Search

BackgroundGiven the public health responses to previous respiratory disease pandemics, and in the absence of treatments and vaccines, the mitigation of the COVID-19 pandemic relies on population engagement in nonpharmaceutical interventions. This engagement is largely driven by risk perception, anxiety levels, and knowledge, as well as by historical exposure to disease outbreaks, government responses, and cultural factors. ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to compare psychobehavioral responses in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. MethodsComparable cross-sectional surveys were administered to adults in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom during the early phase of the epidemic in each setting. Explanatory variables included demographics, risk perception, knowledge of COVID-19, anxiety level, and preventive behaviors. Responses were weighted according to census data. Logistic regression models, including effect modification to quantify setting differences, were used to assess the association between the explanatory variables and the adoption of social distancing measures. ResultsData from 3431 complete responses (Hong Kong, 1663; United Kingdom, 1768) were analyzed. Perceived severity of symptoms differed by setting, with weighted percentages of 96.8% for Hong Kong (1621/1663) and 19.9% for the United Kingdom (366/1768). A large proportion of respondents were abnormally or borderline anxious (Hong Kong: 1077/1603, 60.0%; United Kingdom: 812/1768, 46.5%) and regarded direct contact with infected individuals as the transmission route of COVID-19 (Hong Kong: 94.0%-98.5%; United Kingdom: 69.2%-93.5%; all percentages weighted), with Hong Kong identifying additional routes. Hong Kong reported high levels of adoption of various social distancing measures (Hong Kong: 32.6%-93.7%; United Kingdom: 17.6%-59.0%) and mask-wearing (Hong Kong: 98.8% (1647/1663); United Kingdom: 3.1% (53/1768)). The impact of perceived severity of symptoms and perceived ease of transmission of COVID-19 on the adoption of social distancing measures varied by setting. In Hong Kong, these factors had no impact, whereas in the United Kingdom, those who perceived their symptom severity as “high” were more likely to adopt social distancing (adjusted odds ratios [aORs] 1.58-3.01), and those who perceived transmission as “easy” were prone to adopt both general social distancing (aOR 2.00, 95% CI 1.57-2.55) and contact avoidance (aOR 1.80, 95% CI 1.41-2.30). The impact of anxiety on adopting social distancing did not vary by setting. ConclusionsOur results suggest that health officials should ascertain baseline levels of risk perception and knowledge in populations, as well as prior sensitization to infectious disease outbreaks, during the development of mitigation strategies. Risk should be communicated through suitable media channels—and trust should be maintained—while early intervention remains the cornerstone of effective outbreak response.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections were rising during early summer 2021 in many countries as a result of the Delta variant. We assessed reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction swab positivity in the Real-time Assessment of Community Transmission–1 (REACT-1) study in England. During June and July 2021, we observed sustained exponential growth with an average doubling time of 25 days, driven by complete replacement of the Alpha variant by Delta and by high prevalence at younger, less-vaccinated ages. Prevalence among unvaccinated people [1.21% (95% credible interval 1.03%, 1.41%)] was three times that among double-vaccinated people [0.40% (95% credible interval 0.34%, 0.48%)]. However, after adjusting for age and other variables, vaccine effectiveness for double-vaccinated people was estimated at between ~50% and ~60% during this period in England. Increased social mixing in the presence of Delta had the potential to generate sustained growth in infections, even at high levels of vaccination.

Background: A SARS-CoV-2 outbreak with an attack rate of 14.3% was reported at a plastics manufacturing plant in England. Methods: Between 23rd March and 13th May 2021, the COVID-OUT team undertook a comprehensive outbreak investigation, including environmental assessment, surface sampling, molecular and serological testing, and detailed questionnaires, to identify potential SARS-CoV-2 transmission routes, and workplace- and worker-related risk factors. Results: While ventilation, indicated using real-time CO2 proxy measures, was generally adequate on-site, the technical office with the highest localized attack rate (21.4%) frequently reached peaks in CO2 of 2100ppm. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was found in low levels (Ct ≥35) in surface samples collected across the site. High noise levels (79dB) were recorded in the main production area, and study participants reported having close work contacts (73.1%) and sharing tools (75.5%). Only 20.0% of participants reported using a surgical mask and/or FFP2/FFP3 respirator at least half the time and 71.0% expressed concerns regarding potential pay decreases and/or unemployment due to self-isolation or workplace closure. Conclusions: The findings reinforce the importance of enhanced infection control measures in manufacturing sectors, including improved ventilation with possible consideration of CO2 monitoring, utilising air cleaning interventions in enclosed environments, and provision of good-quality face masks (i.e., surgical masks or FFP2/FFP3 respirators) especially when social distancing cannot be maintained. Further research on the impacts of job security-related concerns is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background We explore severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) performance under field conditions compared to laboratory-based electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) and live virus neutralization. Methods In July 2021, 3758 participants performed, at home, a self-administered Fortress LFIA on finger-prick blood, reported and submitted a photograph of the result, and provided a self-collected capillary blood sample for assessment of immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies using the Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ECLIA. We compared the self-reported LFIA result to the quantitative ECLIA and checked the reading of the LFIA result with an automated image analysis (ALFA). In a subsample of 250 participants, we compared the results to live virus neutralization. Results Almost all participants (3593/3758, 95.6%) had been vaccinated or reported prior infection. Overall, 2777/3758 (73.9%) were positive on self-reported LFIA, 2811/3457 (81.3%) positive by LFIA when ALFA-reported, and 3622/3758 (96.4%) positive on ECLIA (using the manufacturer reference standard threshold for positivity of 0.8 U mL–1). Live virus neutralization was detected in 169 of 250 randomly selected samples (67.6%); 133/169 were positive with self-reported LFIA (sensitivity 78.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 71.8, 84.6), 142/155 (91.6%; 95% CI: 86.1, 95.5) with ALFA, and 169 (100%; 95% CI: 97.8, 100.0) with ECLIA. There were 81 samples with no detectable virus neutralization; 47/81 were negative with self-reported LFIA (specificity 58.0%; 95% CI: 46.5, 68.9), 34/75 (45.3%; 95% CI: 33.8, 57.3) with ALFA, and 0/81 (0%; 95% CI: 0, 4.5) with ECLIA. Conclusions Self-administered LFIA is less sensitive than a quantitative antibody test, but the positivity in LFIA correlates better than the quantitative ECLIA with virus neutralization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]