Search

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, countries have sought to control SARS-CoV-2 transmission by restricting population movement through social distancing interventions, thus reducing the number of contacts. Mobility data represent an important proxy measure of social distancing, and here, we characterise the relationship between transmission and mobility for 52 countries around the world. Transmission significantly decreased with the initial reduction in mobility in 73% of the countries analysed, but we found evidence of decoupling of transmission and mobility following the relaxation of strict control measures for 80% of countries. For the majority of countries, mobility explained a substantial proportion of the variation in transmissibility (median adjusted R-squared: 48%, interquartile range - IQR - across countries [27–77%]). Where a change in the relationship occurred, predictive ability decreased after the relaxation; from a median adjusted R-squared of 74% (IQR across countries [49–91%]) pre-relaxation, to a median adjusted R-squared of 30% (IQR across countries [12–48%]) post-relaxation. In countries with a clear relationship between mobility and transmission both before and after strict control measures were relaxed, mobility was associated with lower transmission rates after control measures were relaxed indicating that the beneficial effects of ongoing social distancing behaviours were substantial., Social distancing policies aiming to reduce COVID-19 transmission have been reflected in reductions in human mobility. Here, the authors show that reduced mobility is correlated with decreased transmission, but that this relationship weakened over time as social distancing measures were relaxed.

Background: The COVID-19 epidemic was declared a Global Pandemic by WHO on 11 March 2020. By 24 March 2020, over 440,000 cases and almost 20,000 deaths had been reported worldwide. In response to the fast-growing epidemic, which began in the Chinese city of Wuhan, Hubei, China imposed strict social distancing in Wuhan on 23 January 2020 followed closely by similar measures in other provinces. These interventions have impacted economic productivity in China, and the ability of the Chinese economy to resume without restarting the epidemic was not clear. Methods: Using daily reported cases from mainland China and Hong Kong SAR, we estimated transmissibility over time and compared it to daily within-city movement, as a proxy for economic activity. Results: Initially, within-city movement and transmission were very strongly correlated in the five mainland provinces most affected by the epidemic and Beijing. However, that correlation decreased rapidly after the initial sharp fall in transmissibility. In general, towards the end of the study period, the correlation was no longer apparent, despite substantial increases in within-city movement. A similar analysis for Hong Kong shows that intermediate levels of local activity were maintained while avoiding a large outbreak. At the very end of the study period, when China began to experience the re-introduction of a small number of cases from Europe and the United States, there is an apparent up-tick in transmission. Conclusions: Although these results do not preclude future substantial increases in incidence, they suggest that after very intense social distancing (which resulted in containment), China successfully exited its lockdown to some degree. Elsewhere, movement data are being used as proxies for economic activity to assess the impact of interventions. The results presented here illustrate how the eventual decorrelation between transmission and movement is likely a key feature of successful COVID-19 exit strategies.

Highlights • COVID-19 measures were applied at similar dates across provinces in China • Hubei showed much greater disease severity compared to other provinces • Provincial data on epidemics and interventions are available for further research, Objectives This data collation effort aims to provide a comprehensive database to describe the epidemic trends and responses during the first wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) across main provinces in China. Methods From mid-January to March 2020, we extracted publicly available data on the spread and control of COVID-19 from 31 provincial health authorities and major media outlets in mainland China. Based on these data, we conducted a descriptive analysis of the epidemics in the six most-affected provinces. Results School closures, travel restrictions, community-level lockdown, and contact tracing were introduced concurrently around late January but subsequent epidemic trends were different across provinces. Compared to Hubei, the other five most-affected provinces reported a lower crude case fatality ratio and proportion of critical and severe hospitalised cases. From March 2020, as local transmission of COVID-19 declined, switching the focus of measures to testing and quarantine of inbound travellers could help to sustain the control of the epidemic. Conclusions Aggregated indicators of case notifications and severity distributions are essential for monitoring an epidemic. A publicly available database with these indicators and information on control measures provides a useful source for exploring further research and policy planning for response to the COVID-19 epidemic.

Background: The COVID-19 epidemic was declared a Global Pandemic by WHO on 11 March 2020. By 24 March 2020, over 440,000 cases and almost 20,000 deaths had been reported worldwide. In response to the fast-growing epidemic, which began in the Chinese city of Wuhan, Hubei, China imposed strict social distancing in Wuhan on 23 January 2020 followed closely by similar measures in other provinces. These interventions have impacted economic productivity in China, and the ability of the Chinese economy to resume without restarting the epidemic was not clear. Methods: Using daily reported cases from mainland China and Hong Kong SAR, we estimated transmissibility over time and compared it to daily within-city movement, as a proxy for economic activity. Results: Initially, within-city movement and transmission were very strongly correlated in the five mainland provinces most affected by the epidemic and Beijing. However, that correlation decreased rapidly after the initial sharp fall in transmissibility. In general, towards the end of the study period, the correlation was no longer apparent, despite substantial increases in within-city movement. A similar analysis for Hong Kong shows that intermediate levels of local activity were maintained while avoiding a large outbreak. At the very end of the study period, when China began to experience the re-introduction of a small number of cases from Europe and the United States, there is an apparent up-tick in transmission. Conclusions: Although these results do not preclude future substantial increases in incidence, they suggest that after very intense social distancing (which resulted in containment), China successfully exited its lockdown to some degree. Elsewhere, movement data are being used as proxies for economic activity to assess the impact of interventions. The results presented here illustrate how the eventual decorrelation between transmission and movement is likely a key feature of successful COVID-19 exit strategies.

Background After experiencing a sharp growth in COVID-19 cases early in the pandemic, South Korea rapidly controlled transmission while implementing less stringent national social distancing measures than countries in Europe and the USA. This has led to substantial interest in their “test, trace, isolate” strategy. However, it is important to understand the epidemiological peculiarities of South Korea’s outbreak and characterise their response before attempting to emulate these measures elsewhere. Methods We systematically extracted numbers of suspected cases tested, PCR-confirmed cases, deaths, isolated confirmed cases, and numbers of confirmed cases with an identified epidemiological link from publicly available data. We estimated the time-varying reproduction number, Rt, using an established Bayesian framework, and reviewed the package of interventions implemented by South Korea using our extracted data, plus published literature and government sources. Results We estimated that after the initial rapid growth in cases, Rt dropped below one in early April before increasing to a maximum of 1.94 (95%CrI, 1.64–2.27) in May following outbreaks in Seoul Metropolitan Region. By mid-June, Rt was back below one where it remained until the end of our study (July 13th). Despite less stringent “lockdown” measures, strong social distancing measures were implemented in high-incidence areas and studies measured a considerable national decrease in movement in late February. Testing the capacity was swiftly increased, and protocols were in place to isolate suspected and confirmed cases quickly; however, we could not estimate the delay to isolation using our data. Accounting for just 10% of cases, individual case-based contact tracing picked up a relatively minor proportion of total cases, with cluster investigations accounting for 66%. Conclusions Whilst early adoption of testing and contact tracing is likely to be important for South Korea’s successful outbreak control, other factors including regional implementation of strong social distancing measures likely also contributed. The high volume of testing and the low number of deaths suggest that South Korea experienced a small epidemic relative to other countries. Caution is needed in attempting to replicate the South Korean response in populations with larger more geographically widespread epidemics where finding, testing, and isolating cases that are linked to clusters may be more difficult.

Highlight We estimated SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence in cohorts of repatriated citizens from Wuhan to be 0.44% (95% CI: 0.19%–1.03%). Although not representative of the wider population we believe these estimates are helpful in providing a conservative estimate of infection prevalence in Wuhan City, China, in the absence of large-scale population testing early in the epidemic.

Summary Background WHO has called for increased testing in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but countries have taken different approaches and the effectiveness of alternative strategies is unknown. We aimed to investigate the potential impact of different testing and isolation strategies on transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Methods We developed a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission based on infectiousness and PCR test sensitivity over time since infection. We estimated the reduction in the effective reproduction number (R) achieved by testing and isolating symptomatic individuals, regular screening of high-risk groups irrespective of symptoms, and quarantine of contacts of laboratory-confirmed cases identified through test-and-trace protocols. The expected effectiveness of different testing strategies was defined as the percentage reduction in R. We reviewed data on the performance of antibody tests reported by the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and examined their implications for the use of so-called immunity passports. Findings If all individuals with symptoms compatible with COVID-19 self-isolated and self-isolation was 100% effective in reducing onwards transmission, self-isolation of symptomatic individuals would result in a reduction in R of 47% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 32–55). PCR testing to identify SARS-CoV-2 infection soon after symptom onset could reduce the number of individuals needing to self-isolate, but would also reduce the effectiveness of self-isolation (around 10% would be false negatives). Weekly screening of health-care workers and other high-risk groups irrespective of symptoms by use of PCR testing is estimated to reduce their contribution to SARS-CoV-2 transmission by 23% (95% UI 16–40), on top of reductions achieved by self-isolation following symptoms, assuming results are available at 24 h. The effectiveness of test and trace depends strongly on coverage and the timeliness of contact tracing, potentially reducing R by 26% (95% UI 14–35) on top of reductions achieved by self-isolation following symptoms, if 80% of cases and contacts are identified and there is immediate testing following symptom onset and quarantine of contacts within 24 h. Among currently available antibody tests, performance has been highly variable, with specificity around 90% or lower for rapid diagnostic tests and 95–99% for laboratory-based ELISA and chemiluminescent assays. Interpretation Molecular testing can play an important role in prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, especially among health-care workers and other high-risk groups, but no single strategy will reduce R below 1 at current levels of population immunity. Immunity passports based on antibody tests or tests for infection face substantial technical, legal, and ethical challenges. Funding UK Medical Research Council.

Summary Background The ability to accurately predict early progression of dengue to severe disease is crucial for patient triage and clinical management. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have found significant heterogeneity in predictors of severe disease due to large variation in these factors during the time course of the illness. We aimed to identify factors associated with progression to severe dengue disease that are detectable specifically in the febrile phase. Methods We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify predictors identifiable during the febrile phase associated with progression to severe disease defined according to WHO criteria. Eight medical databases were searched for studies published from Jan 1, 1997, to Jan 31, 2020. Original clinical studies in English assessing the association of factors detected during the febrile phase with progression to severe dengue were selected and assessed by three reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Meta-analyses were done using random-effects models to estimate pooled effect sizes. Only predictors reported in at least four studies were included in the meta-analyses. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochrane Q and I2 statistics, and publication bias was assessed by Egger's test. We did subgroup analyses of studies with children and adults. The study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018093363. Findings Of 6643 studies identified, 150 articles were included in the systematic review, and 122 articles comprising 25 potential predictors were included in the meta-analyses. Female patients had a higher risk of severe dengue than male patients in the main analysis (2674 [16·2%] of 16 481 vs 3052 [10·5%] of 29 142; odds ratio [OR] 1·13 [95% CI 1·01–1·26) but not in the subgroup analysis of studies with children. Pre-existing comorbidities associated with severe disease were diabetes (135 [31·3%] of 431 with vs 868 [16·0%] of 5421 without; crude OR 4·38 [2·58–7·43]), hypertension (240 [35·0%] of 685 vs 763 [20·6%] of 3695; 2·19 [1·36–3·53]), renal disease (44 [45·8%] of 96 vs 271 [16·0%] of 1690; 4·67 [2·21–9·88]), and cardiovascular disease (nine [23·1%] of 39 vs 155 [8·6%] of 1793; 2·79 [1·04–7·50]). Clinical features during the febrile phase associated with progression to severe disease were vomiting (329 [13·5%] of 2432 with vs 258 [6·8%] of 3797 without; 2·25 [1·87–2·71]), abdominal pain and tenderness (321 [17·7%] of 1814 vs 435 [8·1%] of 5357; 1·92 [1·35–2·74]), spontaneous or mucosal bleeding (147 [17·9%] of 822 vs 676 [10·8%] of 6235; 1·57 [1·13–2·19]), and the presence of clinical fluid accumulation (40 [42·1%] of 95 vs 212 [14·9%] of 1425; 4·61 [2·29–9·26]). During the first 4 days of illness, platelet count was lower (standardised mean difference −0·34 [95% CI −0·54 to −0·15]), serum albumin was lower (−0·5 [–0·86 to −0·15]), and aminotransferase concentrations were higher (aspartate aminotransferase [AST] 1·06 [0·54 to 1·57] and alanine aminotransferase [ALT] 0·73 [0·36 to 1·09]) among individuals who progressed to severe disease. Dengue virus serotype 2 was associated with severe disease in children. Secondary infections (vs primary infections) were also associated with severe disease (1682 [11·8%] of 14 252 with vs 507 [5·2%] of 9660 without; OR 2·26 [95% CI 1·65–3·09]). Although the included studies had a moderate to high risk of bias in terms of study confounding, the risk of bias was low to moderate in other domains. Heterogeneity of the pooled results varied from low to high on different factors. Interpretation This analysis supports monitoring of the warning signs described in the 2009 WHO guidelines on dengue. In addition, testing for infecting serotype and monitoring platelet count and serum albumin, AST, and ALT concentrations during the febrile phase of illness could improve the early prediction of severe dengue. Funding Wellcome Trust, National Institute for Health Research, Collaborative Project to Increase Production of Rural Doctors, and Royal Thai Government.

On 21 February 2020, a resident of the municipality of Vo', a small town near Padua (Italy), died of pneumonia due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection1. This was the first coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19)-related death detected in Italy since the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in the Chinese city of Wuhan, Hubei province2. In response, the regional authorities imposed the lockdown of the whole municipality for 14 days3. Here we collected information on the demography, clinical presentation, hospitalization, contact network and the presence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in nasopharyngeal swabs for 85.9% and 71.5% of the population of Vo' at two consecutive time points. From the first survey, which was conducted around the time the town lockdown started, we found a prevalence of infection of 2.6% (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.1-3.3%). From the second survey, which was conducted at the end of the lockdown, we found a prevalence of 1.2% (95% CI: 0.8-1.8%). Notably, 42.5% (95% CI: 31.5-54.6%) of the confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections detected across the two surveys were asymptomatic (that is, did not have symptoms at the time of swab testing and did not develop symptoms afterwards). The mean serial interval was 7.2 days (95% CI: 5.9-9.6). We found no statistically significant difference in the viral load of symptomatic versus asymptomatic infections (P = 0.62 and 0.74 for E and RdRp genes, respectively, exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test). This study sheds light on the frequency of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, their infectivity (as measured by the viral load) and provides insights into its transmission dynamics and the efficacy of the implemented control measures.

Background: In the face of rapidly changing data, a range of case fatality ratio estimates for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been produced that differ substantially in magnitude. We aimed to provide robust estimates, accounting for censoring and ascertainment biases. Methods: We collected individual-case data for patients who died from COVID-19 in Hubei, mainland China (reported by national and provincial health commissions to Feb 8, 2020), and for cases outside of mainland China (from government or ministry of health websites and media reports for 37 countries, as well as Hong Kong and Macau, until Feb 25, 2020). These individual-case data were used to estimate the time between onset of symptoms and outcome (death or discharge from hospital). We next obtained age-stratified estimates of the case fatality ratio by relating the aggregate distribution of cases to the observed cumulative deaths in China, assuming a constant attack rate by age and adjusting for demography and age-based and location-based under-ascertainment. We also estimated the case fatality ratio from individual line-list data on 1334 cases identified outside of mainland China. Using data on the prevalence of PCR-confirmed cases in international residents repatriated from China, we obtained age-stratified estimates of the infection fatality ratio. Furthermore, data on age-stratified severity in a subset of 3665 cases from China were used to estimate the proportion of infected individuals who are likely to require hospitalisation. Findings: Using data on 24 deaths that occurred in mainland China and 165 recoveries outside of China, we estimated the mean duration from onset of symptoms to death to be 17·8 days (95% credible interval [CrI] 16·9–19·2) and to hospital discharge to be 24·7 days (22·9–28·1). In all laboratory confirmed and clinically diagnosed cases from mainland China (n=70 117), we estimated a crude case fatality ratio (adjusted for censoring) of 3·67% (95% CrI 3·56–3·80). However, after further adjusting for demography and under-ascertainment, we obtained a best estimate of the case fatality ratio in China of 1·38% (1·23–1·53), with substantially higher ratios in older age groups (0·32% [0·27–0·38] in those aged Interpretation: These early estimates give an indication of the fatality ratio across the spectrum of COVID-19 disease and show a strong age gradient in risk of death.

Summary Italy was the first European country to experience sustained local transmission of COVID-19. As of 1st May 2020, the Italian health authorities reported 28,238 deaths nationally. To control the epidemic, the Italian government implemented a suite of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), including school and university closures, social distancing and full lockdown involving banning of public gatherings and non essential movement. In this report, we model the effect of NPIs on transmission using data on average mobility. We estimate that the average reproduction number (a measure of transmission intensity) is currently below one for all Italian regions, and significantly so for the majority of the regions. Despite the large number of deaths, the proportion of population that has been infected by SARS-CoV-2 (the attack rate) is far from the herd immunity threshold in all Italian regions, with the highest attack rate observed in Lombardy (13.18% [10.66%-16.70%]). Italy is set to relax the currently implemented NPIs from 4th May 2020. Given the control achieved by NPIs, we consider three scenarios for the next 8 weeks: a scenario in which mobility remains the same as during the lockdown, a scenario in which mobility returns to pre-lockdown levels by 20%, and a scenario in which mobility returns to pre-lockdown levels by 40%. The scenarios explored assume that mobility is scaled evenly across all dimensions, that behaviour stays the same as before NPIs were implemented, that no pharmaceutical interventions are introduced, and it does not include transmission reduction from contact tracing, testing and the isolation of confirmed or suspected cases. New interventions, such as enhanced testing and contact tracing are going to be introduced and will likely contribute to reductions in transmission; therefore our estimates should be viewed as pessimistic projections. We find that, in the absence of additional interventions, even a 20% return to pre-lockdown mobility could lead to a resurgence in the number of deaths far greater than experienced in the current wave in several regions. Future increases in the number of deaths will lag behind the increase in transmission intensity and so a second wave will not be immediately apparent from just monitoring of the daily number of deaths. Our results suggest that SARS-CoV-2 transmission as well as mobility should be closely monitored in the next weeks and months. To compensate for the increase in mobility that will occur due to the relaxation of the currently implemented NPIs, adherence to the recommended social distancing measures alongside enhanced community surveillance including swab testing, contact tracing and the early isolation of infections are of paramount importance to reduce the risk of resurgence in transmission. SUGGESTED CITATION Michaela A. C. Vollmer, Swapnil Mishra, H Juliette T Unwin, Axel Gandy et al. Using mobility to estimate the transmission intensity of COVID-19 in Italy: a subnational analysis with future scenarios. Imperial College London (2020) doi:https://doi.org/10.25561/78677 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Background: The COVID-19 epidemic was declared a Global Pandemic by WHO on 11 March 2020. By 24 March 2020, over 440,000 cases and almost 20,000 deaths had been reported worldwide. In response to the fast-growing epidemic, which began in the Chinese city of Wuhan, Hubei, China imposed strict social distancing in Wuhan on 23 January 2020 followed closely by similar measures in other provinces. These interventions have impacted economic productivity in China, and the ability of the Chinese economy to resume without restarting the epidemic was not clear. Methods: Using daily reported cases from mainland China and Hong Kong SAR, we estimated transmissibility over time and compared it to daily within-city movement, as a proxy for economic activity. Results: Initially, within-city movement and transmission were very strongly correlated in the five mainland provinces most affected by the epidemic and Beijing. However, that correlation decreased rapidly after the initial sharp fall in transmissibility. In general, towards the end of the study period, the correlation was no longer apparent, despite substantial increases in within-city movement. A similar analysis for Hong Kong shows that intermediate levels of local activity were maintained while avoiding a large outbreak. At the very end of the study period, when China began to experience the re-introduction of a small number of cases from Europe and the United States, there is an apparent up-tick in transmission. Conclusions: Although these results do not preclude future substantial increases in incidence, they suggest that after very intense social distancing (which resulted in containment), China successfully exited its lockdown to some degree. Elsewhere, movement data are being used as proxies for economic activity to assess the impact of interventions. The results presented here illustrate how the eventual decorrelation between transmission and movement is likely a key feature of successful COVID-19 exit strategies.

SummaryBackgroundA range of case fatality ratio (CFR) estimates for COVID-19 have been produced that differ substantially in magnitude.MethodsWe used individual-case data from mainland China and cases detected outside mainland China to estimate the time between onset of symptoms and outcome (death or discharge from hospital). We next obtained age-stratified estimates of the CFR by relating the aggregate distribution of cases by dates of onset to the observed cumulative deaths in China, assuming a constant attack rate by age and adjusting for the demography of the population, and age- and location-based under-ascertainment. We additionally estimated the CFR from individual line-list data on 1,334 cases identified outside mainland China. We used data on the PCR prevalence in international residents repatriated from China at the end of January 2020 to obtain age-stratified estimates of the infection fatality ratio (IFR). Using data on age-stratified severity in a subset of 3,665 cases from China, we estimated the proportion of infections that will likely require hospitalisation.FindingsWe estimate the mean duration from onset-of-symptoms to death to be 17.8 days (95% credible interval, crI 16.9–19.2 days) and from onset-of-symptoms to hospital discharge to be 22.6 days (95% crI 21.1-24.4 days). We estimate a crude CFR of 3.67% (95% crI 3.56%-3.80%) in cases from mainland China. Adjusting for demography and under-ascertainment of milder cases in Wuhan relative to the rest of China, we obtain a best estimate of the CFR in China of 1.38% (95% crI 1.23%-1.53%) with substantially higher values in older ages. Our estimate of the CFR from international cases stratified by age (under 60 / 60 and above) are consistent with these estimates from China. We obtain an overall IFR estimate for China of 0.66% (0.39%-1.33%), again with an increasing profile with age.InterpretationThese early estimates give an indication of the fatality ratio across the spectrum of COVID-19 disease and demonstrate a strong age-gradient in risk.

Background/Objectives There have been no studies examining the efficacy of meal replacement (MR) on weight loss and metabolic syndrome (MS) improvement in Southeast Asians. Thus, we undertook a 12-week randomised trial to evaluate the effect of a lifestyle education intervention alone (LEI) or with partial MR (LEI + MR) in obese Thai adults with MS. Subjects/Methods A total of 110 patients were randomised to receive either LEI or LEI + MR. Both groups received LEI to achieve weight loss. LEI + MR group additionally received two MR daily to replace either breakfast, lunch or dinner. Mean ± SE body mass index of all participants was 34.6 ± 0.6 kg/m2, mean ± SE age was 42.5 ± 1.1 years and 83% of patients were female. Both groups were compared for anthropometric and cardiometabolic indices at 12-week. Body weight was also compared at weeks 38 and 64. Results At 12 weeks, both groups exhibited statistically significant percentage weight loss (%WL) compared to initial weight but greater %WL was observed in LEI + MR compared to LEI, 2.9% vs. 1.5%, respectively (p p 1c, fasting insulin and HOMA-IR in LEI + MR were significantly lower than with LEI. At the end of the 12-week intervention period, 16% of participants no longer fulfilled MS criteria. A statistically significant weight loss from baseline persisted until 38 weeks but no longer reached statistically significant difference between groups Conclusions LEI and LEI + MR were acceptable and led to improvement in weight and MS. LEI + MR group exhibited additional weight reduction and glycemic benefits at 12 weeks.