Search

Key FeaturesVirus Watch is a national community cohort study of COVID-19 in households in England and Wales, established in June 2020. The study aims to provide evidence on which public health approaches are most effective in reducing transmission, and investigate community incidence, symptoms, and transmission of COVID-19 in relation to population movement and behaviours.28,527 households and 58,628 participants of age (0-98 years, mean age 48), were recruited between June 2020 - July 2022Data collected include demographics, details on occupation, co-morbidities, medications, and infection-prevention behaviours. Households are followed up weekly with illness surveys capturing symptoms and their severity, activities in the week prior to symptom onset and any COVID-19 test results. Monthly surveys capture household finance, employment, mental health, access to healthcare, vaccination uptake, activities and contacts. Data have been linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), inpatient and critical care episodes, outpatient visits, emergency care contacts, mortality, virology testing and vaccination data held by NHS Digital.Nested within Virus Watch are a serology & PCR cohort study (n=12,877) and a vaccine evaluation study (n=19,555).Study data are deposited in the Office of National Statistics (ONS) Secure Research Service (SRS). Survey data are available under restricted access upon request to ONS SRS.

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.

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.

BACKGROUND Accelerated partner therapy has shown promise in improving contact tracing. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of accelerated partner therapy in addition to usual contact tracing compared with usual practice alone in heterosexual people with chlamydia, using a biological primary outcome measure. METHODS We did a crossover cluster-randomised controlled trial in 17 sexual health clinics (clusters) across England and Scotland. Participants were heterosexual people aged 16 years or older with a positive Chlamydia trachomatis test result, or a clinical diagnosis of conditions for which presumptive chlamydia treatment and contact tracing are initially provided, and their sexual partners. We allocated phase order for clinics through random permutation within strata. In the control phase, participants received usual care (health-care professional advised the index patient to tell their sexual partner[s] to attend clinic for sexually transmitted infection screening and treatment). In the intervention phase, participants received usual care plus an offer of accelerated partner therapy (health-care professional assessed sexual partner[s] by telephone, then sent or gave the index patient antibiotics and sexually transmitted infection self-sampling kits for their sexual partner[s]). Each phase lasted 6 months, with a 2-week washout at crossover. The primary outcome was the proportion of index patients with a positive C trachomatis test result at 12-24 weeks after contact tracing consultation. Secondary outcomes included proportions and types of sexual partners treated. Analysis was done by intention-to-treat, fitting random effects logistic regression models. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 15996256. FINDINGS Between Oct 24, 2018, and Nov 17, 2019, 1536 patients were enrolled in the intervention phase and 1724 were enrolled in the control phase. All clinics completed both phases. In total, 4807 sexual partners were reported, of whom 1636 (34%) were steady established partners. Overall, 293 (19%) of 1536 index patients chose accelerated partner therapy for a total of 305 partners, of whom 248 (81%) accepted. 666 (43%) of 1536 index patients in the intervention phase and 800 (46%) of 1724 in the control phase were tested for C trachomatis at 12-24 weeks after contact tracing consultation; 31 (4·7%) in the intervention phase and 53 (6·6%) in the control phase had a positive C trachomatis test result (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·41 to 1·04]; p=0·071; marginal absolute difference -2·2% [95% CI -4·7 to 0·3]). Among index patients with treatment status recorded, 775 (88·0%) of 881 patients in the intervention phase and 760 (84·6%) of 898 in the control phase had at least one treated sexual partner at 2-4 weeks after contact tracing consultation (adjusted OR 1·27 [95% CI 0·96 to 1·68]; p=0·10; marginal absolute difference 2·7% [95% CI -0·5 to 6·0]). No clinically significant harms were reported. INTERPRETATION Although the evidence that the intervention reduces repeat infection was not conclusive, the trial results suggest that accelerated partner therapy can be safely offered as a contact tracing option and is also likely to be cost saving. Future research should find ways to increase uptake of accelerated partner therapy and develop alternative interventions for one-off sexual partners. FUNDING National Institute for Health Research.

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.

Background Access to prevention options, including HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), remains a public health priority for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM), especially in London. We describe PrEP use in a London community sample of MSM before the introduction of a national PrEP programme in October 2020. Methods From June–August 2019, MSM aged ≥ 18 recruited from London commercial venues were asked to self-complete a sexual health questionnaire and provide an oral fluid sample for anonymous HIV antibody testing. Descriptive analyses of demographic characteristics, service engagement and outcomes, as well as sexual risk and prevention behaviours were examined in the survey population and in those reporting current PrEP use. We performed sequential, multivariate analyses examining current PrEP use in MSM of self-perceived HIV-negative/unknown status with identified PrEP-need defined as the report of condomless anal sex (CAS) in the last three months, or the report of CAS (in the last year) with an HIV-positive/unknown status partner not known to be on HIV treatment, in reflection of UK PrEP guidelines. Results One thousand five hundred and thirty-fifth questionnaires were completed across 34 venues, where 1408 were analysed. One in five MSM of self-perceived HIV-negative/unknown status reported current PrEP use (19.7%, 242/1230). In men with PrEP-need, 68.2% (431/632) did not report current use. Current PrEP use was associated with age (aOR: 3.52, 95% CI: 1.76–7.02 in men aged 40–44 vs men aged 18–25) and education (aOR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.01–2.92 in men with ≥ 2 years/still full-time vs no/ Conclusion Among MSM in London, PrEP use is high but there is indication of unmet PrEP-need in men of younger age and lower levels of post-16 education. National programme monitoring and evaluation will require continued community monitoring to guide interventions ensuring equitable PrEP access and uptake in those who could most benefit from PrEP.

ObjectiveThe aim of this report is to investigate the nature of the relationship between depression and condomless sex (CLS) among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM).MethodsData are from the Antiretrovirals, Sexual Transmission Risk and Attitude (ASTRA) study of people living with HIV and attending one of eight HIV outpatient clinics in England (2011–2012) and the Attitudes to and Understanding of Risk of Acquisition of HIV (AURAH) study of HIV-negative/unknown status individuals attending one of 20 genitourinary medicine clinics in England (2013–2014). This analysis included GBMSM only. For each study, the prevalence of depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score ≥10) was presented according to three categories of sex in the past 3 months (considering anal/vaginal sex with men/women and anal sex with men in separate definitions): (1) no sex, (2) condom-protected sex only and (3) CLS. Multinomial logistic regression with ‘condom-protected sex only’ as the reference group was used to adjust for age and (for ASTRA participants) time since HIV diagnosis.ResultsThere were opposing associations of depression with recent sexual behaviour: the prevalence of depression was higher among those who reported no sex and those who reported CLS, compared with those who reported condom-protected sex only. Among the 2170 HIV-positive GBMSM in ASTRA, considering anal/vaginal sex with men/women, the prevalence of depressive symptoms was 32%, 20% and 28%, respectively, among men reporting no sex (n=783), condom-protected sex only (n=551) and CLS (n=836) (global pConclusionsDepression may be linked both to lack of sexual activity and to sexual risk taking. When investigating associations between depression and CLS, it is important to separate out individuals reporting condom-protected sex only from those reporting no sex.

Summary Transdisciplinary research approaches are being applied to today’s complex health problems, including the climate crisis and widening inequalities. Diverse forms of disciplinary and experiential knowledge are required to understand these challenges and develop workable solutions. We aimed to create an updated model reflective of the strengths and challenges of current transdisciplinary health research that can be a guide for future studies. We searched Medline using terms related to transdisciplinary, health and research. We coded data deductively and inductively using thematic analysis to develop a preliminary model of transdisciplinary research. The model was tested and improved through: (i) a workshop with 27 participants at an international conference in Xiamen, China and (ii) online questionnaire feedback from included study authors. Our revised model recommends the following approach: (i) co-learning, an ongoing phase that recognizes the distributed nature of knowledge generation and learning across partners; (ii) (pre-)development, activities that occur before and during project initiation to establish a shared mission and ways of working; (iii) reflection and refinement to evaluate and improve processes and results, responding to emergent information and priorities as an ongoing phase; (iv) conceptualization to develop goals and the study approach by combining diverse knowledge; (v) investigation to conduct the research; (vi) implementation to use new knowledge to solve societal problems. The model includes linear and cyclical processes that may cycle back to project development. Our new model will support transdisciplinary research teams and their partners by detailing the necessary ingredients to conduct such research and achieve health impact.

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

Summary Chronic and emerging infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance remain a substantial global health threat. Microbiota are increasingly recognised to play an important role in health. Infections also have a profound effect beyond health, especially on global and local economies. To maximise health improvements, the field of infectious disease epidemiology needs to derive learning from ecology and traditional epidemiology. New methodologies and tools are transforming understanding of these systems, from a better understanding of socioeconomic, environmental, and cultural drivers of infection, to improved methods to detect microorganisms, describe the immunome, and understand the role of human microbiota. However, exploiting the potential of novel methods to improve global health remains elusive. We argue that to exploit these advances a shift is required in the teaching of infectious disease epidemiology to ensure that students are well versed in a breadth of disciplines, while maintaining core epidemiological skills. We discuss the following key points using a series of teaching vignettes: (1) integrated training in classic and novel techniques is needed to develop future scientists and professionals who can work from the micro (interactions between pathogens, their cohabiting microbiota, and the host at a molecular and cellular level), with the meso (the affected communities), and to the macro (wider contextual drivers of disease); (2) teach students to use a team-science multidisciplinary approach to effectively integrate biological, clinical, epidemiological, and social tools into public health; and (3) develop the intellectual skills to critically engage with emerging technologies and resolve evolving ethical dilemmas. Finally, students should appreciate that the voices of communities affected by infection need to be kept at the heart of their work.

ObjectivesIn addition to researcher-designed sampling biases, population-representative surveys for biomarker measurement of STIs often have substantial missingness due to non-contact, non-consent and other study-implementation issues. STI prevalence estimates may be biased if this missingness is related to STI risk. We investigated how accounting for sampling, interview non-response and non-provision of biological samples affects prevalence estimates in the third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3).MethodsNatsal-3 was a multistage, clustered and stratified probability sample of 16–74 year-olds conducted between 2010 and 2012. Individuals were sampled from all private residential addresses in Britain; respondents aged 16–44 were further sampled to provide a urine specimen based on characteristics including self-reported sexual behaviours. We generated prevalence estimates and confidence intervals for six STIs in five stages: first without accounting for sampling or non-response, then applying inverse-probability weights cumulatively accounting for interview sampling, interview non-response, urine sampling and urine non-response.ResultsInterview non-completion occurred for 42.3% of interview-sampled individuals; urine non-completion occurred for 43.5% of urine-sampled individuals. Interview-sampled individuals, interview respondents, those selected for urine samples and those providing urine samples were each in turn slightly more at-risk for most STIs, leading to lower prevalence estimates after incorporating each set of weights. Researcher-controlled sampling had more impact than respondent-controlled response.ConclusionsAccounting for both sampling structures and willingness to interview or provide urine specimens can affect national STI prevalence estimates. Using both types of weights, as was done in Natsal-3, is important in reporting on population-based biomarker surveys.

BackgroundMycoplasma genitalium is a common sexually transmitted infection. Treatment guidelines focus on those with symptoms and sexual contacts, generally with regimens including doxycycline and/or azithromycin as first-line and moxifloxacin as second-line treatment. We investigated the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR)-conferring mutations in M. genitalium among the sexually-active British general population.MethodsThe third national survey of sexual attitudes and lifestyles (Natsal-3) is a probability sample survey of 15 162 men and women aged 16–74 years in Britain conducted during 2010–12. Urine test results for M. genitalium were available for 4507 participants aged 16–44 years reporting >1 lifetime sexual partner. In this study, we sequenced regions of the 23S rRNA and parC genes to detect known genotypic determinants for resistance to macrolides and fluoroquinolones respectively.Results94% (66/70) of specimens were re-confirmed as M. genitalium positive, with successful sequencing in 85% (56/66) for 23S rRNA and 92% (61/66) for parC genes. Mutations in 23S rRNA gene (position A2058/A2059) were detected in 16.1% (95%CI: 8.6% to 27.8%) and in parC (encoding ParC D87N/D87Y) in 3.3% (0.9%–11.2%). Macrolide resistance was more likely in participants reporting STI diagnoses (past 5 years) (44.4% (18.9%–73.3%) vs 10.6% (4.6%–22.6%); p=0.029) or sexual health clinic attendance (past year) (43.8% (23.1%–66.8%) vs 5.0% (1.4%–16.5%); p=0.001). All 11 participants with AMR-conferring mutations had attended sexual health clinics (past 5 years), but none reported recent symptoms.ConclusionsThis study highlights challenges in M. genitalium management and control. Macrolide resistance was present in one in six specimens from the general population in 2010–2012, but no participants with AMR M. genitalium reported symptoms. Given anticipated increases in diagnostic testing, new strategies including novel antimicrobials, AMR-guided therapy, and surveillance of AMR and treatment failure are recommended.

Novel copolymers of vinyl acetate and ring-substituted ethyl 2-cyano-3-phenyl-2-propenoates, RPhCH=C(CN)CO2C2H5 (where R is 4-acetoxy, 4-acetamido, 2-cyano, 3-cyano, 4-cyano, 4-dimethylamino, 4-diethylamino, 2,4,6-trimethyl, 2,3-dimethyl-4-methoxy, 2,4-dimethoxy-3-methyl were prepared in solution with radical initiation at 70C. The propenoates were synthesized by the piperidine catalyzed Knoevenagel condensation of ring-substituted benzaldehydes and ethyl cyanoacetate, and characterized by CHN analysis, IR, 1H and 13C-NMR. The compositions of the copolymers were calculated from nitrogen analysis and the structures were analyzed by IR, 1H and 13C-NMR. Thermal behavior of the copolymers was studied by DSC (Tg) and TGA. Decomposition of the copolymers in nitrogen occurred in two steps, first in the 160-350ºC range with residue (1.5-15.1 wt%), which then decomposed in the 500-650ºC range.

BackgroundWorkplaces are an important potential source of SARS-CoV-2 exposure; however, investigation into workplace contact patterns is lacking. This study aimed to investigate how workplace attendance and features of contact varied between occupations and over time during the COVID-19 pandemic in England.MethodsData were obtained from electronic contact diaries submitted between November 2020 and November 2021 by employed/self-employed prospective cohort study participants (n=4,616). We used mixed models to investigate the main effects and potential interactions between occupation and time for: workplace attendance, number of people in shared workspace, time spent sharing workspace, number of close contacts, and usage of face coverings.FindingsWorkplace attendance and contact patterns varied across occupations and time. The predicted probability of intense space sharing during the day was highest for healthcare (78% [95% CI: 75-81%]) and education workers (64% [59%-69%]), who also had the highest probabilities for larger numbers of close contacts (36% [32%-40%] and 38% [33%-43%] respectively). Education workers also demonstrated relatively low predicted probability (51% [44%-57%]) of wearing a face covering during close contact. Across all occupational groups, levels of workspace sharing and close contact were higher and usage of face coverings at work lower in later phases of the pandemic compared to earlier phases.InterpretationMajor variations in patterns of workplace contact and mask use are likely to contribute to differential COVID-19 risk. Across occupations, increasing workplace contact and reduced usage of face coverings presents an area of concern given ongoing high levels of community transmission and emergence of variants.

Background: Household overcrowding is associated with increased risk of infectious diseases across contexts and countries. Limited data exist linking household overcrowding and risk of COVID-19. We used data collected from the Virus Watch cohort to examine the association between overcrowded households and SARS-CoV-2. Methods: The Virus Watch study is a household community cohort of acute respiratory infections in England and Wales. We calculated overcrowding using the measure of persons per room for each household. We considered two primary outcomes: PCR-confirmed positive SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We used mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for household structure to estimate the association between household overcrowding and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results: 26,367 participants were included in our analyses. The proportion of participants with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result was highest in the overcrowded group (9.0%; 99/1,100) and lowest in the under-occupied group (4.2%; 980/23,196). In a mixed-effects logistic regression model, we found strong evidence of an increased odds of a positive PCR SARS-CoV-2 antigen result (odds ratio 2.45; 95% CI:1.43–4.19; p-value=0.001) and increased odds of a positive SARS-CoV-2 antibody result in individuals living in overcrowded houses (3.32; 95% CI:1.54–7.15; p-value Conclusion: Public health interventions to prevent and stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2 should consider the risk of infection for people living in overcrowded households and pay greater attention to reducing household transmission.

BackgroundWorkers differ in their risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection according to their occupation, 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.MethodsData 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).FindingsIncreased 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.InterpretationOccupational differentials 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.

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 vaccines stimulate production of antibodies targeting the spike protein (anti-S). The level of antibodies following vaccination and trajectories of waning may differ between vaccines influencing the level of protection, how soon protection is reduced and, consequently the optimum timing of booster doses.MethodsWe measured SARS-CoV-2 anti-S titre in the context of seronegativity for SARS-CoV-2 anti-Nucleocapsid (anti-N), in samples collected between 1st July and 24th October 2021 in a subset of adults in the Virus Watch community cohort. We compared anti-S levels after BNT162b2 (BioNTech/Pfizer) or ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca/Oxford) vaccination using time since second dose of vaccination, age, sex and clinical vulnerability to investigate antibody waning. To investigate the use of anti-S levels as a correlate of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection, we undertook a survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier and Cox) with individuals entering 21 days after their second dose of vaccine, or first antibody test after 1st July (whichever was latest) and exiting with the outcome of SARS-Cov-2 infection or at the end of follow up 24th October 2021. We also undertook a negative test design case-control analysis of infections occurring after the second vaccine dose (breakthrough infections) to determine whether the type of vaccine affected the risk of becoming infected.Results24049 samples from 8858 individuals (5549 who received a second dose of ChAdOx1 and 3205 BNT162b2) who remained anti-N negative were included in the analysis of anti-S waning over time. Three weeks after the second dose of vaccine BNT162b2 mean anti-S levels were 9039 (95%CI: 7946-10905) U/ml and ChadOx1 were 1025 (95%CI: 917-1146) U/ml. For both vaccines, waning anti-S levels followed a log linear decline from three weeks after the second dose of vaccination. At 20 weeks after the second dose of vaccine, the mean anti-S levels were 1521 (95%CI: 1432-1616) U/ml for BNT162b2 and 342 (95%CI: 322-365) U/ml for ChadOx1. We identified 197 breakthrough infections and found a reduced risk of infection post second dose of vaccine for individuals with anti-S levels greater than or equal to 500 U/ml compared to those with levels under 500 U/ml (HR 0.62; 95%CIs:0.44-0.87; p=0.007). Time to reach an anti-S threshold of 500 U/ml was estimated at 96 days for ChAdOx1 and 257 days for BNT162b2. We found an increased risk of a breakthrough infection for those who received the ChAdOx1 compared to those who received BNT162b2 (OR: 1.43, 95% CIs:1.18-1.73, pDiscussionAnti-S levels are substantially higher following the second dose of BNT162b2 compared to ChAdOx1. There is a log linear waning in levels for both vaccines following the second dose. Anti-S levels are an important correlate of protection as demonstrated by those with anti-S levels < 500U/ml following vaccination being at significantly greater risk of subsequent infection. Since anti-S levels are substantially lower in ChAdOx1 than in BNT162b2 and both decline at similar rates we would expect waning immunity to occur earlier in ChAdOx1 compared to BNT162b2. Our results showing an increased risk of breakthrough infections for those who were vaccinated with ChAdOx1 compared to BNT162b2 are in line with this hypothesis. Consistent with our data, national analyses of vaccine effectiveness also suggest that waning of immunity for infection and, to a lesser extent for severe disease, is seen earlier in ChAdOx1 than in BNT162b2. Our data demonstrate the importance of booster doses to maintain protection in the elderly and clinically vulnerable and suggest that these should be prioritised to those who received ChAdOx1 as their primary course.

Background Vaccination intention is vital to the success of any vaccination programme, alongside vaccine availability and access. Public intention to take a COVID-19 vaccine if offered is high in the UK, but evidence of disparities between ethnic, social and age groups has led to concern. Methods 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. Results Survey response rate was 56% (20,785/36,998) in December 2020 and 53% (20,590/38,727) in February 2021, with 14880 adults reporting across both time points. Of participants reporting across both timepoints, 13,411 (90%) answered ‘Yes’ and 1,469 (10%) responded ‘No’ or ‘Unsure’ in December 2020. Of those answering ‘No’ or ‘Unsure’ in December 2020, 1,266 (86%) subsequently answered ‘Yes’ or ‘Already had a COVID-19 vaccine’ in 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 has weakened, but not disappeared, over time. Both vaccine- and illness-related psychological factors were shown to influence vaccination intention. Conclusions 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.

Background: Hand hygiene may mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in community settings; however, empirical evidence is limited. Given reports of similar transmission mechanisms for COVID-19 and seasonal coronaviruses, we investigated whether hand hygiene impacted the risk of acquiring seasonal coronavirus infections. Methods: Data were drawn from three successive winter cohorts (2006-2009) of the England-wide Flu Watch study. Participants (n=1633) provided baseline estimates of hand hygiene behaviour. Coronavirus infections were identified from nasal swabs using RT-PCR. Poisson mixed models estimated the effect of hand hygiene on personal risk of coronavirus illness, both unadjusted and adjusted for confounding by age and healthcare worker status. Results: Moderate-frequency handwashing (6-10 times per day) predicted a lower personal risk of coronavirus infection (adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) =0.64, p=0.04). There was no evidence for a dose-response effect of handwashing, with results for higher levels of hand hygiene (>10 times per day) not significant (aIRR =0.83, p=0.42). Conclusions: This is the first empirical evidence that regular handwashing can reduce personal risk of acquiring seasonal coronavirus infection. These findings support clear public health messaging around the protective effects of hand washing in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic.

IntroductionThe 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 analysisVirus Watch is a household community cohort study of acute respiratory infections in England & 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 finger prick kits. Nested within this larger study will be a sub-cohort of 10,000 individuals, including 3,000 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 upon symptoms.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Hampstead 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.Strengths and limitations of this studyVirus Watch is a large national household community cohort study of the occurrence and risk factors for COVID-19 infection that aims to recruit 50,000 people, including 12,500 from minority ethnic backgrounds.Virus Watch is designed to estimate incidence of PCR confirmed COVID-19 in those with respiratory and non-respiratory presentations and the incidence of hospitalisation among PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases.Virus Watch will measure effectiveness and impact of recommended COVID-19 control measures including testing, isolation, social distancing, respiratory and hand hygiene measures on risk of respiratory infection.Only households with a lead householder able to speak English were able to take part in the study up until March 2021.Only households of up to six people were eligible for inclusion and they were also required to have access to an internet connection. These restrictions will limit the generalisability to large or multigenerational households, and those without access to the internet.

Mobile health, or 'mHealth', is the application of mobile devices, their components and related technologies to healthcare. It is already improving patients' access to treatment and advice. Now, in combination with internet-connected diagnostic devices, it offers novel ways to diagnose, track and control infectious diseases and to improve the efficiency of the health system. Here we examine the promise of these technologies and discuss the challenges in realizing their potential to increase patients' access to testing, aid in their treatment and improve the capability of public health authorities to monitor outbreaks, implement response strategies and assess the impact of interventions across the world.

BackgroundVaccination constitutes the best long-term solution against Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Real-world immunogenicity data are sparse, particularly for ChAdOx1 and in populations with chronic conditions; and given the UK’s extended dosing interval, it is also important to understand antibody responses in SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals following a single dose.MethodsAdults aged ≥18 years from households enrolled in Virus Watch, a prospective community cohort study in England and Wales, provided capillary blood samples and self-reported vaccination status. Primary outcome variables were quantitative Spike total antibody levels (U/ml) and seropositivity to Spike (≥0.8 U/ml), as per Roche’s Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay. Samples seropositive for Nucleocapsid, and samples taken prior to vaccination, were excluded. Outcomes were analysed by days since vaccination, vaccine type (BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1), and a range of self-reported demographic and clinical factors.Results8,837 vaccinated participants (median age 65 years [IQR: 58, 71]), contributed 17,160 samples (10,508 following ChAdOx1, 6,547 following BNT162b2). Seropositivity to Spike was 96.79% (95% CI 96.42, 97.12) from 28 days following a single dose, reaching 99.34% (98.91, 99.60) from 14 days after a second dose. Seropositivity rates, and Spike-antibody levels rose more quickly following the first dose of BNT162b2, however, were equivalent for both vaccines by 4 and 8 weeks, respectively. There was evidence for lower S-antibody levels with increasing age (p=0.0001). In partially vaccinated 65-79 year-olds, lower S-antibody levels were observed in men compared with women (26.50 vs 44.01 U/ml, pInterpretationA single dose of either BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 leads to high Spike seropositivity rates in SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals. Observed disparities in antibody levels by vaccine type, age, and comorbidities highlight the importance of ongoing non-pharmaceutical preventative measures for partially vaccinated adults, particularly those who are older and more clinically vulnerable; and high antibody levels across all groups following a second dose demonstrate the importance of complete vaccination. However, the relationship between Spike-antibody levels and protection against COVID-19, and thus the clinical significance of observed disparities, is not yet clear.

Background: Household overcrowding is associated with increased risk of infectious diseases across contexts and countries. Limited data exist linking household overcrowding and risk of COVID-19. We used data collected from the Virus Watch cohort to examine the association between overcrowded households and SARS-CoV-2. Methods: The Virus Watch study is a household community cohort of acute respiratory infections in England & Wales that began recruitment in June 2020. We calculated the persons per room for each household and classified accommodation as overcrowded when the number of rooms was fewer than the number of people. We considered two primary outcomes - PCR-confirmed positive SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests and laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (Roche Elecsys anti-N total immunoglobulin assay). We used mixed effects logistic regression models that accounted for household structure to estimate the association between household overcrowding and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results: The proportion of participants with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result was highest in the overcrowded group (6.6%; 73/1,102) and lowest in the under-occupied group (2.9%; 682/23,219). In a mixed effects logistic regression model that included age, sex, ethnicity, household income and geographical region, we found strong evidence of an increased odds of having a positive PCR SARS-CoV-2 antigen result (Odds Ratio 3.72; 95% CI: 1.92, 7.13; p-value < 0.001) and increased odds of having a positive SARS-CoV-2 antibody result in individuals living in overcrowded houses (2.96; 95% CI: 1.13, 7.74; p-value =0.027) compared to people living in under-occupied houses. The proportion of variation at the household level was 75.1% and 74.0% in the PCR and antibody models respectively. Discussion: Public health interventions to prevent and stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2 should consider the much greater risk of infection for people living in overcrowded households and pay greater attention to reducing household transmission. There is an urgent need to better recognise housing as a leading determinant of health in the context of a pandemic and beyond.

BackgroundDifferential exposure to public activities and non-household contacts 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 different levels of exposure to public activities and non-household contacts during the Autumn-Winter phase of the COVID-19 pandemic according to postcode-level socioeconomic deprivation.MethodsParticipants (n=20120-25228 across surveys) reported their daily activities during three weekly periods in late November 2020, late December 2020, and mid-February 2021. Deprivation was quantified based on participants’ postcode of residence using English or Welsh Indices 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.ResultsRelative to participants in the least deprived areas, participants in the most deprived areas persistently exhibited elevated risk of exposure to vehicle sharing (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.ConclusionDifferential exposure to essential public activities in deprived communities is likely to contribute to inequalities in infection risk and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. 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.

We use an individual-level transmission and contact simulation model to explore the effectiveness and resource requirements of various test-trace-isolate (TTI) strategies for reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the UK, in the context of different scenarios with varying levels of stringency of non-pharmaceutical interventions. Based on modelling results, we show that self-isolation of symptomatic individuals and quarantine of their household contacts has a substantial impact on the number of new infections generated by each primary case. We further show that adding contact tracing of non-household contacts of confirmed cases to this broader package of interventions reduces the number of new infections otherwise generated by 5–15%. We also explore impact of key factors, such as tracing application adoption and testing delay, on overall effectiveness of TTI.

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Leon, Yom-Tov, Johnson, Petticrew, Williamson, Lampos, Cox. What on-line searches tell us about public interest and potential impact on behaviour in response to minimum unit pricing of alcohol in Scotland. Addiction. 2021;116(8):2008-2015, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15388. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions. This article may not be enhanced, enriched or otherwise transformed into a derivative work, without express permission from Wiley or by statutory rights under applicable legislation. Copyright notices must not be removed, obscured or modified. The article must be linked to Wiley’s version of record on Wiley Online Library and any embedding, framing or otherwise making available the article or pages thereof by third parties from platforms, services and websites other than Wiley Online Library must be prohibited. Aims - To investigate whether the introduction of minimum unit pricing (MUP) in Scotland on 1 May 2018 was reflected in changes in the likelihood of alcohol-related queries submitted to an internet search engine, and in particular whether there was any evidence of increased interest in purchasing of alcohol from outside Scotland. Design - Observational study in which individual queries to the internet Bing search engine for 2018 in Scotland and England were captured and analysed. Fluctuations over time in the likelihood of specific topic searches were examined. The patterns seen in Scotland were contrasted with those in England. Setting - Scotland and England. Participants - People who used the Bing search engine during 2018. Measurements - Numbers of daily queries submitted to Bing in 2018 on eight alcohol-related topics expressed as a proportion of queries on that day on any topic. These daily likelihoods were smoothed using a 14-day moving average for Scotland and England separately. Findings - There were substantial peaks in queries about MUP itself, cheap sources of alcohol and online alcohol outlets at the time of introduction of MUP in May 2018 in Scotland, but not England. These were relatively short-lived. Queries related to intoxication and alcohol problems did not show a MUP peak, but were appreciably higher in Scotland than in England throughout 2018. Conclusions - Analysis of internet search engine queries appears to show that a fraction of people in Scotland may have considered circumventing minimum unit pricing in 2018 by looking for on-line alcohol retailers. The overall higher levels of queries related to alcohol problems in Scotland compared with England mirrors the corresponding differences in alcohol consumption and harms between the countries.

ObjectivesTo develop a classification of sexual partner types for use in partner notification (PN) for STIs.MethodsA four-step process: (1) an iterative synthesis of five sources of evidence: scoping review of social and health sciences literature on partner types; analysis of relationship types in dating apps; systematic review of PN intervention content; and review of PN guidelines; qualitative interviews with public, patients and health professionals to generate an initial comprehensive classification; (2) multidisciplinary clinical expert consultation to revise the classification; (3) piloting of the revised classification in sexual health clinics during a randomised controlled trial of PN; (4) application of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify index patients’ willingness to engage in PN for each partner type.ResultsFive main partner types emerged from the evidence synthesis and consultation: ‘established partner’, ‘new partner’, ‘occasional partner’, ‘one-off partner’ and ‘sex worker’. The types differed across several dimensions, including likely perceptions of sexual exclusivity, likelihood of sex reoccurring between index patient and sex partner. Sexual health professionals found the classification easy to operationalise. During the trial, they assigned all 3288 partners described by 2223 index patients to a category. The TDF analysis suggested that the partner types might be associated with different risks of STI reinfection, onward transmission and index patients’ engagement with PN.ConclusionsWe developed an evidence-informed, useable classification of five sexual partner types to underpin PN practice and other STI prevention interventions. Analysis of biomedical, psychological and social factors that distinguish different partner types shows how each could warrant a tailored PN approach. This classification could facilitate the use of partner-centred outcomes. Additional studies are needed to determine the utility of the classification to improve measurement of the impact of PN strategies and help focus resources.

Background: There is currently a pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. The intensity and duration of this first and second waves in the UK may be dependent on whether SARS-CoV-2 transmits more effectively in the winter than the summer and the UK Government response is partially built upon the assumption that those infected will develop immunity to reinfection in the short term. In this paper we examine evidence for seasonality and immunity to laboratory-confirmed seasonal coronavirus (HCoV) from a prospective cohort study in England. Methods: In this analysis of the Flu Watch cohort, we examine seasonal trends for PCR-confirmed coronavirus infections (HCoV-NL63, HCoV-OC43, and HCoV-229E) in all participants during winter seasons (2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009) and during the first wave of the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic (May-Sep 2009). We also included data from the pandemic and ‘post-pandemic’ winter seasons (2009-2010 and 2010-2011) to identify individuals with two confirmed HCoV infections and examine evidence for immunity against homologous reinfection. Results: We tested 1,104 swabs taken during respiratory illness and detected HCoV in 199 during the first four seasons. The rate of confirmed HCoV infection across all seasons was 390 (95% CI 338-448) per 100,000 person-weeks; highest in the Nov-Mar 2008/9 season at 674 (95%CI 537-835) per 100,000 person-weeks. The highest rate was in February at 759 (95% CI 580-975) per 100,000 person-weeks. Data collected during May-Sep 2009 showed there was small amounts of ongoing transmission, with four cases detected during this period. Eight participants had two confirmed infections, of which none had the same strain twice. Conclusion: Our results provide evidence that HCoV infection in England is most intense in winter, but that there is a small amount of ongoing transmission during summer periods. We found some evidence of immunity against homologous reinfection.

ObjectivesTo develop a classification of sexual partner types for use in partner notification (PN) and other interventions to prevent sexually transmitted infections (STI).MethodsA four-step process: 1) an iterative synthesis of five sources of evidence: scoping review of social and health sciences literature on partner types; analysis of relationship types in dating apps; systematic review of PN intervention content; review of PN guidelines; qualitative interviews with public, patients and health professionals, to generate an initial comprehensive classification; 2) multidisciplinary clinical expert consultation to revise the classification; 3) piloting of the revised classification in sexual health clinics during a randomised controlled trial of PN; 4) application of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify index patients’ willingness to engage in PN for each partner type.ResultsFive main partner types emerged from the evidence synthesis and consultation: ‘Established partner’, ‘New partner’, ‘Occasional partner’, ‘One-off partner’ and ‘Sex worker’. The types differed across several dimensions, including likely perceptions of sexual exclusivity, likelihood of sex reoccurring between index patient and sex partner. Sexual health professionals found the classification easy to operationalise. During the trial, they assigned all 3288 partners described by 2223 index patients to a category. The TDF analysis suggested that the partner types might be associated with different risks of STI reinfection, onward transmission and index patients’ engagement with PN.DiscussionWe developed an evidence-informed, useable classification of five sexual partner types to underpin PN practice and other STI prevention interventions. Analysis of biomedical, psychological and social factors that distinguish different partner types shows how each could warrant a tailored PN approach. This classification could facilitate the use of partner-centred outcomes. Additional studies are needed to determine the utility of the classification to improve measurement of the impact of PN strategies and help focus resources.Key messagesCurrent classifications of sexual partners limit understanding of STI transmission dynamics and hinder targeting and tailoring of partner notification interventions.The limits and constraints of current classifications, together with recent socio-sexual changes, mean that a new classification is needed.We developed a comprehensive, evidence-based classification of sexual partner types for use in partner notification that characterised and distinguished between partner and partnership types.The five partner categories were readily adopted and easily operationalised in UK sexual health services.

Background: In the context of the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, understanding household transmission of seasonal coronaviruses may inform pandemic control. We aimed to investigate what proportion of seasonal coronavirus transmission occurred within households, measure the risk of transmission in households, and describe the impact of household-related factors of risk of transmission. Methods: Using data from three winter seasons of the UK Flu Watch cohort study, we measured the proportion of symptomatic infections acquired outside and within the home, the household transmission risk and the household secondary attack risk for PCR-confirmed seasonal coronaviruses. We present transmission risk stratified by demographic features of households. Results: We estimated that the proportion of cases acquired outside the home, weighted by age and region, was 90.7% (95% CI 84.6- 94.5, n=173/195) and within the home was 9.3% (5.5-15.4, 22/195). Following a symptomatic coronavirus index case, 14.9% (9.8 - 22.1, 20/134) of households experienced symptomatic transmission to at least one other household member. Onward transmission risk ranged from 11.90% (4.84-26.36, 5/42) to 19.44% (9.21-36.49, 7/36) by strain. The overall household secondary attack risk for symptomatic cases was 8.00% (5.31-11.88, 22/275), ranging across strains from 5.10 (2.11-11.84, 5/98) to 10.14 (4.82- 20.11, 7/69). Median clinical onset serial interval was 7 days (IQR= 6-9.5). Households including older adults, 3+ children, current smokers, contacts with chronic health conditions, and those in relatively deprived areas had the highest transmission risks. Child index cases and male index cases demonstrated the highest transmission risks. Conclusion: Most seasonal coronaviruses appear to be acquired outside the household, with relatively modest risk of onward transmission within households. Transmission risk following an index case appears to vary by demographic household features, with potential overlap between those demonstrating the highest point estimates for seasonal coronavirus transmission risk and COVID-19 susceptibility and poor illness outcomes.

Background: In the context of the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, understanding household transmission of seasonal coronaviruses may inform pandemic control. We aimed to investigate what proportion of seasonal coronavirus transmission occurred within households, measure the risk of transmission in households, and describe the impact of household-related factors of risk of transmission. Methods: Using data from three winter seasons of the UK Flu Watch cohort study, we measured the proportion of symptomatic infections acquired outside and within the home, the household transmission risk and the household secondary attack risk for PCR-confirmed seasonal coronaviruses. We present transmission risk stratified by demographic features of households. Results: We estimated that the proportion of cases acquired outside the home, weighted by age and region, was 90.7% (95% CI 84.6- 94.5, n=173/195) and within the home was 9.3% (5.5-15.4, 22/195). Following a symptomatic coronavirus index case, 14.9% (9.8 - 22.1, 20/134) of households experienced symptomatic transmission to at least one other household member. Onward transmission risk ranged from 11.90% (4.84-26.36, 5/42) to 19.44% (9.21-36.49, 7/36) by strain. The overall household secondary attack risk for symptomatic cases was 8.00% (5.31-11.88, 22/275), ranging across strains from 5.10 (2.11-11.84, 5/98) to 10.14 (4.82- 20.11, 7/69). Median clinical onset serial interval was 7 days (IQR= 6-9.5). Households including older adults, 3+ children, current smokers, contacts with chronic health conditions, and those in relatively deprived areas had the highest transmission risks. Child index cases and male index cases demonstrated the highest transmission risks. Conclusion: Most seasonal coronaviruses appear to be acquired outside the household, with relatively modest risk of onward transmission within households. Transmission risk following an index case appears to vary by demographic household features, with potential overlap between those demonstrating the highest point estimates for seasonal coronavirus transmission risk and COVID-19 susceptibility and poor illness outcomes.

Background: International and UK data suggest that Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups are at increased risk of infection and death from COVID-19. We aimed to explore the risk of death in minority ethnic groups in England using data reported by NHS England. Methods: We used NHS data on patients with a positive COVID-19 test who died in hospitals in England published on 28th April, with deaths by ethnicity available from 1st March 2020 up to 5pm on 21 April 2020. We undertook indirect standardisation of these data (using the whole population of England as the reference) to produce ethnic specific standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) adjusted for age and geographical region. Results: The largest total number of deaths in minority ethnic groups were Indian (492 deaths) and Black Caribbean (460 deaths) groups. Adjusting for region we found a lower risk of death for White Irish (SMR 0.52; 95%CIs 0.45-0.60) and White British ethnic groups (0.88; 95%CIs 0.86-0.0.89), but increased risk of death for Black African (3.24; 95%CIs 2.90-3.62), Black Caribbean (2.21; 95%CIs 2.02-2.41), Pakistani (3.29; 95%CIs 2.96-3.64), Bangladeshi (2.41; 95%CIs 1.98-2.91) and Indian (1.70; 95%CIs 1.56-1.85) minority ethnic groups. Conclusion: Our analysis adds to the evidence that BAME people are at increased risk of death from COVID-19 even after adjusting for geographical region, but was limited by the lack of data on deaths outside of NHS settings and ethnicity denominator data being based on the 2011 census. Despite these limitations, we believe there is an urgent need to take action to reduce the risk of death for BAME groups and better understand why some ethnic groups experience greater risk. Actions that are likely to reduce these inequities include ensuring adequate income protection, reducing occupational risks, reducing barriers in accessing healthcare and providing culturally and linguistically appropriate public health communications.

Digital technologies are being harnessed to support the public-health response to COVID-19 worldwide, including population surveillance, case identification, contact tracing and evaluation of interventions on the basis of mobility data and communication with the public. These rapid responses leverage billions of mobile phones, large online datasets, connected devices, relatively low-cost computing resources and advances in machine learning and natural language processing. This Review aims to capture the breadth of digital innovations for the public-health response to COVID-19 worldwide and their limitations, and barriers to their implementation, including legal, ethical and privacy barriers, as well as organizational and workforce barriers. The future of public health is likely to become increasingly digital, and we review the need for the alignment of international strategies for the regulation, evaluation and use of digital technologies to strengthen pandemic management, and future preparedness for COVID-19 and other infectious diseases.

Background: Respiratory and hand hygiene may mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in community settings;however, empirical evidence is limited Given reports of sim