Search

We propose a method to estimate the household secondary attack rate (hSAR) of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom based on activity on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. Conventional methods of hSAR estimation are resource intensive, requiring regular contact tracing of COVID-19 cases. Our proposed framework provides a complementary method that does not rely on conventional contact tracing or laboratory involvement, including the collection, processing, and analysis of biological samples. We use a text classifier to identify reports of people tweeting about themselves and/or members of their household having COVID-19 infections. A probabilistic analysis is then performed to estimate the hSAR based on the number of self or household, and self and household tweets of COVID-19 infection. The analysis includes adjustments for a reluctance of Twitter users to tweet about household members, and the possibility that the secondary infection was not acquired within the household. Experimental results for the UK, both monthly and weekly, are reported for the period from January 2020 to February 2022. Our results agree with previously reported hSAR estimates, varying with the primary variants of concern, e.g. delta and omicron. The serial interval (SI) is based on the time between the two tweets that indicate a primary and secondary infection. Experimental results, though larger than the consensus, are qualitatively similar. The estimation of hSAR and SI using social media data constitutes a new tool that may help in characterizing, forecasting and managing outbreaks and pandemics in a faster, affordable, and more efficient manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives COVID-19 mitigations have had a profound impact on workplaces, however, multisectoral comparisons of how work-related mitigations were applied are limited. This study aimed to investigate (i) occupational differences in the usage of key work-related mitigations over time and (ii) workers' perceptions of these mitigations. Methods Employed/self-employed Virus Watch study participants (N=6279) responded to a mitigation-related online survey covering the periods of December 2020-February 2022. Logistic regression was used to investigate occupation- and time-related differences in the usage of work-related mitigation methods. Participants' perceptions of mitigation methods were investigated descriptively using proportions. Results Usage of work-related mitigation methods differed between occupations and over time, likely reflecting variation in job roles, workplace environments, legislation and guidance. Healthcare workers had the highest predicted probabilities for several mitigations, including reporting frequent hand hygiene [predicted probability across all survey periods 0.61 (95% CI 0.56-0.66)] and always wearing face coverings [predicted probability range 0.71 (95% CI 0.66-0.75) - 0.80 (95% CI 0.76-0.84) across survey periods]. There were significant crossoccupational trends towards reduced mitigations during periods of less stringent national restrictions. The majority of participants across occupations (55-88%) agreed that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile even after the relaxation of national restrictions; agreement was lower for physical distancing (39-44%). Conclusions While usage of work-related mitigations appeared to vary alongside stringency of national restrictions, agreement that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile remained substantial. Further investigation into the factors underlying between-occupational differences could assist pandemic planning and prevention of workplace COVID-19 transmission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The Omicron B.1.1.529 variant increased severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in doubly vaccinated individuals, particularly in the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1) recipients. To tackle infections, the UK's booster vaccination programmes used messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines irrespective of an individual's primary course vaccine type, and prioritized the clinically vulnerable. These mRNA vaccines included the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (mRNA-1273). There is limited understanding of the effectiveness of different primary vaccination courses on mRNA booster vaccines against SARs-COV-2 infections and how time-varying confounders affect these evaluations. Methods Trial emulation was applied to a prospective community observational cohort in England and Wales to reduce time-varying confounding-by-indication driven by prioritizing vaccination based upon age, vulnerability and exposure. Trial emulation was conducted by meta-analysing eight adult cohort results whose booster vaccinations were staggered between 16 September 2021 and 05 January 2022 and followed until 23 January 2022. Time from booster vaccination until SARS-CoV-2 infection, loss of follow-up or end of study was modelled using Cox proportional hazard models and adjusted for age, sex, minority ethnic status, clinically vulnerability and deprivation. Results A total of 19 159 participants were analysed, with 11 709 ChAdOx1 primary courses and 7450 BNT162b2 primary courses. Median age, clinical vulnerability status and infection rates fluctuate through time. In mRNA-boosted adults, 7.4% (n  = 863) of boosted adults with a ChAdOx1 primary course experienced a SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with 7.7% (n  = 571) of those who had BNT162b2 as a primary course. The pooled adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) was 1.01 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of: 0.90 to 1.13. Conclusion After an mRNA booster dose, we found no difference in protection comparing those with a primary course of BNT162b2 with those with a ChAdOx1 primary course. This contrasts with pre-booster findings where previous research shows greater effectiveness of BNT162b2 than ChAdOx1 in preventing infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose We aimed to understand which non-household activities increased infection odds and contributed greatest to SARS-CoV-2 infections following the lifting of public health restrictions in England and Wales. Procedures We undertook multivariable logistic regressions assessing the contribution to infections of activities reported by adult Virus Watch Community Cohort Study participants. We calculated adjusted weighted population attributable fractions (aPAF) estimating which activity contributed greatest to infections. Findings Among 11 413 participants (493 infections), infection was associated with: leaving home for work (aOR 1.35 (1.11–1.64), aPAF 17%), public transport (aOR 1.27 (1.04–1.57), aPAF 12%), shopping once (aOR 1.83 (1.36–2.45)) vs. more than three times a week, indoor leisure (aOR 1.24 (1.02–1.51), aPAF 10%) and indoor hospitality (aOR 1.21 (0.98–1.48), aPAF 7%). We found no association for outdoor hospitality (1.14 (0.94–1.39), aPAF 5%) or outdoor leisure (1.14 (0.82–1.59), aPAF 1%). Conclusion Essential activities (work and public transport) carried the greatest risk and were the dominant contributors to infections. Non-essential indoor activities (hospitality and leisure) increased risk but contributed less. Outdoor activities carried no statistical risk and contributed to fewer infections. As countries aim to 'live with COVID', mitigating transmission in essential and indoor venues becomes increasingly relevant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We aimed to understand which non-household activities increased infection odds and contributed greatest to SARS-CoV-2 infections following the lifting of public health restrictions in England and Wales. Procedures: We undertook multivariable logistic regressions assessing the contribution to infections of activities reported by adult Virus Watch Community Cohort Study participants. We calculated adjusted weighted population attributable fractions (aPAF) estimating which activity contributed greatest to infections. Findings: Among 11 413 participants (493 infections), infection was associated with: leaving home for work (aOR 1.35 (1.11–1.64), aPAF 17%), public transport (aOR 1.27 (1.04–1.57), aPAF 12%), shopping once (aOR 1.83 (1.36–2.45)) vs. more than three times a week, indoor leisure (aOR 1.24 (1.02–1.51), aPAF 10%) and indoor hospitality (aOR 1.21 (0.98–1.48), aPAF 7%). We found no association for outdoor hospitality (1.14 (0.94–1.39), aPAF 5%) or outdoor leisure (1.14 (0.82–1.59), aPAF 1%). Conclusion: Essential activities (work and public transport) carried the greatest risk and were the dominant contributors to infections. Non-essential indoor activities (hospitality and leisure) increased risk but contributed less. Outdoor activities carried no statistical risk and contributed to fewer infections. As countries aim to 'live with COVID', mitigating transmission in essential and indoor venues becomes increasingly relevant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In winter 2008, kindergartens and primary schools in Hong Kong were closed for 2 weeks after media coverage indicated that 3 children had died, apparently from influenza. We examined prospective [...]

Summary: Background: Assessment of the effect of influenza on populations, including risk of infection, illness if infected, illness severity, and consultation rates, is essential to inform future control and prevention. We aimed to compare the community burden and severity of seasonal and pandemic influenza across different age groups and study years and gain insight into the extent to which traditional surveillance underestimates this burden. Methods: Using preseason and postseason serology, weekly illness reporting, and RT-PCR identification of influenza from nasal swabs, we tracked the course of seasonal and pandemic influenza over five successive cohorts (England 2006–11; 5448 person-seasons' follow-up). We compared burden and severity of seasonal and pandemic strains. We weighted analyses to the age and regional structure of England to give nationally representative estimates. We compared symptom profiles over the first week of illness for different strains of PCR-confirmed influenza and non-influenza viruses using ordinal logistic regression with symptom severity grade as the outcome variable. Findings: Based on four-fold titre rises in strain-specific serology, on average influenza infected 18% (95% CI 16–22) of unvaccinated people each winter. Of those infected there were 69 respiratory illnesses per 100 person-influenza-seasons compared with 44 per 100 in those not infected with influenza. The age-adjusted attributable rate of illness if infected was 23 illnesses per 100 person-seasons (13–34), suggesting most influenza infections are asymptomatic. 25% (18–35) of all people with serologically confirmed infections had PCR-confirmed disease. 17% (10–26) of people with PCR-confirmed influenza had medically attended illness. These figures did not differ significantly when comparing pandemic with seasonal influenza. Of PCR-confirmed cases, people infected with the 2009 pandemic strain had markedly less severe symptoms than those infected with seasonal H3N2. Interpretation: Seasonal influenza and the 2009 pandemic strain were characterised by similar high rates of mainly asymptomatic infection with most symptomatic cases self-managing without medical consultation. In the community the 2009 pandemic strain caused milder symptoms than seasonal H3N2. Funding: Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Inhaled glucocorticoid treatment during the first 2 yr of life is controversial because this is a period of major structural remodeling of the lung. Rabbits received aerosolized budesonide (Bud; 250 μg/ml) or injected dexamethasone (Dex; 0.05 mg·ml-1·kg-1) between 1 and 5 wk of age. Treatment with Bud caused specific growth retardation of the lung. Dex but not Bud affected the mechanical properties of the lung parenchyma, when corrected for lung volume. Small peripheral airway walls in both glucocorticoid groups were thinner and had fewer alveolar attachment points with greater distance between attachments than controls, but collagen content was not affected by glucocorticoids. Dex led to reduced body weight, lung volume, alveolar number, and surface area. The alveolar size and number and elastin content, when related to lung volume, was not affected by Bud, suggesting normal structural development but inhibition of total growth. Arterial wall thickness and diameter were affected by Bud. This study demonstrates that developing lungs are sensitive to inhaled glucocorticoids. As such, the use of glucocorticoids in young infants and children should be monitored with caution and only the lowest doses that yield significant clinical improvement should be used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Eyeglasses are associated with a protective effect against COVID-19. • Protective effect was reduced if wearing glasses interfered with mask-wearing. • There was no protective effect for those who wore contact lenses. • There was still a protective association after adjusting for age, sex, occupation, and income. The importance of SARS-CoV-2 transmission via the eyes is unknown, with previous studies mainly focusing on protective eyewear in healthcare settings. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that wearing eyeglasses is associated with a lower risk of COVID-19. Participants from the Virus Watch prospective community cohort study responded to a questionnaire on the use of eyeglasses and contact lenses. Infection was confirmed through data linkage, self-reported positive results, and, for a subgroup, monthly capillary antibody testing. Multivariable logistic regression models, controlling for age, sex, income, and occupation, were used to identify the odds of infection depending on frequency and purpose of eyeglasses or contact lenses use. A total of 19,166 participants responded to the questionnaire, with 13,681 (71.3%, CI 70.7-72.0) reporting they wore eyeglasses. Multivariable logistic regression model showed a 15% lower odds of infection for those who reported using eyeglasses always for general use (odds ratio [OR] 0.85, 95% 0.77-0.95, P = 0.002) compared to those who never wore eyeglasses. The protective effect was reduced for those who said wearing eyeglasses interfered with mask-wearing and was absent for contact lens wearers. People who wear eyeglasses have a moderate reduction in risk of COVID-19 infection, highlighting that eye protection may make a valuable contribution to the reduction of transmission in community and healthcare settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness show increases in COVID-19 cases within 14 days of a first dose, potentially reflecting post-vaccination behaviour changes associated with SARS-CoV-2 transmission before vaccine protection. However, direct evidence for a relationship between vaccination and behaviour is lacking. We aimed to examine the association between vaccination status and self-reported non-household contacts and non-essential activities during a national lockdown in England and Wales. Participants (n = 1154) who had received the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine reported non-household contacts and non-essential activities from February to March 2021 in monthly surveys during a national lockdown in England and Wales. We used a case-crossover study design and conditional logistic regression to examine the association between vaccination status (pre-vaccination vs 14 days post-vaccination) and self-reported contacts and activities within individuals. Stratified subgroup analyses examined potential effect heterogeneity by sociodemographic characteristics such as sex, household income or age group. 457/1154 (39.60 %) participants reported non-household contacts post-vaccination compared with 371/1154 (32.15 %) participants pre-vaccination. 100/1154 (8.67 %) participants reported use of non-essential shops or services post-vaccination compared with 74/1154 (6.41 %) participants pre-vaccination. Post-vaccination status was associated with increased odds of reporting non-household contacts (OR 1.65, 95 % CI 1.31–2.06, p < 0.001) and use of non-essential shops or services (OR 1.50, 95 % CI 1.03–2.17, p = 0.032). This effect varied between men and women and different age groups. Participants had higher odds of reporting non-household contacts and use of non-essential shops or services within 14 days of their first COVID-19 vaccine compared to pre-vaccination. Public health emphasis on maintaining protective behaviours during this post-vaccination time period when individuals have yet to develop full protection from vaccination could reduce risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Occupational disparities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake can impact the effectiveness of vaccination programmes and introduce particular risk for vulnerable workers and those with high workplace exposure. This study aimed to investigate COVID-19 vaccine uptake by occupation, including for vulnerable groups and by occupational exposure status. We used data from employed or self-employed adults who provided occupational information as part of the Virus Watch prospective cohort study (n = 19,595) and linked this to study-obtained information about vulnerability-relevant characteristics (age, medical conditions, obesity status) and work-related COVID-19 exposure based on the Job Exposure Matrix. Participant vaccination status for the first, second, and third dose of any COVID-19 vaccine was obtained based on linkage to national records and study records. We calculated proportions and Sison-Glaz multinomial 95% confidence intervals for vaccine uptake by occupation overall, by vulnerability-relevant characteristics, and by job exposure. Vaccination uptake across occupations ranged from 89-96% for the first dose, 87–94% for the second dose, and 75–86% for the third dose, with transport, trade, service and sales workers persistently demonstrating the lowest uptake. Vulnerable workers tended to demonstrate fewer between-occupational differences in uptake than non-vulnerable workers, although clinically vulnerable transport workers (76%-89% across doses) had lower uptake than several other occupational groups (maximum across doses 86%–96%). Workers with low SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk had higher vaccine uptake (86%-96% across doses) than those with elevated or high risk (81–94% across doses). Differential vaccination uptake by occupation, particularly amongst vulnerable and highly-exposed workers, is likely to worsen occupational and related socioeconomic inequalities in infection outcomes. Further investigation into occupational and non-occupational factors influencing differential uptake is required to inform relevant interventions for future COVID-19 booster rollouts and similar vaccination programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• If infection was confirmed by PCR, 80% of individuals were positive for nucleocapsid antibody. • The median nucleocapsid antibody level peaked between days 90 and 119 after infection. • Waning levels occurred after 120 days but were earlier for females and younger age categories. • Vaccination status before infection may reduce positivity. Seroprevalence studies can provide a measure of SARS-CoV-2 cumulative incidence, but a better understanding of spike and nucleocapsid (anti-N) antibody dynamics following infection is needed to assess the longevity of detectability. Adults aged ≥18 years, from households enrolled in the Virus Watch prospective community cohort study in England and Wales, provided monthly capillary blood samples, which were tested for spike antibody and anti-N. Participants self-reported vaccination dates and past medical history. Previous polymerase chain reaction (PCR) swabs were obtained through Second Generation Surveillance System linkage data. The primary outcome variables were seropositivity and total anti-N and spike antibody levels after PCR-confirmed infection. A total of 13,802 eligible individuals provided 58,770 capillary blood samples. A total of 537 of these had a previous positive PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 0-269 days of antibody sample date, among them 432 (80.45%) having a positive anti-N result. Median anti-N levels peaked between days 90 and 119 after PCR results and then began to decline. There is evidence of anti-N waning from 120 days onwards, with earlier waning for females and younger age categories. Our findings suggest that anti-N has around 80% sensitivity for identifying previous COVID-19 infection, and the duration of detectability is affected by sex and age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Intention to take a COVID-19 vaccine when offered is very high in England and Wales. • Most people who were initially reluctant to accept a COVID-19 vaccine went on to change their mind. • Young adults and people from some minority ethnic groups are more likely to be uncertain or plan to refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. • Both perceptions of vaccines and perceptions of COVID-19 illness severity shape vaccine intention. Vaccination intention is key to the success of any vaccination programme, alongside vaccine availability and access. Public intention to take a COVID-19 vaccine is high in England and Wales compared to other countries, but vaccination rate disparities between ethnic, social and age groups has led to concern. Online survey of prospective household community cohort study participants across England and Wales (Virus Watch). Vaccination intention was measured by individual participant responses to 'Would you accept a COVID-19 vaccine if offered?', collected in December 2020 and February 2021. Responses to a 13-item questionnaire collected in January 2021 were analysed using factor analysis to investigate psychological influences on vaccination intention. Survey response rate was 56% (20,785/36,998) in December 2020 and 53% (20,590/38,727) in February 2021, with 14,880 adults reporting across both time points. In December 2020, 1,469 (10%) participants responded 'No' or 'Unsure'. Of these people, 1,266 (86%) changed their mind and responded 'Yes' or 'Already had a COVID-19 vaccine' by February 2021. Vaccination intention increased across all ethnic groups and levels of social deprivation. Age was most strongly associated with vaccination intention, with 16–24-year-olds more likely to respond "Unsure" or "No" versus "Yes" than 65–74-year-olds in December 2020 (OR: 4.63, 95 %CI: 3.42, 6.27 & OR 7.17 95 %CI: 4.26, 12.07 respectively) and February 2021 (OR: 27.92 95 %CI: 13.79, 56.51 & OR 17.16 95 %CI: 4.12, 71.55). The association between ethnicity and vaccination intention weakened, but did not disappear, over time. Both vaccine- and illness-related psychological factors were shown to influence vaccination intention. Four in five adults (86%) who were reluctant or intending to refuse a COVID-19 vaccine in December 2020 had changed their mind in February 2021 and planned to accept, or had already accepted, a vaccine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study compared the likelihood of long-term sequelae following infection with SARS-CoV-2 variants, other acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and non-infected individuals. Participants (n=5,630) were drawn from Virus Watch, a prospective community cohort investigating SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology in England. Using logistic regression, we compared predicted probabilities of developing long-term symptoms (>2 months) during different variant dominance periods according to infection status (SARS-CoV-2, other ARI, or no infection), adjusting for confounding by demographic and clinical factors and vaccination status. SARS-CoV-2 infection during early variant periods up to Omicron BA.1 was associated with greater probability of long-term sequalae (adjusted predicted probability (PP) range 0.27, 95% CI = 0.22-0.33 to 0.34, 95% CI = 0.25-0.43) compared with later Omicron sub-variants (PP range 0.11, 95% CI 0.08-0.15 to 0.14, 95% CI 0.10-0.18). While differences between SARS-CoV-2 and other ARIs (PP range 0.08, 95% CI 0.04-0.11 to 0.23, 95% CI 0.18-0.28) varied by period, all post-infection estimates substantially exceeded those for non-infected participants (PP range 0.01, 95% CI 0.00, 0.02 to 0.03, 95% CI 0.01-0.06). Variant was an important predictor of SARS-CoV-2 post-infection sequalae, with recent Omicron sub-variants demonstrating similar probabilities to other contemporaneous ARIs. Further aetiological investigation including between-pathogen comparison is recommended.

Background: Understanding how non-household activities contributed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections under different levels of national health restrictions is vital., Methods: Among adult Virus Watch participants in England and Wales, we used multivariable logistic regressions and adjusted-weighted population attributable fractions (aPAF) assessing the contribution of work, public transport, shopping, and hospitality and leisure activities to infections., Results: Under restrictions, among 17,256 participants (502 infections), work [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.01 (1.65-2.44), (aPAF) 30% (22-38%)] and transport [(aOR 1.15 (0.94-1.40), aPAF 5% (-3-12%)], were risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 but shopping, hospitality and leisure were not. Following the lifting of restrictions, among 11,413 participants (493 infections), work [(aOR 1.35 (1.11-1.64), aPAF 17% (6-26%)] and transport [(aOR 1.27 (1.04-1.57), aPAF 12% (2-22%)] contributed most, with indoor hospitality [(aOR 1.21 (0.98-1.48), aPAF 7% (-1-15%)] and leisure [(aOR 1.24 (1.02-1.51), aPAF 10% (1-18%)] increasing. During the Omicron variant, with individuals more socially engaged, among 11,964 participants (2335 infections), work [(aOR 1.28 (1.16-1.41), aPAF (11% (7-15%)] and transport [(aOR 1.16 (1.04-1.28), aPAF 6% (2-9%)] remained important but indoor hospitality [(aOR 1.43 (1.26-1.62), aPAF 20% (13-26%)] and leisure [(aOR 1.35 (1.22-1.48), aPAF 10% (7-14%)] dominated., Conclusions: Work and public transport were important to transmissions throughout the pandemic with hospitality and leisure's contribution increasing as restrictions were lifted, highlighting the importance of restricting leisure and hospitality alongside advising working from home, when facing a highly infectious and virulent respiratory infection., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ACH serves on the UK New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group. AMJ and ACH are members of the COVID-19 transmission sub-group of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). AMJ is Chair of the UK Strategic Coordination of Health of the Public Research board and is a member of COVID National Core studies oversight group., (Copyright: © 2023 Hoskins S et al.)

Background: Individuals living in deprived areas in England and Wales undertook essential activities more frequently and experienced higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection than less deprived communities during periods of restrictions aimed at controlling the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant. We aimed to understand whether these deprivation-related differences changed once restrictions were lifted., Methods: Among 11,231 adult Virus Watch Community Cohort Study participants multivariable logistic regressions were used to estimate the relationships between deprivation and self-reported activities and deprivation and infection (self-reported lateral flow or PCR tests and linkage to National Testing data and Second Generation Surveillance System (SGSS)) between August - December 2021, following the lifting of national public health restrictions., Results: Those living in areas of greatest deprivation were more likely to undertake essential activities (leaving home for work (aOR 1.56 (1.33 - 1.83)), using public transport (aOR 1.33 (1.13 - 1.57)) but less likely to undertake non-essential activities (indoor hospitality (aOR 0.82 (0.70 - 0.96)), outdoor hospitality (aOR 0.56 (0.48 - 0.66)), indoor leisure (aOR 0.63 (0.54 - 0.74)), outdoor leisure (aOR 0.64 (0.46 - 0.88)), or visit a hairdresser (aOR 0.72 (0.61 - 0.85))). No statistical association was observed between deprivation and infection (P=0.5745), with those living in areas of greatest deprivation no more likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 (aOR 1.25 (0.87 - 1.79)., Conclusion: The lack of association between deprivation and infection is likely due to the increased engagement in non-essential activities among the least deprived balancing the increased work-related exposure among the most deprived. The differences in activities highlight stark disparities in an individuals' ability to choose how to limit infection exposure., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AH serves on the UK New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group. AMJ and AH are members of the COVID-19 transmission sub-group of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). AMJ is Chair of the UK Strategic Coordination of Health of the Public Research board and is a member of COVID National Core studies oversight group., (Copyright: © 2023 Hoskins S et al.)

Background : "Lockdowns" to control serious respiratory virus pandemics were widely used during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.  However, there is limited information to understand the settings in which most transmission occurs during lockdowns, to support refinement of similar policies for future pandemics.  Methods : Among Virus Watch household cohort participants we identified those infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outside the household.  Using survey activity data, we undertook multivariable logistic regressions assessing the contribution of activities on non-household infection risk.  We calculated adjusted population attributable fractions (APAF) to estimate which activity accounted for the greatest proportion of non-household infections during the pandemic's second wave. Results : Among 10,858 adults, 18% of cases were likely due to household transmission.  Among 10,475 participants (household-acquired cases excluded), including 874 non-household-acquired infections, infection was associated with: leaving home for work or education (AOR 1.20 (1.02 - 1.42), APAF 6.9%); public transport (more than once per week AOR 1.82 (1.49 - 2.23), public transport APAF 12.42%); and shopping (more than once per week AOR 1.69 (1.29 - 2.21), shopping APAF 34.56%).  Other non-household activities were rare and not significantly associated with infection. Conclusions: During lockdown, going to work and using public or shared transport independently increased infection risk, however only a minority did these activities.  Most participants visited shops, accounting for one-third of non-household transmission.  Transmission in restricted hospitality and leisure settings was minimal suggesting these restrictions were effective.   If future respiratory infection pandemics emerge these findings highlight the value of working from home, using forms of transport that minimise exposure to others, minimising exposure to shops and restricting non-essential activities., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ACH serves on the UK New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group. AMJ and ACH are members of the COVID-19 transmission sub-group of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). AMJ is Chair of the UK Strategic Coordination of Health of the Public Research board and is a member of COVID National Core studies oversight group., (Copyright: © 2022 Hoskins S et al.)

Background: Workplaces are an important potential source of SARS-CoV-2 exposure; however, investigation into workplace contact patterns is lacking. This study aimed to investigate how workplace attendance and features of contact varied between occupations across the COVID-19 pandemic in England., Methods: Data were obtained from electronic contact diaries (November 2020-November 2021) submitted by employed/self-employed prospective cohort study participants ( n =4,616). We used mixed models to investigate the effects of occupation and time for: workplace attendance, number of people sharing workspace, time spent sharing workspace, number of close contacts, and usage of face coverings., Findings: Workplace attendance and contact patterns varied across occupations and time. The predicted probability of intense space sharing during the day was highest for healthcare (78% [95% CI: 75-81%]) and education workers (64% [59%-69%]), who also had the highest probabilities for larger numbers of close contacts (36% [32%-40%] and 38% [33%-43%] respectively). Education workers also demonstrated relatively low predicted probability (51% [44%-57%]) of wearing a face covering during close contact. Across all occupational groups, workspace sharing and close contact increased and usage of face coverings decreased during phases of less stringent restrictions., Interpretation: Major variations in workplace contact patterns and mask use likely contribute to differential COVID-19 risk. Patterns of variation by occupation and restriction phase may inform interventions for future waves of COVID-19 or other respiratory epidemics. Across occupations, increasing workplace contact and reduced face covering usage is concerning given ongoing high levels of community transmission and emergence of variants., Funding: Medical Research Council; HM Government; Wellcome Trust., Competing Interests: AH serves on the UK New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group. AJ and AH are members of the COVID-19 transmission sub-group of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). AJ is Chair of the UK Strategic Coordination of Health of the Public Research board and is a member of COVID National Core studies oversight group., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Background: Understanding symptomatology and accuracy of clinical case definitions for community COVID-19 cases is important for Test, Trace and Isolate (TTI) and future targeting of early antiviral treatment.   Methods: Community cohort participants prospectively recorded daily symptoms and swab results (mainly undertaken through the UK TTI system).  We compared symptom frequency, severity, timing, and duration in test positive and negative illnesses.  We compared the test performance of the current UK TTI case definition (cough, high temperature, or loss of or altered sense of smell or taste) with a wider definition adding muscle aches, chills, headache, or loss of appetite.     Results: Among 9706 swabbed illnesses, including 973 SARS-CoV-2 positives, symptoms were more common, severe and longer lasting in swab positive than negative illnesses.  Cough, headache, fatigue, and muscle aches were the most common symptoms in positive illnesses but also common in negative illnesses. Conversely, high temperature, loss or altered sense of smell or taste and loss of appetite were less frequent in positive illnesses, but comparatively even less frequent in negative illnesses.  The current UK definition had 81% sensitivity and 47% specificity versus 93% and 27% respectively for the broader definition. 1.7-fold more illnesses met the broader case definition than the current definition.  Conclusions: Symptoms alone cannot reliably distinguish COVID-19 from other respiratory illnesses. Adding additional symptoms to case definitions could identify more infections, but with a large increase in the number needing testing and the number of unwell individuals and contacts self-isolating whilst awaiting results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ACH serves on the UK New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group. AMJ was a Governor of Wellcome Trust from 2011-18 and is Chair of the Committee for Strategic Coordination for Health of the Public Research., (Copyright: © 2022 Fragaszy E et al.)

Introduction: Increased transmissibility of B.1.1.7 variant of concern (VOC) in the UK may explain its rapid emergence and global spread. We analysed data from putative household infector - infectee pairs in the Virus Watch Community cohort study to assess the serial interval of COVID-19 and whether this was affected by emergence of the B.1.1.7 variant. Methods: The Virus Watch study is an online, prospective, community cohort study following up entire households in England and Wales during the COVID-19 pandemic. Putative household infector-infectee pairs were identified where more than one person in the household had a positive swab matched to an illness episode. Data on whether or not individual infections were caused by the B.1.1.7 variant were not available. We therefore developed a classification system based on the percentage of cases estimated to be due to B.1.1.7 in national surveillance data for different English regions and study weeks. Results: Out of 24,887 illnesses reported, 915 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 186 likely 'infector-infectee' pairs in 186 households amongst 372 individuals were identified. The mean COVID-19 serial interval was 3.18 (95%CI: 2.55-3.81, sd=4.36) days. There was no significant difference (p=0.267) between the mean serial interval for VOC hotspots (mean = 3.64 days, (95%CI: 2.55 - 4.73)) days and non-VOC hotspots, (mean = 2.72 days, (95%CI: 1.48 - 3.96)). Conclusions: Our estimates of the average serial interval of COVID-19 are broadly similar to estimates from previous studies and we find no evidence that B.1.1.7 is associated with a change in serial intervals.  Alternative explanations such as increased viral load, longer period of viral shedding or improved receptor binding may instead explain the increased transmissibility and rapid spread and should undergo further investigation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ACH serves on the UK New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group. AMJ was a Governor of Wellcome Trust from 2011-18 and is Chair of the Committee for Strategic Coordination for Health of the Public Research., (Copyright: © 2021 Geismar C et al.)

Background: Household overcrowding is associated with increased risk of infectious diseases across contexts and countries. Limited data exist linking household overcrowding and risk of COVID-19. We used data collected from the Virus Watch cohort to examine the association between overcrowded households and SARS-CoV-2. Methods: The Virus Watch study is a household community cohort of acute respiratory infections in England and Wales. We calculated overcrowding using the measure of persons per room for each household. We considered two primary outcomes: PCR-confirmed positive SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We used mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for household structure to estimate the association between household overcrowding and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results: 26,367 participants were included in our analyses. The proportion of participants with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result was highest in the overcrowded group (9.0%; 99/1,100) and lowest in the under-occupied group (4.2%; 980/23,196). In a mixed-effects logistic regression model, we found strong evidence of an increased odds of a positive PCR SARS-CoV-2 antigen result (odds ratio 2.45; 95% CI:1.43-4.19; p-value=0.001) and increased odds of a positive SARS-CoV-2 antibody result in individuals living in overcrowded houses (3.32; 95% CI:1.54-7.15; p-value<0.001) compared with people living in under-occupied houses. Conclusion: Public health interventions to prevent and stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2 should consider the risk of infection for people living in overcrowded households and pay greater attention to reducing household transmission., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ACH serves on the UK New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group. AMJ was a Governor of Wellcome Trust from 2011-18 and is Chair of the Committee for Strategic Coordination for Health of the Public Research. SVK is a member of the UK Government’s Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (SAGE) subgroup on ethnicity and co-chair of the Scottish Government’s Expert Reference Group on ethnicity and COVID-19., (Copyright: © 2021 Aldridge RW et al.)

Introduction: Increased transmissibility of B.1.1.7 variant of concern (VOC) in the UK may explain its rapid emergence and global spread. We analysed data from putative household infector - infectee pairs in the Virus Watch Community cohort study to assess the serial interval of COVID-19 and whether this was affected by emergence of the B.1.1.7 variant. Methods: The Virus Watch study is an online, prospective, community cohort study following up entire households in England and Wales during the COVID-19 pandemic. Putative household infector-infectee pairs were identified where more than one person in the household had a positive swab matched to an illness episode. Data on whether or not individual infections were caused by the B.1.1.7 variant were not available. We therefore developed a classification system based on the percentage of cases estimated to be due to B.1.1.7 in national surveillance data for different English regions and study weeks. Results: Out of 24,887 illnesses reported, 915 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 186 likely 'infector-infectee' pairs in 186 households amongst 372 individuals were identified. The mean COVID-19 serial interval was 3.18 (95%CI: 2.55 - 3.81) days. There was no significant difference (p=0.267) between the mean serial interval for VOC hotspots (mean = 3.64 days, (95%CI: 2.55 - 4.73)) days and non-VOC hotspots, (mean = 2.72 days, (95%CI: 1.48 - 3.96)). Conclusions: Our estimates of the average serial interval of COVID-19 are broadly similar to estimates from previous studies and we find no evidence that B.1.1.7 is associated with a change in serial intervals.  Alternative explanations such as increased viral load, longer period of viral shedding or improved receptor binding may instead explain the increased transmissibility and rapid spread and should undergo further investigation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ACH serves on the UK New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group. AMJ was a Governor of Wellcome Trust from 2011-18 and is Chair of the Committee for Strategic Coordination for Health of the Public Research., (Copyright: © 2021 Geismar C et al.)

Introduction: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has caused significant global mortality and impacted lives around the world. Virus Watch aims to provide evidence on which public health approaches are most likely to be effective in reducing transmission and impact of the virus, and will investigate community incidence, symptom profiles and transmission of COVID-19 in relation to population movement and behaviours., Methods and Analysis: Virus Watch is a household community cohort study of acute respiratory infections in England and Wales and will run from June 2020 to August 2021. The study aims to recruit 50 000 people, including 12 500 from minority ethnic backgrounds, for an online survey cohort and monthly antibody testing using home fingerprick test kits. Nested within this larger study will be a subcohort of 10 000 individuals, including 3000 people from minority ethnic backgrounds. This cohort of 10 000 people will have full blood serology taken between October 2020 and January 2021 and repeat serology between May 2021 and August 2021. Participants will also post self-administered nasal swabs for PCR assays of SARS-CoV-2 and will follow one of three different PCR testing schedules based on symptoms., Ethics and Dissemination: This study has been approved by the Hampstead National Health Service (NHS) Health Research Authority Ethics Committee (ethics approval number 20/HRA/2320). We are monitoring participant queries and using these to refine methodology where necessary, and are providing summaries and policy briefings of our preliminary findings to inform public health action by working through our partnerships with our study advisory group, Public Health England, NHS and government scientific advisory panels., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AH serves on the UK New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group. AMJ was a governor of Wellcome Trust from 2011 to 2018 and is chair of the Committee for Strategic Coordination for Health of the Public Research., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)