | 7 | Good | High (7.6) | Very high (11.6) | Good | |
Scania |
2016 Feb 6 |
9 |
7 |
Good |
Medium (4.3) |
Very high (10.4) |
Poor |
|
2016–17 A(H3N2) | ||||||||
Stockholm | 2017 Jan 1 | 8 | −7 | Good | Very high (8.2) | High (6.8) | Good | |
West Gothia | 2017 Feb 12 | 8 | 7 | Good | Medium (3.3) | Medium (3.7) | Excellent | |
Scania |
2017 Feb 5 |
8 |
14 |
Poor |
Medium (4.2) |
Medium (5.1) |
Excellent |
|
2017–18 A(H3N2) and B | ||||||||
Stockholm | 2018 Feb 18 | 8 | −7 | Good | Very high (14.4) | Very high (11.6) | Excellent | |
West Gothia | 2018 Feb 18 | 8 | 0 | Excellent | Medium (5.2) | High (5.9) | Good | |
Scania |
2018 Feb 4 |
8 |
14 |
Poor |
Medium (4.2) |
Very high (14.0) |
Poor |
|
2018–19 A(H1N1) | ||||||||
Stockholm | 2019 Feb 3 | 8 | 0 | Excellent | Very high (14.4) | High (6.2) | Poor | |
West Gothia | 2019 Feb 3 | 8 | 7 | Good | Medium (4.0) | Medium (3.4) | Excellent | |
Scania | 2019 Feb 3 | 8 | −7 | Good | Medium (2.8) | Medium (5.2) | Excellent |
*Time-to-peak (days) determined using syndromic telenursing data. Positive value means that the peak was predicted to be reached before the actual peak occurs, whereas negative value means that the peak is predicted after the actual peak occurs. †Peak-intensity category determined using clinical influenza-diagnosis data. §Using clinical influenza data (Table 1), the start of the epidemic was detected on December 27. On February 1, using syndromic data, the peak in clinical influenza data was forecasted to occur 8 days later (February 9), but the peak actually occurred on February 2 (7 days earlier than forecasted). Also, on February 1, the clinical influenza data intensity was forecasted to be high.
Page created: September 14, 2020
Page updated: October 17, 2020
Page reviewed: October 17, 2020
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.