Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)

Cruise ships provide an ideal setting for transmission of SARS-CoV-2, given the socially dense exposure environment.

To provide a comprehensive review of COVID-19 outbreaks on cruise ships.

PubMed was searched for COVID-19 cases associated with cruise ships between January and October 2020. A list of cruise ships with COVID-19 was cross-referenced with the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s list of cruise ships associated with a COVID-19 case within 14 days of disembarkation. News articles were also searched for epidemiological information. Narratives of COVID-19 outbreaks on ships with over 100 cases are presented.

Seventy-nine ships and 104 unique voyages were associated with COVID-19 cases before 1 October 2020. Nineteen ships had more than one voyage with a case of COVID-19. The median number of cases per ship was three (interquartile range (IQR): 1–17.8), with two notable outliers: the Diamond Princess and the Ruby Princess, which had 712 and 907 cases, respectively. The median attack rate for COVID-19 was 0.2% (IQR: 0.03–1.5), although this distribution was right-skewed with a mean attack rate of 3.7%; 25.9% (27/104) of voyages had at least one COVID-19-associated death. Outbreaks involving only crew occurred later than outbreaks involving guests and crew.

In the absence of mitigation measures, COVID-19 can spread easily on cruise ships in a susceptible population because of the confined space and high-density contact networks. This environment can create superspreader events and facilitate international spread.

Serosurveys for SARS-CoV-2 aim to estimate the proportion of the population that has been infected.

This observational study assesses the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Ontario, Canada during the first pandemic wave.

Using an orthogonal approach, we tested 8,902 residual specimens from the Public Health Ontario laboratory over three time periods during March–June 2020 and stratified results by age group, sex and region. We adjusted for antibody test sensitivity/specificity and compared with reported PCR-confirmed COVID-19 cases.

Adjusted seroprevalence was 0.5% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.1–1.5) from 27 March–30 April, 1.5% (95% CI: 0.7–2.2) from 26–31 May, and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.8–1.3) from 5–30 June 2020. Adjusted estimates were highest in individuals aged ≥ 60 years in March–April (1.3%; 95% CI: 0.2–4.6), in those aged 20–59 years in May (2.1%; 95% CI: 0.8–3.4) and in those aged ≥ 60 years in June (1.6%; 95% CI: 1.1–2.1). Regional seroprevalence varied, and was highest for Toronto in March–April (0.9%; 95% CI: 0.1–3.1), for Toronto in May (3.2%; 95% CI: 1.0–5.3) and for Toronto (1.5%; 95% CI: 0.9–2.1) and Central East in June (1.5%; 95% CI: 1.0–2.0). We estimate that COVID-19 cases detected by PCR in Ontario underestimated SARS-CoV-2 infections by a factor of 4.9.

Our results indicate low population seroprevalence in Ontario, suggesting that public health measures were effective at limiting the spread of SARS-CoV-2 during the first pandemic wave.

The SARS-CoV-2 lineages carrying the amino acid change D614G have become the dominant variants in the global COVID-19 pandemic. By June 2021, all the emerging variants of concern carried the D614G mutation. The rapid spread of the G614 mutant suggests that it may have a transmission advantage over the D614 wildtype.

Our objective was to estimate the transmission advantage of D614G by integrating phylogenetic and epidemiological analysis.

We assume that the mutation D614G was the only site of interest which characterised the two cocirculating virus strains by June 2020, but their differential transmissibility might be attributable to a combination of D614G and other mutations. We define the fitness of G614 as the ratio of the basic reproduction number of the strain with G614 to the strain with D614 and applied an epidemiological framework for fitness inference to analyse SARS-CoV-2 surveillance and sequence data.

Using this framework, we estimated that the G614 mutant is 31% (95% credible interval: 28–34) more transmissible than the D614 wildtype. Therefore, interventions that were previously effective in containing or mitigating the D614 wildtype (e.g. in China, Vietnam and Thailand) may be less effective against the G614 mutant.

Our framework can be readily integrated into current SARS-CoV-2 surveillance to monitor the emergence and fitness of mutant strains such that pandemic surveillance, disease control and development of treatment and vaccines can be adjusted dynamically.

COVID-19-related mortality in Belgium has drawn attention for two reasons: its high level, and a good completeness in reporting of deaths. An ad hoc surveillance was established to register COVID-19 death numbers in hospitals, long-term care facilities (LTCF) and the community. Belgium adopted broad inclusion criteria for the COVID-19 death notifications, also including possible cases, resulting in a robust correlation between COVID-19 and all-cause mortality.

To document and assess the COVID-19 mortality surveillance in Belgium.

We described the content and data flows of the registration and we assessed the situation as of 21 June 2020, 103 days after the first death attributable to COVID-19 in Belgium. We calculated the participation rate, the notification delay, the percentage of error detected, and the results of additional investigations.

The participation rate was 100% for hospitals and 83% for nursing homes. Of all deaths, 85% were recorded within 2 calendar days: 11% within the same day, 41% after 1 day and 33% after 2 days, with a quicker notification in hospitals than in LTCF. Corrections of detected errors reduced the death toll by 5%.

Belgium implemented a rather complete surveillance of COVID-19 mortality, on account of a rapid investment of the hospitals and LTCF. LTCF could build on past experience of previous surveys and surveillance activities. The adoption of an extended definition of ‘COVID-19-related deaths’ in a context of limited testing capacity has provided timely information about the severity of the epidemic.

Many countries implemented national lockdowns to contain the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 and avoid overburdening healthcare capacity.

We aimed to quantify how the French lockdown impacted population mixing, contact patterns and behaviours.

We conducted an online survey using convenience sampling and collected information from participants aged 18 years and older between 10 April and 28 April 2020.

Among the 42,036 survey participants, 72% normally worked outside their home, and of these, 68% changed to telework during lockdown and 17% reported being unemployed during lockdown. A decrease in public transport use was reported from 37% to 2%. Participants reported increased frequency of hand washing and changes in greeting behaviour. Wearing masks in public was generally limited. A total of 138,934 contacts were reported, with an average of 3.3 contacts per individual per day; 1.7 in the participants aged 65 years and older compared with 3.6 for younger age groups. This represented a 70% reduction compared with previous surveys, consistent with SARS-CoV2 transmission reduction measured during the lockdown. For those who maintained a professional activity outside home, the frequency of contacts at work dropped by 79%.

The lockdown affected the population's behaviour, work, risk perception and contact patterns. The frequency and heterogeneity of contacts, both of which are critical factors in determining how viruses spread, were affected. Such surveys are essential to evaluate the impact of lockdowns more accurately and anticipate epidemic dynamics in these conditions.

Reliable testing for SARS-CoV-2 is key for the management of the COVID-19 pandemic.

We estimate diagnostic accuracy for nucleic acid and antibody tests 5 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, and compare with manufacturer-reported accuracy.

We reviewed the clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid and antibody tests based on 93,757 test results from 151 published studies and 20,205 new test results from 12 countries in the European Union and European Economic Area (EU/EEA).

Pooling the results and considering only results with 95% confidence interval width ≤ 5%, we found four nucleic acid tests, including one point-of-care test and three antibody tests, with a clinical sensitivity ≥ 95% for at least one target population (hospitalised, mild or asymptomatic, or unknown). Nine nucleic acid tests and 25 antibody tests, 12 of them point-of-care tests, had a clinical specificity of ≥ 98%. Three antibody tests achieved both thresholds. Evidence for nucleic acid point-of-care tests remains scarce at present, and sensitivity varied substantially. Study heterogeneity was low for eight of 14 sensitivity and 68 of 84 specificity results with confidence interval width ≤ 5%, and lower for nucleic acid tests than antibody tests. Manufacturer-reported clinical performance was significantly higher than independently assessed in 11 of 32 and four of 34 cases, respectively, for sensitivity and specificity, indicating a need for improvement in this area.

Continuous monitoring of clinical performance within more clearly defined target populations is needed.

The detection of SARS-CoV-2 with rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) has become an important tool to identify infected people and break infection chains. These RDT are usually based on antigen detection in a lateral flow approach.

We aimed to establish a comprehensive specimen panel for the decentralised technical evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests.

While for PCR diagnostics the validation of a PCR assay is well established, there is no common validation strategy for antigen tests, including RDT. In this proof-of-principle study we present the establishment of a panel of 50 pooled clinical specimens that cover a SARS-CoV-2 concentration range from 1.1 × 10⁹ to 420 genome copies per mL of specimen. The panel was used to evaluate 31 RDT in up to six laboratories.

Our results show that there is considerable variation in the detection limits and the clinical sensitivity of different RDT. We show that the best RDT can be applied to reliably identify infectious individuals who present with SARS-CoV-2 loads down to 10⁶ genome copies per mL of specimen. For the identification of infected individuals with SARS-CoV-2 loads corresponding to less than 10⁶ genome copies per mL, only three RDT showed a clinical sensitivity of more than 60%.

Sensitive RDT can be applied to identify infectious individuals with high viral loads but not to identify all infected individuals.

Detailed information on symptom duration and temporal course of patients with mild COVID-19 was scarce at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

We aimed to determine the longitudinal course of clinical symptoms in non-hospitalised COVID-19 patients in Berlin, Germany.

Between March and May 2020, 102 confirmed COVID-19 cases in home isolation notified in Berlin, Germany, were sampled using total population sampling. Data on 25 symptoms were collected during telephone consultations (a maximum of four consultations) with each patient. We collected information on prevalence and duration of symptoms for each day of the first 2 weeks after symptom onset and for day 30 and 60 after symptom onset.

Median age was 35 years (range 18–74), 57% (58/102) were female, and 37% (38/102) reported having comorbidities. During the first 2 weeks, most common symptoms were malaise (94%, 92/98), headache (71%, 70/98), and rhinitis (69%, 68/98). Malaise was present for a median of 11 days (IQR 7–14 days) with 35% (34/98) of cases still reporting malaise on day 14. Headache and muscle pain mostly occurred during the first week, whereas dysosmia and dysgeusia mostly occurred during the second week. Symptoms persisted in 41% (39/95) and 20% (18/88) of patients on day 30 and 60, respectively.

Our study shows that a significant proportion of non-hospitalised COVID-19 cases endured symptoms for at least 2 months. Further research is needed to assess the frequency of long-term adverse health effects in non-hospitalised COVID-19 patients.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, public perceptions and behaviours have had to adapt rapidly to new risk scenarios and radical behavioural restrictions.

To identify major drivers of acceptance of protective behaviours during the 4-week transition from virtually no COVID-19 cases to the nationwide lockdown in Germany (3–25 March 2020).

A serial cross-sectional online survey was administered weekly to ca 1,000 unique individuals for four data collection rounds in March 2020 using non-probability quota samples, representative of the German adult population between 18 and 74 years in terms of age × sex and federal state (n = 3,910). Acceptance of restrictions was regressed on sociodemographic variables, time and psychological variables, e.g. trust, risk perceptions, self-efficacy. Extraction of homogenous clusters was based on knowledge and behaviour.

Acceptance of restrictive policies increased with participants’ age and employment in the healthcare sector; cognitive and particularly affective risk perceptions were further significant predictors. Acceptance increased over time, as trust in institutions became more relevant and trust in media became less relevant. The cluster analysis further indicated that having a higher education increased the gap between knowledge and behaviour. Trust in institutions was related to conversion of knowledge into action.

Identifying relevant principles that increase acceptance will remain crucial to the development of strategies that help adjust behaviour to control the pandemic, possibly for years to come. Based on our findings, we provide operational recommendations for health authorities regarding data collection, health communication and outreach.

The occupational risk of COVID-19 may be different in the first versus second epidemic wave.

To study whether employees in occupations that typically entail close contact with others were at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related hospitalisation during the first and second epidemic wave before and after 18 July 2020, in Norway.

We included individuals in occupations working with patients, children, students, or customers using Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-08) codes. We compared residents (3,559,694 on 1 January 2020) in such occupations aged 20–70 years (mean: 44.1; standard deviation: 14.3 years; 51% men) to age-matched individuals in other professions using logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, birth country and marital status.

Nurses, physicians, dentists and physiotherapists had 2–3.5 times the odds of COVID-19 during the first wave when compared with others of working age. In the second wave, bartenders, waiters, food counter attendants, transport conductors, travel stewards, childcare workers, preschool and primary school teachers had ca 1.25–2 times the odds of infection. Bus, tram and taxi drivers had an increased odds of infection in both waves (odds ratio: 1.2–2.1). Occupation was of limited relevance for the odds of severe infection, here studied as hospitalisation with the disease.

Our findings from the entire Norwegian population may be of relevance to national and regional authorities in handling the epidemic. Also, we provide a knowledge foundation for more targeted future studies of lockdowns and disease control measures.

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.