Effectiveness of airport screening at detecting travellers infected with novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV).

We evaluated effectiveness of thermal passenger screening for 2019-nCoV infection at airport exit and entry to inform public health decision-making. In our baseline scenario, we estimated that 46% (95% confidence interval: 36 to 58) of infected travellers would not be detected, depending on incubation period, sensitivity of exit and entry screening, and proportion of asymptomatic cases. Airport screening is unlikely to detect a sufficient proportion of 2019-nCoV infected travellers to avoid entry of infected travellers

Comparing human and model-based forecasts of COVID-19 in Germany and Poland

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

Effectiveness of interventions targeting air travellers for delaying local outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated if interventions aimed at air travellers can delay local severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) community transmission in a previously unaffected country. METHODS: We simulated infected air travellers arriving into countries with no sustained SARS-CoV-2 transmission or other introduction routes from affected regions. We assessed the effectiveness of syndromic screening at departure and/or arrival and traveller sensitisation to the COVID-2019-like symptoms with the aim to trigger rapid self-isolation and reporting on symptom onset to enable contact tracing. We assumed that syndromic screening would reduce the number of infected arrivals and that traveller sensitisation reduces the average number of secondary cases. We use stochastic simulations to account for uncertainty in both arrival and secondary infections rates, and present sensitivity analyses on arrival rates of infected travellers and the effectiveness of traveller sensitisation. We report the median expected delay achievable in each scenario and an inner 50% interval. RESULTS: Under baseline assumptions, introducing exit and entry screening in combination with traveller sensitisation can delay a local SARS-CoV-2 outbreak by 8 days (50% interval: 3-14 days) when the rate of importation is 1 infected traveller per week at time of introduction. The additional benefit of entry screening is small if exit screening is effective: the combination of only exit screening and traveller sensitisation can delay an outbreak by 7 days (50% interval: 2-13 days). In the absence of screening, with less effective sensitisation, or a higher rate of importation, these delays shrink rapidly to <4 days. CONCLUSION: Syndromic screening and traveller sensitisation in combination may have marginally delayed SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in unaffected countries

Natural and hybrid immunity following four COVID-19 waves: A prospective cohort study of mothers in South Africa

BACKGROUND: More than half the global population has been exposed to SARS-CoV-2. Naturally induced immunity influences the outcome of subsequent exposure to variants and vaccine responses. We measured anti-spike IgG responses to explore the basis for this enhanced immunity. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of mothers in a South African community through ancestral/beta/delta/omicron SARS-CoV-2 waves (March 2020-February 2022). Health seeking behaviour/illness were recorded and post-wave serum samples probed for IgG to Spike (CoV2-S-IgG) by ECLISA. To estimate protective CoV2-S-IgG threshold levels, logistic functions were fit to describe the correlation of CoV2-S-IgG measured before a wave and the probability for seroconversion/boosting thereafter for unvaccinated and vaccinated adults. FINDINGS: Despite little disease, 176/339 (51·9%) participants were seropositive following wave 1, rising to 74%, 89·8% and 97·3% after waves 2, 3 and 4 respectively. CoV2-S-IgG induced by natural exposure protected against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection with the greatest protection for beta and least for omicron. Vaccination induced higher CoV2-S-IgG in seropositive compared to naïve vaccinees. Amongst seropositive participants, proportions above the 50% protection against infection threshold were 69% (95% CrI: 62, 72) following 1 vaccine dose, 63% (95% CrI: 63, 75) following 2 doses and only 11% (95% CrI: 7, 14) in unvaccinated during the omicron wave. INTERPRETATION: Naturally induced CoV2-S-IgG do not achieve high enough levels to prevent omicron infection in most exposed individuals but are substantially boosted by vaccination leading to significant protection. A single vaccination in those with prior immunity is more immunogenic than 2 doses in a naïve vaccinee and may provide adequate protection. FUNDING: UK NIH GECO award (GEC111), Wellcome Trust Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Africa (CIDRI), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, USA (OPP1017641, OPP1017579) and NIH H3 Africa (U54HG009824, U01AI110466]. HZ is supported by the SA-MRC. MPN is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant (APP1174455). BJQ is supported by a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1139859). Stefan Flasche is supported by a Sir Henry Dale Fellowship jointly funded by the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society (Grant number 208812/Z/17/Z)

Quarantine and testing strategies in contact tracing for SARS-CoV-2: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: In most countries, contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases are asked to quarantine for 14 days after exposure to limit asymptomatic onward transmission. While theoretically effective, this policy places a substantial social and economic burden on both the individual and wider society, which might result in low adherence and reduced policy effectiveness. We aimed to assess the merit of testing contacts to avert onward transmission and to replace or reduce the length of quarantine for uninfected contacts. METHODS: We used an agent-based model to simulate the viral load dynamics of exposed contacts, and their potential for onward transmission in different quarantine and testing strategies. We compared the performance of quarantines of differing durations, testing with either PCR or lateral flow antigen (LFA) tests at the end of quarantine, and daily LFA testing without quarantine, against the current 14-day quarantine strategy. We also investigated the effect of contact tracing delays and adherence to both quarantine and self-isolation on the effectiveness of each strategy. FINDINGS: Assuming moderate levels of adherence to quarantine and self-isolation, self-isolation on symptom onset alone can prevent 37% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 12-56) of onward transmission potential from secondary cases. 14 days of post-exposure quarantine reduces transmission by 59% (95% UI 28-79). Quarantine with release after a negative PCR test 7 days after exposure might avert a similar proportion (54%, 95% UI 31-81; risk ratio [RR] 0·94, 95% UI 0·62-1·24) to that of the 14-day quarantine period, as would quarantine with a negative LFA test 7 days after exposure (50%, 95% UI 28-77; RR 0·88, 0·66-1·11) or daily testing without quarantine for 5 days after tracing (50%, 95% UI 23-81; RR 0·88, 0·60-1·43) if all tests are returned negative. A stronger effect might be possible if individuals isolate more strictly after a positive test and if contacts can be notified faster. INTERPRETATION: Testing might allow for a substantial reduction in the length of, or replacement of, quarantine with a small excess in transmission risk. Decreasing test and trace delays and increasing adherence will further increase the effectiveness of these strategies. Further research is required to empirically evaluate the potential costs (increased transmission risk, false reassurance) and benefits (reduction in the burden of quarantine, increased adherence) of such strategies before adoption as policy. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust, EU Horizon 2021, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Changing travel patterns in China during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Understanding changes in human mobility in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic is crucial for assessing the impacts of travel restrictions designed to reduce disease spread. Here, relying on data from mainland China, we investigate the spatio-temporal characteristics of human mobility between 1st January and 1st March 2020, and discuss their public health implications. An outbound travel surge from Wuhan before travel restrictions were implemented was also observed across China due to the Lunar New Year, indicating that holiday travel may have played a larger role in mobility changes compared to impending travel restrictions. Holiday travel also shifted healthcare pressure related to COVID-19 towards locations with lower healthcare capacity. Network analyses showed no sign of major changes in the transportation network after Lunar New Year. Changes observed were temporary and did not lead to structural reorganisation of the transportation network during the study period

Comparing human and model-based forecasts of COVID-19 in Germany and Poland.

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

Public perceptions and interactions with UK COVID-19 Test, Trace and Isolate policies, and implications for pandemic infectious disease modelling.

BACKGROUND: The efforts to contain SARS-CoV-2 and reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic have been supported by Test, Trace and Isolate (TTI) systems in many settings, including the United Kingdom. Mathematical models of transmission and TTI interventions, used to inform design and policy choices, make assumptions about the public’s behaviour in the context of a rapidly unfolding and changeable emergency. This study investigates public perceptions and interactions with UK TTI policy in July 2021, assesses them against how TTI processes are conceptualised and represented in models, and then interprets the findings with modellers who have been contributing evidence to TTI policy. METHODS: 20 members of the public recruited via social media were interviewed for one hour about their perceptions and interactions with the UK TTI system. Thematic analysis identified key themes, which were then presented back to a workshop of pandemic infectious disease modellers who assessed these findings against assumptions made in TTI intervention modelling. Workshop members co-drafted this report. RESULTS: Themes included education about SARS-CoV-2, perceived risks, trust, mental health and practical concerns. Findings covered testing practices, including the uses of and trust in different types of testing, and the challenges of testing and isolating faced by different demographic groups. This information was judged as consequential to the modelling process, from guiding the selection of research questions, influencing choice of model structure, informing parameter ranges and validating or challenging assumptions, to highlighting where model assumptions are reasonable or where their poor reflection of practice might lead to uninformative results. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that deeper engagement with members of the public should be integrated at regular stages of public health intervention modelling

Public perceptions and interactions with UK COVID-19 Test, Trace and Isolate policies, and implications for pandemic infectious disease modelling

Background The efforts to contain SARS-CoV-2 and reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic have been supported by Test, Trace and Isolate (TTI) systems in many settings, including the United Kingdom. Mathematical models of transmission and TTI interventions, used to inform design and policy choices, make assumptions about the public’s behaviour in the context of a rapidly unfolding and changeable emergency. This study investigates public perceptions and interactions with UK TTI policy in July 2021, assesses them against how TTI processes are conceptualised and represented in models, and then interprets the findings with modellers who have been contributing evidence to TTI policy. Methods 20 members of the public recruited via social media were interviewed for one hour about their perceptions and interactions with the UK TTI system. Thematic analysis identified key themes, which were then presented back to a workshop of pandemic infectious disease modellers who assessed these findings against assumptions made in TTI intervention modelling. Workshop members co-drafted this report. Results Themes included education about SARS-CoV-2, perceived risks, trust, mental health and practical concerns. Findings covered testing practices, including the uses of and trust in different types of testing, and the challenges of testing and isolating faced by different demographic groups. This information was judged as consequential to the modelling process, from guiding the selection of research questions, influencing choice of model structure, informing parameter ranges and validating or challenging assumptions, to highlighting where model assumptions are reasonable or where their poor reflection of practice might lead to uninformative results. Conclusions We conclude that deeper engagement with members of the public should be integrated at regular stages of public health intervention modelling.</ns4:p