Estimations of the transmission risk and the epidemic trend of COVID-19 are of great importance because these can arouse the vigilance of the policy makers, health professionals, and the whole society so that enough resources would be mobilized in a speedy and efficient way for both control and treatment. We estimated the number of infections using SEIR (Susceptible, Exposed, Infectious, and Removed) model under two assumptions of R t (R t maintaining to be >1 or R t gradually decreasing to <1) in the purpose of depicting various possible epidemic trends of COVID-19 in Wuhan, China. Two estimations provide an approach for evaluating the sufficiency of the current measures taken in China, depending on whether or not the peak of the number of infections would occur in February 2020. Assuming the current control measures were ineffective and insufficient, the estimated number of infections would continue to increase throughout February without a peak. On the other hand, assuming the current control measures were effective and sufficient, the estimated number of infections would reach the peak in late February 2020.

According to Read’s research13, R 0 for COVID-19 outbreak is much higher compared with other emergent coronaviruses. It might be very difficult to contain or control the spreading of this virus. If the prevention and control measures were not sufficient or some new factors occurred (e.g., a large proportion of cases with mild or none symptoms existed in the community; there were more zoonotic sources), the epidemic might continue to develop at a high speed. Therefore, we depicted first the epidemic dynamics of the relatively unsatisfying circumstance based on the R 0 estimated before the unprecedented efforts of China in the containment of the epidemics occurred and the newest documented parameters. The curve continued to go up throughout February without any indication of dropping, indicating the need for further enhancement of public health measures for containment of the current outbreak.

However, as mentioned by WHO in the statement on 30 January, “it is still possible to interrupt virus spread, provided that countries put in place strong measures to detect disease early, isolate and treat cases, trace contacts, and promote social-distancing measures commensurate with the risk.”8 Responding to the outbreak, China has taken a series of unprecedentedly strict measures regardless of economic losses, including daily contact with WHO and comprehensive multi-sectoral approaches to fight against the virus and prevent further spread, showing the sense of responsibility of China to its citizens and the whole world. Epidemic information has been released in an open, transparent, responsible, and timely manner home and abroad. Cooperation has been established with other countries and international organizations. These measures have won full recognition of the international community, including WHO. Specifically in Wuhan, in the early phase from beginning of December 2019 to 23 January 2020, there was no limitation of population flow and gathering. When the human-to-human transmission was confirmed, an important decision was made to isolate Wuhan from other parts of the country. As a result, since 24 January 2020, all public transports from and to Wuhan, as well as public transports and people’s gathering events within Wuhan, were stopped. Since 2 February 2020, strict public health measures were taken to prevent population flow among distinct communities, whereas since 9 February 2020, public health interventions including quarantine of each building in the urban area and each village in the rural area were implemented in order to block the transmission chain among the household. Therefore, strong efforts of authorities and people in Wuhan with the support of the central government and people from all over China, as well as the WHO and the international society, may have gradually braked COVID-19 outbreak.

R t is therefore assumed to decrease gradually from 3.1 to 0.5 in Wuhan, China in the current study. The trend of the estimated cases is in accordance with the trend of currently confirmed cases. The relatively big difference in number may be due to the possible existence of a large number of mild and asymptomatic cases and the imperfection of current diagnostic measures. According to NHC, before 12 February 2020, the confirmed cases were diagnosed according to contact history, clinical manifestations, chest X-ray, or computer-assisted tomography (CT) and RT-PCR for COVID-19. Since 12 February 2020, the diagnosis has been mainly based on contact history, clinical manifestation, and imaging evidence of pulmonary lesion suggestive of pneumonia, while viral detection with RT-PCR is still being performed in a part of patients23. After the diagnosis method was changed, a large number of cases that were previously missed and piled up for testing were reported in Wuhan, which greatly increased the number of existing cases and made it approaching our estimated number. A peak of the estimated number of infections would occur in late February under this assumption. If the peak does occur in February, the very strong measures China has taken may have already received success in controlling the COVID-19 infection in Wuhan.

The number of deaths in the current study was estimated based on previously reported CFRs. Chen et al.6 calculated it to be 11% based on 99 cases at the very early stage of the outbreak. This mortality rate might not be representative of the whole patients’ population due to the relatively small sample size and scarce knowledge about the virus at early stage. More recently, Yang et al.24 estimated the overall adjusted CFR among confirmed patients to be 3.06% with a sample size of 8866. The number of deaths estimated accordingly might be more close to the reality. Our estimation of the number of deaths only provides a possible range based on currently reported CFR. The actual number of deaths might be lower with more mild and asymptomatic cases being detected and the improvement of clinical care and treatment as the epidemic progresses.

Hubei Province, of which Wuhan is the capital city, accounts for more than 80% of newly confirmed cases all over the country according to NHC daily report. The current epidemic trend in Hubei Province is similar to that in Wuhan City. Considering the high number of confirmed cases in the province, the currently strict measures should be continuously implemented both in Wuhan and other cities in Hubei Province no matter whether the peak of number of infections would occur or not, in order to reduce R t to an ideal level and to control the epidemic. Owing to the timely transportation restriction in Hubei Province and other measures, the number of newly confirmed cases remains relatively low and has decreased for 13 days in a row in other provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities in mainland China outside Hubei Province. However, independent self-sustaining human-to-human spread is estimated to already present in multiple major Chinese cities, including Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen16. In addition, pressure on transmission control caused by the population migration after Spring Festival holidays may occur soon, especially in some densely populated cities25. Necessary strict measures should still be maintained even when the current measures turn out to be effective.

Our study has some limitations. Firstly, the SEIR model was set up based on a number of necessary assumptions. For example, we assumed that no super-spreaders exist in the model, but there is currently no supportive evidence. Secondly, the accuracy of the estimation model depends largely on the accuracy of the parameters it used, such as incubation period. With more precise parameters obtained as the epidemic progresses, our estimation model will also be more precise. Our estimates of the reproductive number from 3.1 to 0.5 are based on previous studies and experience from SARS control. However, this measure may change substantially over the course of this epidemic and as additional data arrives. Besides, using a fixed R t value in each phase may incur potential bias because R t is essentially a dynamic parameter. Thirdly, these estimated data may not be sustained if unforeseeable factors occurred. For example, if some infections were caused by multiple exposures to animals, these estimates will be exposed to a big uncertainty. Fourthly, the epidemic trend shows great difference between Wuhan and Hubei Province and regions in mainland China outside Hubei Province according to the NHC reported data. It is thus inappropriate to generalize the estimations in Wuhan to regions in mainland China outside Hubei Province. The dynamics model for the other locations in mainland China remains to be developed and specific parameters need to be redefined. Lastly, we do not provide model fit information in the current study. SEIR model is a prediction model forecasting the number of infections in the future. The data corresponding to actual situation in the future cannot be determined and this makes model fitting almost impossible during the outbreak. We would carry out model fitting according to the real data in pace with more information and knowledge about the characteristics of COVID-19 and the epidemics in the future.

Despite the limitations mentioned above, the current study is the first to provide estimation for epidemic trend after strict prevention and control measures were implemented in China. Whether current prevention and control measures are sufficient or not may be evaluated through the occurrence of the infection number peak in February. Rigorous measures should still be maintained even when the current measures turn out to be effective by the end of February to prevent further spread of the virus.