Search

Background: There have been declines in global immunisation coverage due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Recovery has begun but is geographically variable. This disruption has led to under-immunised cohorts and interrupted progress in reducing vaccine-preventable disease burden. There have, so far, been few studies of the effects of coverage disruption on vaccine effects. We aimed to quantify the effects of vaccine-coverage disruption on routine and campaign immunisation services, identify cohorts and regions that could particularly benefit from catch-up activities, and establish if losses in effect could be recovered., Methods: For this modelling study, we used modelling groups from the Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium from 112 low-income and middle-income countries to estimate vaccine effect for 14 pathogens. One set of modelling estimates used vaccine-coverage data from 1937 to 2021 for a subset of vaccine-preventable, outbreak-prone or priority diseases (ie, measles, rubella, hepatitis B, human papillomavirus [HPV], meningitis A, and yellow fever) to examine mitigation measures, hereafter referred to as recovery runs. The second set of estimates were conducted with vaccine-coverage data from 1937 to 2020, used to calculate effect ratios (ie, the burden averted per dose) for all 14 included vaccines and diseases, hereafter referred to as full runs. Both runs were modelled from Jan 1, 2000, to Dec 31, 2100. Countries were included if they were in the Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance portfolio; had notable burden; or had notable strategic vaccination activities. These countries represented the majority of global vaccine-preventable disease burden. Vaccine coverage was informed by historical estimates from WHO-UNICEF Estimates of National Immunization Coverage and the immunisation repository of WHO for data up to and including 2021. From 2022 onwards, we estimated coverage on the basis of guidance about campaign frequency, non-linear assumptions about the recovery of routine immunisation to pre-disruption magnitude, and 2030 endpoints informed by the WHO Immunization Agenda 2030 aims and expert consultation. We examined three main scenarios: no disruption, baseline recovery, and baseline recovery and catch-up., Findings: We estimated that disruption to measles, rubella, HPV, hepatitis B, meningitis A, and yellow fever vaccination could lead to 49 119 additional deaths (95% credible interval [CrI] 17 248-134 941) during calendar years 2020-30, largely due to measles. For years of vaccination 2020-30 for all 14 pathogens, disruption could lead to a 2·66% (95% CrI 2·52-2·81) reduction in long-term effect from 37 378 194 deaths averted (34 450 249-40 241 202) to 36 410 559 deaths averted (33 515 397-39 241 799). We estimated that catch-up activities could avert 78·9% (40·4-151·4) of excess deaths between calendar years 2023 and 2030 (ie, 18 900 [7037-60 223] of 25 356 [9859-75 073])., Interpretation: Our results highlight the importance of the timing of catch-up activities, considering estimated burden to improve vaccine coverage in affected cohorts. We estimated that mitigation measures for measles and yellow fever were particularly effective at reducing excess burden in the short term. Additionally, the high long-term effect of HPV vaccine as an important cervical-cancer prevention tool warrants continued immunisation efforts after disruption., Funding: The Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium, funded by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation., Translations: For the Arabic, Chinese, French, Portguese and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests A-MH, XL, SE-L, JR, KA, MA, MJdV, MJF, KF, HF, TH, MJ, AK, SMM, SN, TP, TAP, AP, QTM, EV, AKW, HB, CC, HEC, AD, SH, JH, KJ, CK, J-HK, JK, BAL, VEP, YT, KW, NMF, CLT, and KAMG received funding from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation via the Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium (VIMC) during the study. A-MH, JR, SE-L, XL, SN, MJdV, TH, WH, KW, NMF, CLT, and KAMG receive funding from the Medical Research Council Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis (reference MR/R015600/1), which is jointly funded by the UK Medical Research Council and the UK Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office under a concordant agreement, and is also part of the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership programme supported by the EU. A-MH, JR, SE-L, XL, SN, MJdV, TH, WH, KW, NMF, CLT, and KAMG receive funding from Community Jameel. A-MH is supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant 01LN2210A) and declares stock options in BIONTECH. CLT received payment for advice from GlaxoSmithKline. KA is supported by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (JP223fa627004). KAMG received a speaker fee from Sanofi Pasteur. SN receives consulting fees from WHO. VEP is a member of the WHO Immunization and Implementation Research Advisory Committee. BAL receives personal fees from Epidemiologic Research and Methods and Hillevax. SMM receives consultant fees from Emergent Biosolutions. NMF receives grant funding from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, UK Research and Innovation, and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research; declares consulting fees from the World Bank, WHO, and Gavi; receives travel expenses for WHO meetings; was on an advisory board for Takeda; and is a senior editor for eLife. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

As the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic progressed, distinct variants emerged and dominated in England. These variants, Wildtype, Alpha, Delta, and Omicron were characterized by variations in transmissibility and severity. We used a robust mathematical model and Bayesian inference framework to analyse epidemiological surveillance data from England. We quantified the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), therapeutics, and vaccination on virus transmission and severity. Each successive variant had a higher intrinsic transmissibility. Omicron (BA.1) had the highest basic reproduction number at 8.3 (95% credible interval (CrI) 7.7-8.8). Varying levels of NPIs were crucial in controlling virus transmission until population immunity accumulated. Immune escape properties of Omicron decreased effective levels of immunity in the population by a third. Furthermore, in contrast to previous studies, we found Alpha had the highest basic infection fatality ratio (2.9%, 95% CrI 2.7-3.2), followed by Delta (2.2%, 95% CrI 2.0-2.4), Wildtype (1.2%, 95% CrI 1.1-1.2), and Omicron (0.7%, 95% CrI 0.6-0.8). Our findings highlight the importance of continued surveillance. Long-term strategies for monitoring and maintaining effective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 are critical to inform the role of NPIs to effectively manage future variants with potentially higher intrinsic transmissibility and severe outcomes., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

In an emergency epidemic response, data providers supply data on a best-faith effort to modellers and analysts who are typically the end user of data collected for other primary purposes such as to inform patient care. Thus, modellers who analyse secondary data have limited ability to influence what is captured. During an emergency response, models themselves are often under constant development and require both stability in their data inputs and flexibility to incorporate new inputs as novel data sources become available. This dynamic landscape is challenging to work with. Here we outline a data pipeline used in the ongoing COVID-19 response in the UK that aims to address these issues. A data pipeline is a sequence of steps to carry the raw data through to a processed and useable model input, along with the appropriate metadata and context. In ours, each data type had an individual processing report, designed to produce outputs that could be easily combined and used downstream. Automated checks were in-built and added as new pathologies emerged. These cleaned outputs were collated at different geographic levels to provide standardised datasets. Finally, a human validation step was an essential component of the analysis pathway and permitted more nuanced issues to be captured. This framework allowed the pipeline to grow in complexity and volume and facilitated the diverse range of modelling approaches employed by researchers. Additionally, every report or modelling output could be traced back to the specific data version that informed it ensuring reproducibility of results. Our approach has been used to facilitate fast-paced analysis and has evolved over time. Our framework and its aspirations are applicable to many settings beyond COVID-19 data, for example for other outbreaks such as Ebola, or where routine and regular analyses are required., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The UK was the first country to start national COVID-19 vaccination programmes, initially administering doses 3 weeks apart. However, early evidence of high vaccine effectiveness after the first dose and the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 alpha variant prompted the UK to extend the interval between doses to 12 weeks. In this study, we aimed to quantify the effect of delaying the second vaccine dose in England., Methods: We used a previously described model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, calibrated to COVID-19 surveillance data from England, including hospital admissions, hospital occupancy, seroprevalence data, and population-level PCR testing data, using a Bayesian evidence-synthesis framework. We modelled and compared the epidemic trajectory in the counterfactual scenario in which vaccine doses were administered 3 weeks apart against the real reported vaccine roll-out schedule of 12 weeks. We estimated and compared the resulting numbers of daily infections, hospital admissions, and deaths. In sensitivity analyses, we investigated scenarios spanning a range of vaccine effectiveness and waning assumptions., Findings: In the period from Dec 8, 2020, to Sept 13, 2021, the number of individuals who received a first vaccine dose was higher under the 12-week strategy than the 3-week strategy. For this period, we estimated that delaying the interval between the first and second COVID-19 vaccine doses from 3 to 12 weeks averted a median (calculated as the median of the posterior sample) of 58 000 COVID-19 hospital admissions (291 000 cumulative hospitalisations [95% credible interval 275 000-319 000] under the 3-week strategy vs 233 000 [229 000-238 000] under the 12-week strategy) and 10 100 deaths (64 800 deaths [60 200-68 900] vs 54 700 [52 800-55 600]). Similarly, we estimated that the 3-week strategy would have resulted in more infections compared with the 12-week strategy. Across all sensitivity analyses the 3-week strategy resulted in a greater number of hospital admissions. In results by age group, the 12-week strategy led to more hospitalisations and deaths in older people in spring 2021, but fewer following the emergence of the delta variant during summer 2021., Interpretation: England's delayed-second-dose vaccination strategy was informed by early real-world data on vaccine effectiveness in the context of limited vaccine supplies in a growing epidemic. Our study shows that rapidly providing partial (single-dose) vaccine-induced protection to a larger proportion of the population was successful in reducing the burden of COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths overall., Funding: UK National Institute for Health Research; UK Medical Research Council; Community Jameel; Wellcome Trust; UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; and EU., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AC has received payment from Pfizer for teaching of mathematical modelling of infectious diseases. KAMG has received honoraria from Wellcome Genome Campus for lectures. LKW has received consultancy payments from the Wellcome Trust. ABH has received consultancy payments from WHO for COVID-19-related work; provides advice on COVID-19 modelling to the New South Wales Ministry of Health, Australia; and was previously engaged by Pfizer to advise on modelling of RSV vaccination strategies, for which she received no financial compensation. RS and NI are currently employed by the Wellcome Trust. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Contact tracing, where exposed individuals are followed up to break ongoing transmission chains, is a key pillar of outbreak response for infectious disease outbreaks. Unfortunately, these systems are not fully effective, and infections can still go undetected as people may not remember all their contacts or contacts may not be traced successfully. A large proportion of undetected infections suggests poor contact tracing and surveillance systems, which could be a potential area of improvement for a disease response. In this paper, we present a method for estimating the proportion of infections that are not detected during an outbreak. Our method uses next generation matrices that are parameterized by linked contact tracing data and case line-lists. We validate the method using simulated data from an individual-based model and then investigate two case studies: the proportion of undetected infections in the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in New Zealand during 2020 and the Ebola epidemic in Guinea during 2014. We estimate that only 5.26% of SARS-CoV-2 infections were not detected in New Zealand during 2020 (95% credible interval: 0.243 - 16.0%) if 80% of contacts were under active surveillance but depending on assumptions about the ratio of contacts not under active surveillance versus contacts under active surveillance 39.0% or 37.7% of Ebola infections were not detected in Guinea (95% credible intervals: 1.69 - 87.0% or 1.70 - 80.9%)., Competing Interests: Competing interests None., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Understanding the characteristics and natural history of novel pathogens is crucial to inform successful control measures. Japan was one of the first affected countries in the COVID-19 pandemic reporting their first case on 14 January 2020. Interventions including airport screening, contact tracing, and cluster investigations were quickly implemented. Here we present insights from the first 3 months of the epidemic in Japan based on detailed case data., Methods: We conducted descriptive analyses based on information systematically extracted from individual case reports from 13 January to 31 March 2020 including patient demographics, date of report and symptom onset, symptom progression, travel history, and contact type. We analysed symptom progression and estimated the time-varying reproduction number, R t , correcting for epidemic growth using an established Bayesian framework. Key delays and the age-specific probability of transmission were estimated using data on exposures and transmission pairs., Results: The corrected fitted mean onset-to-reporting delay after the peak was 4 days (standard deviation: ± 2 days). Early transmission was driven primarily by returning travellers with R t peaking at 2.4 (95% CrI: 1.6, 3.3) nationally. In the final week of the trusted period (16-23 March 2020), R t accounting for importations diverged from overall R t at 1.1 (95% CrI: 1.0, 1.2) compared to 1.5 (95% CrI: 1.3, 1.6), respectively. Household (39.0%) and workplace (11.6%) exposures were the most frequently reported potential source of infection. The estimated probability of transmission was assortative by age with individuals more likely to infect, and be infected by, contacts in a similar age group to them. Across all age groups, cases most frequently onset with cough, fever, and fatigue. There were no reported cases of patients < 20 years old developing pneumonia or severe respiratory symptoms., Conclusions: Information collected in the early phases of an outbreak are important in characterising any novel pathogen. The availability of timely and detailed data and appropriate analyses is critical to estimate and understand a pathogen's transmissibility, high-risk settings for transmission, and key symptoms. These insights can help to inform urgent response strategies., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: England's COVID-19 roadmap out of lockdown policy set out the timeline and conditions for the stepwise lifting of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) as vaccination roll-out continued, with step one starting on March 8, 2021. In this study, we assess the roadmap, the impact of the delta (B.1.617.2) variant of SARS-CoV-2, and potential future epidemic trajectories., Methods: This mathematical modelling study was done to assess the UK Government's four-step process to easing lockdown restrictions in England, UK. We extended a previously described model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to incorporate vaccination and multi-strain dynamics to explicitly capture the emergence of the delta variant. We calibrated the model to English surveillance data, including hospital admissions, hospital occupancy, seroprevalence data, and population-level PCR testing data using a Bayesian evidence synthesis framework, then modelled the potential trajectory of the epidemic for a range of different schedules for relaxing NPIs. We estimated the resulting number of daily infections and hospital admissions, and daily and cumulative deaths. Three scenarios spanning a range of optimistic to pessimistic vaccine effectiveness, waning natural immunity, and cross-protection from previous infections were investigated. We also considered three levels of mixing after the lifting of restrictions., Findings: The roadmap policy was successful in offsetting the increased transmission resulting from lifting NPIs starting on March 8, 2021, with increasing population immunity through vaccination. However, because of the emergence of the delta variant, with an estimated transmission advantage of 76% (95% credible interval [95% CrI] 69-83) over alpha, fully lifting NPIs on June 21, 2021, as originally planned might have led to 3900 (95% CrI 1500-5700) peak daily hospital admissions under our central parameter scenario. Delaying until July 19, 2021, reduced peak hospital admissions by three fold to 1400 (95% CrI 700-1700) per day. There was substantial uncertainty in the epidemic trajectory, with particular sensitivity to the transmissibility of delta, level of mixing, and estimates of vaccine effectiveness., Interpretation: Our findings show that the risk of a large wave of COVID-19 hospital admissions resulting from lifting NPIs can be substantially mitigated if the timing of NPI relaxation is carefully balanced against vaccination coverage. However, with the delta variant, it might not be possible to fully lift NPIs without a third wave of hospital admissions and deaths, even if vaccination coverage is high. Variants of concern, their transmissibility, vaccine uptake, and vaccine effectiveness must be carefully monitored as countries relax pandemic control measures., Funding: National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, and UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AC has received payment from Pfizer for teaching of mathematical modelling of infectious diseases. KAMG has received honoraria from Wellcome Genome Campus for lectures and salary support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, through Imperial College London for work outside this study. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The UK and Sweden have among the worst per-capita COVID-19 mortality in Europe. Sweden stands out for its greater reliance on voluntary, rather than mandatory, control measures. We explore how the timing and effectiveness of control measures in the UK, Sweden and Denmark shaped COVID-19 mortality in each country, using a counterfactual assessment: what would the impact have been, had each country adopted the others' policies? Using a Bayesian semi-mechanistic model without prior assumptions on the mechanism or effectiveness of interventions, we estimate the time-varying reproduction number for the UK, Sweden and Denmark from daily mortality data. We use two approaches to evaluate counterfactuals which transpose the transmission profile from one country onto another, in each country's first wave from 13th March (when stringent interventions began) until 1st July 2020. UK mortality would have approximately doubled had Swedish policy been adopted, while Swedish mortality would have more than halved had Sweden adopted UK or Danish strategies. Danish policies were most effective, although differences between the UK and Denmark were significant for one counterfactual approach only. Our analysis shows that small changes in the timing or effectiveness of interventions have disproportionately large effects on total mortality within a rapidly growing epidemic., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

We fitted a model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in care homes and the community to regional surveillance data for England. Compared with other approaches, our model provides a synthesis of multiple surveillance data streams into a single coherent modeling framework, allowing transmission and severity to be disentangled from features of the surveillance system. Of the control measures implemented, only national lockdown brought the reproduction number ( R t ) below 1 consistently; if introduced 1 week earlier, it could have reduced deaths in the first wave from an estimated 48,600 to 25,600 [95% credible interval (CrI): 15,900 to 38,400]. The infection fatality ratio decreased from 1.00% (95% CrI: 0.85 to 1.21%) to 0.79% (95% CrI: 0.63 to 0.99%), suggesting improved clinical care. The infection fatality ratio was higher in the elderly residing in care homes (23.3%, 95% CrI: 14.7 to 35.2%) than those residing in the community (7.9%, 95% CrI: 5.9 to 10.3%). On 2 December 2020, England was still far from herd immunity, with regional cumulative infection incidence between 7.6% (95% CrI: 5.4 to 10.2%) and 22.3% (95% CrI: 19.4 to 25.4%) of the population. Therefore, any vaccination campaign will need to achieve high coverage and a high degree of protection in vaccinated individuals to allow nonpharmaceutical interventions to be lifted without a resurgence of transmission.eff ) below 1 consistently; if introduced 1 week earlier, it could have reduced deaths in the first wave from an estimated 48,600 to 25,600 [95% credible interval (CrI): 15,900 to 38,400]. The infection fatality ratio decreased from 1.00% (95% CrI: 0.85 to 1.21%) to 0.79% (95% CrI: 0.63 to 0.99%), suggesting improved clinical care. The infection fatality ratio was higher in the elderly residing in care homes (23.3%, 95% CrI: 14.7 to 35.2%) than those residing in the community (7.9%, 95% CrI: 5.9 to 10.3%). On 2 December 2020, England was still far from herd immunity, with regional cumulative infection incidence between 7.6% (95% CrI: 5.4 to 10.2%) and 22.3% (95% CrI: 19.4 to 25.4%) of the population. Therefore, any vaccination campaign will need to achieve high coverage and a high degree of protection in vaccinated individuals to allow nonpharmaceutical interventions to be lifted without a resurgence of transmission., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY).)

SARS-CoV-2 infections have been reported in all age groups including infants, children, and adolescents. However, the role of children in the COVID-19 pandemic is still uncertain. This systematic review of early studies synthesises evidence on the susceptibility of children to SARS-CoV-2 infection, the severity and clinical outcomes in children with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 by children in the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. A systematic literature review was conducted in PubMed. Reviewers extracted data from relevant, peer-reviewed studies published up to July 4th 2020 during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak using a standardised form and assessed quality using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. For studies included in the meta-analysis, we used a random effects model to calculate pooled estimates of the proportion of children considered asymptomatic or in a severe or critical state. We identified 2775 potential studies of which 128 studies met our inclusion criteria; data were extracted from 99, which were then quality assessed. Finally, 29 studies were considered for the meta-analysis that included information of symptoms and/or severity, these were further assessed based on patient recruitment. Our pooled estimate of the proportion of test positive children who were asymptomatic was 21.1% (95% CI: 14.0-28.1%), based on 13 included studies, and the proportion of children with severe or critical symptoms was 3.8% (95% CI: 1.5-6.0%), based on 14 included studies. We did not identify any studies designed to assess transmissibility in children and found that susceptibility to infection in children was highly variable across studies. Children's susceptibility to infection and onward transmissibility relative to adults is still unclear and varied widely between studies. However, it is evident that most children experience clinically mild disease or remain asymptomatically infected. More comprehensive contact-tracing studies combined with serosurveys are needed to quantify children's transmissibility relative to adults. With children back in schools, testing regimes and study protocols that will allow us to better understand the role of children in this pandemic are critical.

The worldwide endeavour to develop safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines has been extraordinary, and vaccination is now underway in many countries. However, the doses available in 2021 are likely to be limited. We extend a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission across different country settings to evaluate the public health impact of potential vaccines using WHO-developed target product profiles. We identify optimal vaccine allocation strategies within- and between-countries to maximise averted deaths under constraints on dose supply. We find that the health impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination depends on the cumulative population-level infection incidence when vaccination begins, the duration of natural immunity, the trajectory of the epidemic prior to vaccination, and the level of healthcare available to effectively treat those with disease. Within a country we find that for a limited supply (doses for < 20% of the population) the optimal strategy is to target the elderly. However, with a larger supply, if vaccination can occur while other interventions are maintained, the optimal strategy switches to targeting key transmitters to indirectly protect the vulnerable. As supply increases, vaccines that reduce or block infection have a greater impact than those that prevent disease alone due to the indirect protection provided to high-risk groups. Given a 2 billion global dose supply in 2021, we find that a strategy in which doses are allocated to countries proportional to population size is close to optimal in averting deaths and aligns with the ethical principles agreed in pandemic preparedness planning., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare grants from The Wellcome Trust (NMF, ACG), UK Medical Research Council (NMF, ACG, KH), National Institute for Health Research (NMF, KH), Community Jameel (NMF, KH), the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (OJW) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (NMF), during the conduct of the study; grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (ACG), National Institute for Health (ACG), GlaxoSmithKline (AL), and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (ACG, KAMG) outside the submitted work; personal fees from the World Health Organization (ACG, ABH, MB, PW) during the conduct of the study, in relation to developing the online interface (approximately £1000 per individual); and personal fees from The Global Fund (ACG, PW) outside the submitted work. ABH was previously engaged by Pfizer Inc to advise on modelling RSV vaccination strategies for which she received no financial compensation. There are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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.

Objectives: In this data collation study, we aimed to provide a comprehensive database describing the epidemic trends and responses during the first wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) throughout the main provinces in China., Methods: From mid-January to March 2020, we extracted publicly available data regarding 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 descriptive analyses of the epidemic 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 differed among provinces. Compared with 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 the local transmission of COVID-19 declined, switching the focus of measures to the testing and quarantine of inbound travellers may have helped 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 containing these indicators and information regarding control measures is a useful resource for further research and policy planning in response to the COVID-19 epidemic., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

As of 1st June 2020, the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention reported 104,232 confirmed or probable COVID-19-related deaths in the US. This was more than twice the number of deaths reported in the next most severely impacted country. We jointly model the US epidemic at the state-level, using publicly available death data within a Bayesian hierarchical semi-mechanistic framework. For each state, we estimate the number of individuals that have been infected, the number of individuals that are currently infectious and the time-varying reproduction number (the average number of secondary infections caused by an infected person). We use changes in mobility to capture the impact that non-pharmaceutical interventions and other behaviour changes have on the rate of transmission of SARS-CoV-2. We estimate that R t was only below one in 23 states on 1st June. We also estimate that 3.7% [3.4%-4.0%] of the total population of the US had been infected, with wide variation between states, and approximately 0.01% of the population was infectious. We demonstrate good 3 week model forecasts of deaths with low error and good coverage of our credible intervals.