Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)

Many countries have implemented population-wide interventions to control COVID-19, with varying extent and success. Many jurisdictions have moved to relax measures, while others have intensified efforts to reduce transmission.

We aimed to determine the time frame between a population-level change in COVID-19 measures and its impact on the number of cases.

We examined how long it takes for there to be a substantial difference between the number of cases that occur following a change in COVID-19 physical distancing measures and those that would have occurred at baseline. We then examined how long it takes to observe this difference, given delays and noise in reported cases. We used a susceptible-exposed-infectious-removed (SEIR)-type model and publicly available data from British Columbia, Canada, collected between March and July 2020.

It takes 10 days or more before we expect a substantial difference in the number of cases following a change in COVID-19 control measures, but 20–26 days to detect the impact of the change in reported data. The time frames are longer for smaller changes in control measures and are impacted by testing and reporting processes, with delays reaching ≥ 30 days.

The time until a change in control measures has an observed impact is longer than the mean incubation period of COVID-19 and the commonly used 14-day time period. Policymakers and practitioners should consider this when assessing the impact of policy changes. Rapid, consistent and real-time COVID-19 surveillance is important to minimise these time frames.

To mitigate SARS-CoV-2 transmission risks from international air travellers, many countries implemented a combination of up to 14 days of self-quarantine upon arrival plus PCR testing in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

To assess the effectiveness of quarantine and testing of international travellers to reduce risk of onward SARS-CoV-2 transmission into a destination country in the pre-COVID-19 vaccination era.

We used a simulation model of air travellers arriving in the United Kingdom from the European Union or the United States, incorporating timing of infection stages while varying quarantine duration and timing and number of PCR tests.

Quarantine upon arrival with a PCR test on day 7 plus a 1-day delay for results can reduce the number of infectious arriving travellers released into the community by a median 94% (95% uncertainty interval (UI): 89–98) compared with a no quarantine/no test scenario. This reduction is similar to that achieved by a 14-day quarantine period (median > 99%; 95% UI: 98–100). Even shorter quarantine periods can prevent a substantial amount of transmission; all strategies in which travellers spend at least 5 days (mean incubation period) in quarantine and have at least one negative test before release are highly effective (median reduction 89%; 95% UI: 83–95)).

The effect of different screening strategies impacts asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals differently. The choice of an optimal quarantine and testing strategy for unvaccinated air travellers may vary based on the number of possible imported infections relative to domestic incidence.

School attendance during the COVID-19 pandemic is intensely debated.

In November 2020, we assessed SARS-CoV-2 infections and seroreactivity in 24 randomly selected school classes and connected households in Berlin, Germany.

We collected oro-nasopharyngeal swabs and blood samples, examining SARS-CoV-2 infection and IgG antibodies by RT-PCR and ELISA. Household members self-swabbed. We assessed individual and institutional prevention measures. Classes with SARS-CoV-2 infection and connected households were retested after 1 week.

We examined 1,119 participants, including 177 primary and 175 secondary school students, 142 staff and 625 household members. SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in eight classes, affecting each 1–2 individuals. Infection prevalence was 2.7% (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2–5.0; 9/338), 1.4% (95% CI: 0.2–5.1; 2/140), and 2.3% (95% CI: 1.3–3.8; 14/611) among students, staff and household members. Six of nine infected students were asymptomatic at testing. We detected IgG antibodies in 2.0% (95%CI: 0.8–4.1; 7/347), 1.4% (95% CI: 0.2–5.0; 2/141) and 1.4% (95% CI: 0.6–2.7; 8/576). Prevalence increased with inconsistent facemask-use in school, walking to school, and case-contacts outside school. For three of nine households with infection(s), origin in school seemed possible. After 1 week, no school-related secondary infections appeared in affected classes; the attack rate in connected households was 1.1%.

School attendance under rigorously implemented preventive measures seems reasonable. Balancing risks and benefits of school closures need to consider possible spill-over infection into households. Deeper insight is required into the infection risks due to being a schoolchild vs attending school.

Determinants of hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death are still unclear for COVID-19. Few studies have adjusted for confounding for different clinical outcomes including all reported cases within a country.

We used routine surveillance data from Portugal to identify risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes, and to support risk stratification, public health interventions, and planning of healthcare resources.

We conducted a retrospective cohort study including 20,293 laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 reported between 1 March and 28 April 2020 through the national epidemiological surveillance system. We calculated absolute risk, relative risk (RR) and adjusted relative risk (aRR) to identify demographic and clinical factors associated with hospitalisation, ICU admission and death using Poisson regressions.

Increasing age (≥ 60 years) was the major determinant for all outcomes. Age ≥ 90 years was the strongest determinant of hospital admission (aRR: 6.1), and 70–79 years for ICU (aRR: 10.4). Comorbidities of cardiovascular, immunodeficiency, kidney and lung disease (aRR: 4.3, 2.8, 2.4, 2.0, respectively) had stronger associations with ICU admission, while for death they were kidney, cardiovascular and chronic neurological disease (aRR: 2.9, 2.6, 2.0).

Older age was the strongest risk factor for all severe outcomes. These findings from the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic support risk-stratified public health measures that should prioritise protecting older people. Epidemiological scenarios and clinical guidelines should consider this, even though under-ascertainment should also be considered.