Search

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses a severe threat to public health worldwide. We combine data on demography, contact patterns, disease severity, and health care capacity and quality to understand its impact and inform strategies for its control. Younger populations in lower-income countries may reduce overall risk, but limited health system capacity coupled with closer intergenerational contact largely negates this benefit. Mitigation strategies that slow but do not interrupt transmission will still lead to COVID-19 epidemics rapidly overwhelming health systems, with substantial excess deaths in lower-income countries resulting from the poorer health care available. Of countries that have undertaken suppression to date, lower-income countries have acted earlier. However, this will need to be maintained or triggered more frequently in these settings to keep below available health capacity, with associated detrimental consequences for the wider health, well-being, and economies of these countries.

Background:Vaccination is one of the most effective public health interventions. We investigate the impact of vaccination activities for Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, human papillomavirus, Japanese encephalitis, measles, Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A, rotavirus, rubella, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and yellow fever over the years 2000–2030 across 112 countries.Methods:Twenty-one mathematical models estimated disease burden using standardised demographic and immunisation data. Impact was attributed to the year of vaccination through vaccine-activity-stratified impact ratios.Results:We estimate 97 (95%CrI[80, 120]) million deaths would be averted due to vaccination activities over 2000–2030, with 50 (95%CrI[41, 62]) million deaths averted by activities between 2000 and 2019. For children under-5 born between 2000 and 2030, we estimate 52 (95%CrI[41, 69]) million more deaths would occur over their lifetimes without vaccination against these diseases.Conclusions:This study represents the largest assessment of vaccine impact before COVID-19-related disruptions and provides motivation for sustaining and improving global vaccination coverage in the future.Funding:VIMC is jointly funded by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) (BMGF grant number: OPP1157270 / INV-009125). Funding from Gavi is channelled via VIMC to the Consortium’s modelling groups (VIMC-funded institutions represented in this paper: Imperial College London, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Oxford University Clinical Research Unit, Public Health England, Johns Hopkins University, The Pennsylvania State University, Center for Disease Analysis Foundation, Kaiser Permanente Washington, University of Cambridge, University of Notre Dame, Harvard University, Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, Emory University, National University of Singapore). Funding from BMGF was used for salaries of the Consortium secretariat (authors represented here: TBH, MJ, XL, SE-L, JT, KW, NMF, KAMG); and channelled via VIMC for travel and subsistence costs of all Consortium members (all authors). We also acknowledge funding from the UK Medical Research Council and Department for International Development, which supported aspects of VIMC's work (MRC grant number: MR/R015600/1).JHH acknowledges funding from National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship; Richard and Peggy Notebaert Premier Fellowship from the University of Notre Dame. BAL acknowledges funding from NIH/NIGMS (grant number R01 GM124280) and NIH/NIAID (grant number R01 AI112970). The Lives Saved Tool (LiST) receives funding support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.This paper was compiled by all coauthors, including two coauthors from Gavi. Other funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. All authors had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

Background:Sanofi-Pasteur’s CYD-TDV is the only licensed dengue vaccine. Two phase three trials showed higher efficacy in seropositive than seronegative recipients. Hospital follow-up revealed increased hospitalisation in 2–5- year-old vaccinees, where serostatus and age effects were unresolved.Methods:We fit a survival model to individual-level data from both trials, including year 1 of hospital follow-up. We determine efficacy by age, serostatus, serotype and severity, and examine efficacy duration and vaccine action mechanism.Results:Our modelling indicates that vaccine-induced immunity is long-lived in seropositive recipients, and therefore that vaccinating seropositives gives higher protection than two natural infections. Long-term increased hospitalisation risk outweighs short-lived immunity in seronegatives. Independently of serostatus, transient immunity increases with age, and is highest against serotype 4. Benefit is higher in seropositives, and risk enhancement is greater in seronegatives, against hospitalised disease than against febrile disease.Conclusions:Our results support vaccinating seropositives only. Rapid diagnostic tests would enable viable ‘screen-then-vaccinate’ programs. Since CYD-TDV acts as a silent infection, long-term safety of other vaccine candidates must be closely monitored.Funding:Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Royal Society.Clinical trial number:NCT01373281 and NCT01374516.

A SARS-CoV-2 transmission model fitted to surveillance data estimates virus transmissibility, infection severity, and the impact of interventions., COVID in the community Understanding factors related to the initial spread and control of SARS-CoV-2 is important in light of emerging variants. Knock et al. retrospectively examined differences in SARS-CoV-2 transmission and related mortality in care homes, hospitals, and the community in England since the virus was first introduced in December 2020, stratified by age and geographical region over time. They found that lockdown was by far the most effective control measure and also estimated that mortality in England at this time could have been roughly halved if a lockdown had been introduced 1 week earlier., 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 (Rteff) 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.

The SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7, now designated Variant of Concern 202012/01 (VOC) by Public Health England, originated in the UK in late Summer to early Autumn 2020. We examine epidemiological evidence for this VOC having a transmission advantage from several perspectives. First, whole genome sequence data collected from community-based diagnostic testing provides an indication of changing prevalence of different genetic variants through time. Phylodynamic modelling additionally indicates that genetic diversity of this lineage has changed in a manner consistent with exponential growth. Second, we find that changes in VOC frequency inferred from genetic data correspond closely to changes inferred by S-gene target failures (SGTF) in community-based diagnostic PCR testing. Third, we examine growth trends in SGTF and non-SGTF case numbers at local area level across England, and show that the VOC has higher transmissibility than non-VOC lineages, even if the VOC has a different latent period or generation time. Available SGTF data indicate a shift in the age composition of reported cases, with a larger share of under 20 year olds among reported VOC than non-VOC cases. Fourth, we assess the association of VOC frequency with independent estimates of the overall SARS-CoV-2 reproduction number through time. Finally, we fit a semi-mechanistic model directly to local VOC and non-VOC case incidence to estimate the reproduction numbers over time for each. There is a consensus among all analyses that the VOC has a substantial transmission advantage, with the estimated difference in reproduction numbers between VOC and non-VOC ranging between 0.4 and 0.7, and the ratio of reproduction numbers varying between 1.4 and 1.8. We note that these estimates of transmission advantage apply to a period where high levels of social distancing were in place in England; extrapolation to other transmission contexts therefore requires caution.

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

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

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

Background: As of August 2021, every region of the world has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, with more than 196,000,000 cases worldwide. Methods: We analysed COVID-19 cases among travellers from mainland China to different regions and countries, comparing the region- and country-specific rates of detected and confirmed cases per flight volume to estimate the relative sensitivity of surveillance in different regions and countries. Results: Although travel restrictions from Wuhan City and other cities across China may have reduced the absolute number of travellers to and from China, we estimated that up to 70% (95% CI: 54% - 80%) of imported cases could remain undetected relative to the sensitivity of surveillance in Singapore. The percentage of undetected imported cases rises to 75% (95% CI 66% - 82%) when comparing to the surveillance sensitivity in multiple countries. Conclusions: Our analysis shows that a large number of COVID-19 cases remain undetected across the world. These undetected cases potentially resulted in multiple chains of human-to-human transmission outside mainland China.

Summary Background The past two decades have seen expansion of childhood vaccination programmes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We quantify the health impact of these programmes by estimating the deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted by vaccination against ten pathogens in 98 LMICs between 2000 and 2030. Methods 16 independent research groups provided model-based disease burden estimates under a range of vaccination coverage scenarios for ten pathogens: hepatitis B virus, Haemophilus influenzae type B, human papillomavirus, Japanese encephalitis, measles, Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A, Streptococcus pneumoniae, rotavirus, rubella, and yellow fever. Using standardised demographic data and vaccine coverage, the impact of vaccination programmes was determined by comparing model estimates from a no-vaccination counterfactual scenario with those from a reported and projected vaccination scenario. We present deaths and DALYs averted between 2000 and 2030 by calendar year and by annual birth cohort. Findings We estimate that vaccination of the ten selected pathogens will have averted 69 million (95% credible interval 52–88) deaths between 2000 and 2030, of which 37 million (30–48) were averted between 2000 and 2019. From 2000 to 2019, this represents a 45% (36–58) reduction in deaths compared with the counterfactual scenario of no vaccination. Most of this impact is concentrated in a reduction in mortality among children younger than 5 years (57% reduction [52–66]), most notably from measles. Over the lifetime of birth cohorts born between 2000 and 2030, we predict that 120 million (93–150) deaths will be averted by vaccination, of which 58 million (39–76) are due to measles vaccination and 38 million (25–52) are due to hepatitis B vaccination. We estimate that increases in vaccine coverage and introductions of additional vaccines will result in a 72% (59–81) reduction in lifetime mortality in the 2019 birth cohort. Interpretation Increases in vaccine coverage and the introduction of new vaccines into LMICs have had a major impact in reducing mortality. These public health gains are predicted to increase in coming decades if progress in increasing coverage is sustained. Funding Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Background: The last two decades have seen substantial expansion of childhood vaccination programmes in low and middle income countries (LMICs). Here we quantify the health impact of these programmes by estimating the deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted by vaccination against ten pathogens in 98 LMICs between 2000 and 2030. Methods: Independent research groups provided model-based disease burden estimates under a range of vaccination coverage scenarios for ten pathogens: hepatitis B (HepB), Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), human papillomavirus (HPV), Japanese encephalitis (JE), measles, Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A (MenA), Streptococcus pneumoniae, rotavirus, rubella, yellow fever. Using standardized demographic data and vaccine coverage estimates for routine and supplementary immunization activities, the impact of vaccination programmes on deaths and DALYs was determined by comparing model estimates from the no vaccination counterfactual scenario with those from a default coverage scenario. We present results in two forms: deaths/DALYs averted in a particular calendar year, and in a particular annual birth cohort. Findings: We estimate that vaccination will have averted 69 (2⋅5-97⋅5% quantile range 52-88) million deaths between 2000 and 2030 across the 98 countries and ten pathogens considered, 35 (29-45) million of these between 2000-2018. From 2000-2018, this represents a 44% (36-57%) reduction in deaths due to the ten pathogens relative to the no vaccination counterfactual. Most (96% (93-97%)) of this impact is in under-five age mortality, notably from measles. Over the lifetime of birth cohorts born between 2000 and 2030, we predict that 122 (96-147) million deaths will be averted by vaccination, of which 58 (39-75) and 38 (26-52) million are due to measles and Hepatitis B vaccination, respectively. We estimate that recent increases in vaccine coverage and introductions of additional vaccines will result in a 72% (61-79%) reduction in lifetime mortality caused by these 10 pathogens in the 2018 birth cohort. Interpretation: Increases in vaccine coverage and the introduction of new vaccines into LMICs over the last two decades have had a major impact in reducing mortality. These public health gains are predicted to increase in coming decades if progress in increasing coverage is sustained. Funding Statement: VIMC is jointly funded by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Funding from Gavi is channelled via VIMC to the Consortium's modelling groups (VIMCfunded institutions represented in this paper: Imperial College London, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Oxford University Clinical Research Unit, Public Health England, Johns Hopkins University, The Pennsylvania State University, Center for Disease Analysis Foundation, Kaiser Permanente Washington, University of Cambridge, University of Notre Dame, Harvard University, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers). Funding from BMGF was used for salaries of the Consortium secretariat (authors represented here: Professor Hallett, Professor Grassly, Dr Cucunuba, Professor Jit, Dr Xiang Li, Dr Mukandavire, Ms Woodruff, Professor Ferguson, Dr Garske); and channelled via VIMC for travel and subsistence costs of all Consortium members (all authors). In addition, the following funding declarations are noted: Dr Eilertson and Dr Ferrari report grants from BMGF, outside the submitted work. Mr Gamkrelidze, Dr Razavi and Mr Razavi-Shearer report grants from John C Martin Foundation during the conduct of the study; and grants from AbbVie, Gilead, Intercept, Pan American Health Organization, and Association of State and Territorial Health Officials outside the submitted work; all three authors are employees of the Center for Disease Analysis Foundation which had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, interpretation of data, or preparation of the manuscript. Dr Gaythorpe reports personal fees from Wellcome Genome Campus advanced courses and scientific conferences, and grants from MRC during the conduct of the study. Dr Hallett reports grants and personal fees from WHO, Pharos, Avenhir Health, outside the submitted work. Dr Nayagam reports Consultancy work for WHO and Pharos Global Health Advisors, and acknowledges support from NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). Dr Trotter reports personal fees from GSK, outside the submitted work. Professor Hallett, Dr Nayagam, Dr Garske, Dr Gaythorpe, Dr Hinsley, Dr Jean, and Professor Ferguson acknowledge joint Centre funding from the UK Medical Research Council and Department for International Development (MR/R015600/1). Development of LSHTM's models for HPV, measles, PCV, Hib and rotavirus was funded by WHO, Gavi and BMGF under several grants, past and current. BMGF supported the development and maintenance of the Lives Saved Tool. Dr Resch and Mr Sy acknowledge other funding from BMGF not related to this work and with no influence on the manuscript or the decision to submit it for publication. Declaration of Interests: This publication is authored by members of the Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium (VIMC, www.vaccineimpact.org). VIMC is jointly funded by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Consortium or its funders. The funders were given the opportunity to review this paper prior to publication, but the final decision on the content of the publication was taken by the authors. Consortium members received funding from Gavi and BMGF via VIMC during the course of the study (see funding statement above). In addition, the following potential conflicts of interest were disclosed: Dr Eilertson and Dr Ferrari report grants from Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, outside the submitted work. Dr Gamkrelidze, Dr Razavi and Dr Razavi-Shearer report grants from John C Martin Foundation during the conduct of the study; and grants from AbbVie, Gilead, Intercept, Pan American Health Organization, and Association of State and Territorial Health Officials outside the submitted work. Dr Gaythorpe reports personal fees from Wellcome Genome Campus advanced courses and scientific conferences, and grants from MRC during the conduct of the study. Dr Hallett reports grants and personal fees from WHO, Pharos, Avenhir Health, outside the submitted work. Dr Nayagam reports Consultancy work for WHO and Pharos Global Health Advisors. Dr Trotter reports personal fees from GSK, outside the submitted work. Professor Ferguson reports grants from UK Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study, and grants from NIH NIGMS, UK National Institute of Health Research, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Dr Garske reports grants from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Ethical Approval Statement: Not required.

Background The ongoing West African Ebola epidemic began in December 2013 in Guinea, probably from a single zoonotic introduction. As a result of ineffective initial control efforts, an Ebola outbreak of unprecedented scale emerged. As of 4 May 2015, it had resulted in more than 19,000 probable and confirmed Ebola cases, mainly in Guinea (3,529), Liberia (5,343), and Sierra Leone (10,746). Here, we present analyses of data collected during the outbreak identifying drivers of transmission and highlighting areas where control could be improved. Methods and Findings Over 19,000 confirmed and probable Ebola cases were reported in West Africa by 4 May 2015. Individuals with confirmed or probable Ebola (“cases”) were asked if they had exposure to other potential Ebola cases (“potential source contacts”) in a funeral or non-funeral context prior to becoming ill. We performed retrospective analyses of a case line-list, collated from national databases of case investigation forms that have been reported to WHO. These analyses were initially performed to assist WHO’s response during the epidemic, and have been updated for publication. We analysed data from 3,529 cases in Guinea, 5,343 in Liberia, and 10,746 in Sierra Leone; exposures were reported by 33% of cases. The proportion of cases reporting a funeral exposure decreased over time. We found a positive correlation (r = 0.35, p < 0.001) between this proportion in a given district for a given month and the within-district transmission intensity, quantified by the estimated reproduction number (R). We also found a negative correlation (r = −0.37, p < 0.001) between R and the district proportion of hospitalised cases admitted within ≤4 days of symptom onset. These two proportions were not correlated, suggesting that reduced funeral attendance and faster hospitalisation independently influenced local transmission intensity. We were able to identify 14% of potential source contacts as cases in the case line-list. Linking cases to the contacts who potentially infected them provided information on the transmission network. This revealed a high degree of heterogeneity in inferred transmissions, with only 20% of cases accounting for at least 73% of new infections, a phenomenon often called super-spreading. Multivariable regression models allowed us to identify predictors of being named as a potential source contact. These were similar for funeral and non-funeral contacts: severe symptoms, death, non-hospitalisation, older age, and travelling prior to symptom onset. Non-funeral exposures were strongly peaked around the death of the contact. There was evidence that hospitalisation reduced but did not eliminate onward exposures. We found that Ebola treatment units were better than other health care facilities at preventing exposure from hospitalised and deceased individuals. The principal limitation of our analysis is limited data quality, with cases not being entered into the database, cases not reporting exposures, or data being entered incorrectly (especially dates, and possible misclassifications). Conclusions Achieving elimination of Ebola is challenging, partly because of super-spreading. Safe funeral practices and fast hospitalisation contributed to the containment of this Ebola epidemic. Continued real-time data capture, reporting, and analysis are vital to track transmission patterns, inform resource deployment, and thus hasten and maintain elimination of the virus from the human population., In this retrospective observational study, Christophe Fraser and colleagues analyze the exposure patterns associated with Ebola transmission during the 2013-2016 epidemic in West Africa., Author Summary Why Was This Study Done? Knowing how and from whom individuals acquire infection can help inform the response to limit the impact of an epidemic; this study presents updated versions of analyses initially performed to assist the international response during the 2013–2016 Ebola epidemic in West Africa. Over 19,000 individuals with confirmed or probable Ebola (“cases”) were reported in West Africa by 4 May 2015. Cases were asked whether they had exposure to potential Ebola cases (“potential source contacts”) in a funeral or non-funeral context prior to becoming ill. What Did the Researchers Do and Find? We analysed data from 3,529 cases in Guinea, 5,343 in Liberia, and 10,746 in Sierra Leone; exposures were reported by 33% of cases. Non-funeral exposures were strongly peaked around the time of death of the contact. There was evidence of super-spreading, with only 20% of cases accounting for at least 73% of new infections. What Do These Findings Mean? Safe funeral practices and fast hospitalisation contributed to the containment of this Ebola epidemic. The data are highly detailed despite the challenging circumstances in the three countries; however, the analyses were limited by data quality, mostly missing data and incorrect entries. In light of viral persistence in reservoirs, it is vital to maintain active surveillance and analysis of Ebola outbreaks to avoid and contain future outbreaks.

Between December 2013 and April 2016, the largest epidemic of Ebola virus disease (EVD) to date generated more than 28,000 cases and more than 11,000 deaths in the large, mobile populations of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. Tracking the rapid rise and slower decline of the West African epidemic has reinforced some common understandings about the epidemiology and control of EVD but has also generated new insights. Despite having more information about the geographic distribution of the disease, the risk of human infection from animals and from survivors of EVD remains unpredictable over a wide area of equatorial Africa. Until human exposure to infection can be anticipated or avoided, future outbreaks will have to be managed with the classic approach to EVD control — extensive surveillance, rapid detection and diagnosis, comprehensive tracing of contacts, prompt patient isolation, supportive clinical care, rigorous efforts to prevent and control infection, safe and dignified burial, and engagement of the community. Empirical and modeling studies conducted during the West African epidemic have shown that large epidemics of EVD are preventable — a rapid response can interrupt transmission and restrict the size of outbreaks, even in densely populated cities. The critical question now is how to ensure that populations and their health services are ready for the next outbreak, wherever it may occur. Health security across Africa and beyond depends on committing resources to both strengthen national health systems and sustain investment in the next generation of vaccines, drugs, and diagnostics.

Seasonal influenza has considerable impact around the world, both economically and in mortality among risk groups, but there is considerable uncertainty as to the essential mechanisms and their parametrization. In this paper, we identify a number of characteristic features of influenza incidence time series in temperate regions, including ranges of annual attack rates and outbreak durations. By constraining the output of simple models to match these characteristic features, we investigate the role played by population heterogeneity, multiple strains, cross-immunity and the rate of strain evolution in the generation of incidence time series. Results indicate that an age-structured model with non-random mixing and co-circulating strains are both required to match observed time-series data. Our work gives estimates of the seasonal peak basic reproduction number, R 0 , in the range 1.6–3. Estimates of R 0 are strongly correlated with the timescale for waning of immunity to current circulating seasonal influenza strain, which we estimate is between 3 and 8 years. Seasonal variation in transmissibility is largely confined to 15–30% of its mean value. While population heterogeneity and cross-immunity are required mechanisms, the degree of heterogeneity and cross-immunity is not tightly constrained. We discuss our findings in the context of other work fitting to seasonal influenza data.

Ebola emerged in West Africa around December 2013 and swept through Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia, giving rise to 27,748 confirmed, probable and suspected cases reported by 29 July 2015. Case diagnoses during the epidemic have relied on polymerase chain reaction-based tests. Owing to limited laboratory capacity and local transport infrastructure, the delays from sample collection to test results being available have often been 2 days or more. Point-of-care rapid diagnostic tests offer the potential to substantially reduce these delays. We review Ebola rapid diagnostic tests approved by the World Health Organization and those currently in development. Such rapid diagnostic tests could allow early triaging of patients, thereby reducing the potential for nosocomial transmission. In addition, despite the lower test accuracy, rapid diagnostic test-based diagnosis may be beneficial in some contexts because of the reduced time spent by uninfected individuals in health-care settings where they may be at increased risk of infection; this also frees up hospital beds. We use mathematical modelling to explore the potential benefits of diagnostic testing strategies involving rapid diagnostic tests alone and in combination with polymerase chain reaction testing. Our analysis indicates that the use of rapid diagnostic tests with sensitivity and specificity comparable with those currently under development always enhances control, whether evaluated at a health-care-unit or population level. If such tests had been available throughout the recent epidemic, we estimate, for Sierra Leone, that their use in combination with confirmatory polymerase chain-reaction testing might have reduced the scale of the epidemic by over a third.

Ebola virus has caused substantial illness in West Africa in the past year. In this report, the burden of illness in children is described.

A novel influenza A (H1N1) virus has spread rapidly across the globe. Judging its pandemic potential is difficult with limited data, but nevertheless essential to inform appropriate health responses. By analyzing the outbreak in Mexico, early data on international spread, and viral genetic diversity, we make an early assessment of transmissibility and severity. Our estimates suggest that 23,000 (range 6000 to 32,000) individuals had been infected in Mexico by late April, giving an estimated case fatality ratio (CFR) of 0.4% (range: 0.3 to 1.8%) based on confirmed and suspected deaths reported to that time. In a community outbreak in the small community of La Gloria, Veracruz, no deaths were attributed to infection, giving an upper 95% bound on CFR of 0.6%. Thus, although substantial uncertainty remains, clinical severity appears less than that seen in the 1918 influenza pandemic but comparable with that seen in the 1957 pandemic. Clinical attack rates in children in La Gloria were twice that in adults (= 15 years: 29%). Three different epidemiological analyses gave basic reproduction number (R-0) estimates in the range of 1.4 to 1.6, whereas a genetic analysis gave a central estimate of 1.2. This range of values is consistent with 14 to 73 generations of human-to-human transmission having occurred in Mexico to late April. Transmissibility is therefore substantially higher than that of seasonal flu, and comparable with lower estimates of R0 obtained from previous influenza pandemics.