  Within epidemiological modeling, the majority of analyses assume a single
epidemic process for generating ground-truth data. However, this assumed data
generation process can be unrealistic, since data sources for epidemics are
often aggregated across geographic regions and communities. As a result,
state-of-the-art models for estimating epidemiological parameters,
e.g.~transmission rates, can be inappropriate when faced with complex systems.
Our work empirically demonstrates some limitations of applying epidemiological
models to aggregated datasets. We generate three complex outbreak scenarios by
combining incidence curves from multiple epidemics that are independently
simulated via SEIR models with different sets of parameters. Using these
scenarios, we assess the robustness of a state-of-the-art Bayesian inference
method that estimates the epidemic trajectory from viral load surveillance
data. We evaluate two data-generating models within this Bayesian inference
framework: a simple exponential growth model and a highly flexible Gaussian
process prior model. Our results show that both models generate accurate
transmission rate estimates for the combined incidence curve at the cost of
generating biased estimates for each underlying epidemic, reflecting highly
heterogeneous underlying population dynamics. The exponential growth model,
while interpretable, is unable to capture the complexity of the underlying
epidemics. With sufficient surveillance data, the Gaussian process prior model
captures the shape of complex trajectories, but is imprecise for periods of low
data coverage. Thus, our results highlight the potential pitfalls of neglecting
complexity and heterogeneity in the data generation process, which can mask
underlying location- and population-specific epidemic dynamics.
