Search

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.

Objectives: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusions: 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., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interests ACH serves on the UK New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group. AMJ was a Governor of Wellcome Trust from 2011-2018 and is Chair of the Committee for Strategic Coordination for Health of the Public Research., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: It is poorly understood which workers lack access to sick pay in England and Wales. This evidence gap has been of particular interest in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic given the relationship between presenteeism and infectious disease transmission., Method: This cross-sectional analysis (n = 8874) was nested within a large community cohort study based across England and Wales (Virus Watch). An online survey in February 2021 asked participants in work if they had access to paid sick leave. We used logistic regression to examine sociodemographic factors associated with lacking access to sick pay., Results: Only 66% (n = 5864) of participants reported access to sick pay. South Asian workers (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.83) and those from Other minority ethnic backgrounds (OR 2.93, 95% CI 1.54-5.59) were more likely to lack access to sick pay compared to White British workers. Older workers (OR range 1.72 [1.53-1.93]-5.26 [4.42-6.26]), workers in low-income households (OR 2.53, 95% CI 2.15-2.98) and those in transport, trade, and service occupations (OR range 2.03 [1.58-2.61]-5.29 [3.67-7.72]) were also more likely to lack access to sick pay compared respectively to workers aged 25-44, those in high income households and managerial occupations., Discussion: Unwarranted age and ethnic inequalities in sick pay access are suggestive of labour market discrimination. Occupational differences are also cause for concern. Policymakers should consider expanding access to sick pay to mitigate transmission of Covid-19 and other endemic respiratory infections in the community, and in the context of pandemic preparation., (© 2023 The Authors. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Migrants are over-represented in SARS-CoV-2 infections globally; however, evidence is limited for migrants in England and Wales. Household overcrowding is a risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection, with migrants more likely to live in overcrowded households than UK-born individuals. We aimed to estimate the total effect of migration status on SARS-CoV-2 infection and to what extent household overcrowding mediated this effect., Methods: We included a subcohort of individuals from the Virus Watch prospective cohort study during the second SARS-CoV-2 wave (1 September 2020-30 April 2021) who were aged ≥18 years, self-reported the number of rooms in their household and had no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection pre-September 2020. We estimated total, indirect and direct effects using Buis' logistic decomposition regression controlling for age, sex, ethnicity, clinical vulnerability, occupation, income and whether they lived with children., Results: In total, 23 478 individuals were included. 9.07% (187/2062) of migrants had evidence of infection during the study period vs 6.27% (1342/21 416) of UK-born individuals. Migrants had 22% higher odds of infection during the second wave (total effect; OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.47). Household overcrowding accounted for approximately 36% (95% CI -4% to 77%) of these increased odds (indirect effect, OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.12; proportion accounted for: indirect effect on log odds scale/total effect on log odds scale=0.36)., Conclusion: Migrants had higher odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the second wave compared with UK-born individuals and household overcrowding explained 36% of these increased odds. Policy interventions to reduce household overcrowding for migrants are needed as part of efforts to tackle health inequalities during the pandemic and beyond., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AH serves on the UK New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group. The other authors declare no potential conflict of interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Respiratory viruses that were suppressed through previous lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic have recently started to co-circulate with SARS-CoV-2. Understanding the clinical characteristics and symptomatology of different respiratory viral infections can help address the challenges related to the identification of cases and the understanding of SARS-CoV-2 variants' evolutionary patterns. Flu Watch (2006-2011) and Virus Watch (2020-2022) are household community cohort studies monitoring the epidemiology of influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, rhinovirus, seasonal coronavirus, and SARS-CoV-2, in England and Wales. This study describes and compares the proportion of symptoms reported during illnesses infected by common respiratory viruses. The SARS-CoV-2 symptom profile increasingly resembles that of other respiratory viruses as new strains emerge. Increased cough, sore throat, runny nose, and sneezing are associated with the emergence of the Omicron strains. As SARS-CoV-2 becomes endemic, monitoring the evolution of its symptomatology associated with new variants will be critical for clinical surveillance., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

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 cross-occupational 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.

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., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association.)

Background: Evidence suggests that individuals may change adherence to public health policies aimed at reducing the contact, transmission, and spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus after they receive their first SARS-CoV-2 vaccination when they are not fully vaccinated., Objective: We aimed to estimate changes in median daily travel distance of our cohort from their registered addresses before and after receiving a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine., Methods: Participants were recruited into Virus Watch starting in June 2020. Weekly surveys were sent out to participants, and vaccination status was collected from January 2021 onward. Between September 2020 and February 2021, we invited 13,120 adult Virus Watch participants to contribute toward our tracker subcohort, which uses the GPS via a smartphone app to collect data on movement. We used segmented linear regression to estimate the median daily travel distance before and after the first self-reported SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose., Results: We analyzed the daily travel distance of 249 vaccinated adults. From 157 days prior to vaccination until the day before vaccination, the median daily travel distance was 9.05 (IQR 8.06-10.09) km. From the day of vaccination to 105 days after vaccination, the median daily travel distance was 10.08 (IQR 8.60-12.42) km. From 157 days prior to vaccination until the vaccination date, there was a daily median decrease in mobility of 40.09 m (95% CI -50.08 to -31.10; P<.001). After vaccination, there was a median daily increase in movement of 60.60 m (95% CI 20.90-100; P<.001). Restricting the analysis to the third national lockdown (January 4, 2021, to April 5, 2021), we found a median daily movement increase of 18.30 m (95% CI -19.20 to 55.80; P=.57) in the 30 days prior to vaccination and a median daily movement increase of 9.36 m (95% CI 38.6-149.00; P=.69) in the 30 days after vaccination., Conclusions: Our study demonstrates the feasibility of collecting high-volume geolocation data as part of research projects and the utility of these data for understanding public health issues. Our various analyses produced results that ranged from no change in movement after vaccination (during the third national lock down) to an increase in movement after vaccination (considering all periods, up to 105 days after vaccination), suggesting that, among Virus Watch participants, any changes in movement distances after vaccination are small. Our findings may be attributable to public health measures in place at the time such as movement restrictions and home working that applied to the Virus Watch cohort participants during the study period., (©Vincent Nguyen, Yunzhe Liu, Richard Mumford, Benjamin Flanagan, Parth Patel, Isobel Braithwaite, Madhumita Shrotri, Thomas Byrne, Sarah Beale, Anna Aryee, Wing Lam Erica Fong, Ellen Fragaszy, Cyril Geismar, Annalan M D Navaratnam, Pia Hardelid, Jana Kovar, Addy Pope, Tao Cheng, Andrew Hayward, Robert Aldridge, Virus Watch Collaborative. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (https://publichealth.jmir.org), 08.03.2023.)

Background: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusion: 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., 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 © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: 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., Methods: 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., Findings: 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)., Interpretation: 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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interests The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: [AH serves on the UK New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group and is a member of the COVID-19 transmission sub-group of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). The other authors report no conflicts of interest.]., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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.

Competing Interests: Professor Hayward serves on the UK New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group. All the remaining authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Background: The serial interval is a key epidemiological measure that quantifies the time between an infector's and an infectee's onset of symptoms. This measure helps investigate epidemiological links between cases, and is an important parameter in transmission models used to estimate transmissibility and inform control strategies. The emergence of multiple variants of concern (VOC) during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has led to uncertainties about potential changes in the serial interval of COVID-19. We estimated the household serial interval of multiple VOC using data collected by the Virus Watch study. This online, prospective, community cohort study followed-up entire households in England and Wales since mid-June 2020., Methods: This analysis included 5842 symptomatic individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection among 2579 households from Sept 1, 2020, to Aug 10, 2022. SARS-CoV-2 variant designation was based upon national surveillance data of variant prevalence by date and geographical region. We used a Bayesian framework to infer who infected whom by exploring all transmission trees compatible with the observed dates of symptoms, given assumptions on the incubation period and generation time distributions using the R package outbreaker2., Findings: We characterised the serial interval of COVID-19 by VOC. The mean serial interval was shortest for omicron BA5 (2·02 days; 95% credible interval [CrI] 1·26-2·84) and longest for alpha (3·37 days; 2·52-4·04). The mean serial interval before alpha (wild-type) was 2·29 days (95% CrI 1·39-2·94), 3·11 days (2·28-3·90) for delta, 2·72 days (2·01-3·47) for omicron BA1, and 2·67 days (1·90-3·46) for omicron BA2. We estimated that 17% (95% CrI 5-26) of serial interval values are negative across all variants., Interpretation: Most methods estimating the reproduction number from incidence time series do not allow for a negative serial interval by construction. Further research is needed to extend these methods and assess biases introduced by not accounting for negative serial intervals. To our knowledge, this study is the first to use a Bayesian framework to estimate the serial interval of all major SARS-CoV-2 VOC from thousands of confirmed household cases., Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Wellcome Trust., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Vaccination constitutes the best long-term solution against Coronavirus Disease-2019; however, vaccine-derived immunity may not protect all groups equally, and the durability of protective antibodies may be short. We evaluate Spike-antibody responses following BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-S vaccination amongst SARS-CoV2-naive adults across England and Wales enrolled in a prospective cohort study (Virus Watch). Here we show BNT162b2 recipients achieved higher peak antibody levels after two doses; however, both groups experience substantial antibody waning over time. In 8356 individuals submitting a sample ≥28 days after Dose 2, we observe significantly reduced Spike-antibody levels following two doses amongst individuals reporting conditions and therapies that cause immunosuppression. After adjusting for these, several common chronic conditions also appear to attenuate the antibody response. These findings suggest the need to continue prioritising vulnerable groups, who have been vaccinated earliest and have the most attenuated antibody responses, for future boosters., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objectives: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusion: 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., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

A range of studies globally demonstrate that the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines wane over time, but the total effect of anti-S antibody levels on risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and whether this varies by vaccine type is not well understood. Here we show that anti-S levels peak three to four weeks following the second dose of vaccine and the geometric mean of the samples is nine fold higher for BNT162b2 than ChAdOx1. Increasing anti-S levels are associated with a reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Hazard Ratio 0.85; 95%CIs: 0.79-0.92). We do not find evidence that this antibody relationship with risk of infection varies by second dose vaccine type (BNT162b2 vs. ChAdOx1). In keeping with our anti-S antibody data, we find that people vaccinated with ChAdOx1 had 1.64 times the odds (95% confidence interval 1.45-1.85) of a breakthrough infection compared to BNT162b2. We anticipate our findings to be useful in the estimation of the protective effect of anti-S levels on risk of infection due to Delta. Our findings provide evidence about the relationship between antibody levels and protection for different vaccines and will support decisions on optimising the timing of booster vaccinations and identifying individuals who should be prioritised for booster vaccination, including those who are older, clinically extremely vulnerable, or received ChAdOx1 as their primary course. Our finding that risk of infection by anti-S level does not interact with vaccine type, but that individuals vaccinated with ChAdOx1 were at higher risk of infection, provides additional support for the use of using anti-S levels for estimating vaccine efficacy., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Differential exposure to public activities may contribute to stark deprivation-related inequalities in SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes but has not been directly investigated. We set out to investigate whether participants in Virus Watch-a large community cohort study based in England and Wales-reported differential exposure to public activities and non-household contacts during the autumn-winter phase of the COVID-19 pandemic according to postcode-level socioeconomic deprivation., Methods: Participants (n=20 120-25 228 across surveys) reported their daily activities during 3 weekly periods in late November 2020, late December 2020 and mid-February 2021. Deprivation was quantified based on participants' residential postcode using English or Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation quintiles. We used Poisson mixed-effect models with robust standard errors to estimate the relationship between deprivation and risk of exposure to public activities during each survey period., Results: Relative to participants in the least deprived areas, participants in the most deprived areas exhibited elevated risk of exposure to vehicle sharing (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) range across time points: 1.73-8.52), public transport (aRR: 3.13-5.73), work or education outside of the household (aRR: 1.09-1.21), essential shops (aRR: 1.09-1.13) and non-household contacts (aRR: 1.15-1.19) across multiple survey periods., Conclusion: Differential exposure to essential public activities-such as attending workplaces and visiting essential shops-is likely to contribute to inequalities in infection risk and outcomes. Public health interventions to reduce exposure during essential activities and financial and practical support to enable low-paid workers to stay at home during periods of intense transmission may reduce COVID-related inequalities., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AH serves on the UK New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group. The other authors declare no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

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.)

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]

Background: Workers across different occupations vary in their risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the direct contribution of occupation to this relationship is unclear. This study aimed to investigate how infection risk differed across occupational groups in England and Wales up to April 2022, after adjustment for potential confounding and stratification by pandemic phase. Methods: Data from 15,190 employed/self-employed participants in the Virus Watch prospective cohort study were used to generate risk ratios for virologically- or serologically-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection using robust Poisson regression, adjusting for socio-demographic and health-related factors and non-work public activities. We calculated attributable fractions (AF) amongst the exposed for belonging to each occupational group based on adjusted risk ratios (aRR). Results: Increased risk was seen in nurses (aRR = 1.44, 1.25–1.65; AF = 30%, 20–39%), doctors (aRR = 1.33, 1.08–1.65; AF = 25%, 7–39%), carers (1.45, 1.19–1.76; AF = 31%, 16–43%), primary school teachers (aRR = 1.67, 1.42- 1.96; AF = 40%, 30–49%), secondary school teachers (aRR = 1.48, 1.26–1.72; AF = 32%, 21–42%), and teaching support occupations (aRR = 1.42, 1.23–1.64; AF = 29%, 18–39%) compared to office-based professional occupations. Differential risk was apparent in the earlier phases (Feb 2020—May 2021) and attenuated later (June—October 2021) for most groups, although teachers and teaching support workers demonstrated persistently elevated risk across waves. Conclusions: Occupational differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection risk vary over time and are robust to adjustment for socio-demographic, health-related, and non-workplace activity-related potential confounders. Direct investigation into workplace factors underlying elevated risk and how these change over time is needed to inform occupational health interventions. [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]

• 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]