ABSTRACT
The SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics have been greatly modulated by human contact behaviour. To curb the spread of the virus, global efforts focused on implementing both Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) and pharmaceutical interventions such as vaccination. This study was conducted to explore the influence of COVID-19 vaccination status and risk perceptions related to SARS-CoV-2 on the number of social contacts of individuals in 16 European countries. This is important since insights derived from the study could be utilized in guiding the formulation of risk communication strategies. We used data from longitudinal surveys conducted in the 16 European countries to measure social contact behaviour in the course of the pandemic. The data consisted of representative panels of participants in terms of gender, age and region of residence in each country. The surveys were conducted in several rounds between December 2020 and September 2021. We employed a multilevel generalized linear mixed effects model to explore the influence of risk perceptions and COVID-19 vaccination status on the number of social contacts of individuals. The results indicated that perceived severity played a significant role in social contact behaviour during the pandemic after controlling for other variables. More specifically, participants who perceived COVID-19 to be a serious illness made fewer contacts compared to those who had low or neutral perceptions of the COVID-19 severity. Additionally, vaccinated individuals reported significantly higher number of contacts than the non-vaccinated. Furthermore, individual-level factors played a more substantial role in influencing contact behaviour than country-level factors. Our multi-country study yields significant insights on the importance of risk perceptions and vaccination in behavioural changes during a pandemic emergency. The apparent increase in social contact behaviour following vaccination would require urgent intervention in the event of emergence of an immune escaping variant. Hence, insights derived from this study could be taken into account when designing, implementing and communicating COVID-19 interventions.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Objectives COVID-19 poses a threat of loss of life, economic instability, and social disruption. We conducted a systematic review of published economic analyses to assess the direct and indirect costs of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, and to contrast these with the costs and the cost-benefit of public health surveillance, preparedness, and response measures in averting and/or responding to SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Setting A systematic literature review was conducted to identify peer-reviewed articles estimating the cost of the COVID-19 pandemic and the cost-effectiveness of pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical interventions in EU/EEA/UK and OECD countries, published from the 1st of January 2020 through 22nd April 2021 in Ovid Medline and EMBASE. The cost-effectiveness of interventions was assessed through a dominance ranking matrix approach. All cost data were adjusted to the 2021 Euro, with interventions compared with the null. Primary and secondary outcome measures Direct and indirect costs for SARS-CoV-2 and preparedness and/or response or cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness were measured. Results We included data from 41 economic studies. Ten studies evaluated the cost of COVID-19 pandemic, while 31 assessed the cost-benefit of public health surveillance, preparedness, and response measures. Overall, the economic burden of SARS-CoV-2 was found to be substantial for both the general population and within specific population subgroups. Community screening, bed provision policies, investing in personal protective equipment and vaccination strategies were cost-effective, in most cases due to the representative economic value of below acceptable cost-effectiveness thresholds. Physical distancing measures were associated with health benefits; however, their cost-effectiveness was dependent on the duration, compliance and the phase of the epidemic in which it was implemented. Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 is associated with substantial economic costs to healthcare systems, payers, and societies, both short term and long term, while interventions including testing and screening policies, vaccination and physical distancing policies were identified as those presenting cost-effective options to deal with the pandemic, dependent on population vaccination and the Re at the stage of the pandemic.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background This study measured the long-term health-related quality of life of non-hospitalised COVID-19 cases with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2(+) infection using the recommended instrument in England (the EQ-5D). Methods Prospective cohort study of SARS-CoV-2(+) cases aged 12-85 years and followed up for six months from 01 December 2020, with cross-sectional comparison to SARS-CoV-2(-) controls. Main outcomes were loss of quality-adjusted life days (QALDs); physical symptoms; and COVID-19-related private expenditures. We analysed results using multivariable regressions with post-hoc weighting by age and sex, and conditional logistic regressions for the association of each symptom and EQ-5D limitation on cases and controls. Results Of 548 cases (mean age 41.1 years; 61.5% female), 16.8% reported physical symptoms at month 6 (most frequently extreme tiredness, headache, loss of taste and/or smell, and shortness of breath). Cases reported more limitations with doing usual activities than controls. Almost half of cases spent a mean of £18.1 on non-prescription drugs (median: £10.0), and 52.7% missed work or school for a mean of 12 days (median: 10). On average, all cases lost 15.9 (95%-CI: 12.1, 19.7) QALDs, while those reporting symptoms at month 6 lost 34.1 (29.0, 39.2) QALDs. Losses also increased with older age. Cumulatively, the health loss from morbidity contributes at least 21% of the total COVID-19-related disease burden in England. Conclusions One in 6 cases report ongoing symptoms at 6 months, and 10% report prolonged loss of function compared to pre-COVID-19 baselines. A marked health burden was observed among older COVID-19 cases and those with persistent physical symptoms. summary Losses of health-related quality of life in non-hospitalised COVID-19 cases increase by age and for cases with symptoms after 6 months. At a population level, at least 21% of the total COVID-19-related disease burden in England is attributable to morbidity.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , DyspneaABSTRACT
Background: To reduce the coronavirus disease burden in England, along with many other countries, the Government implemented a package of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) that have also impacted other transmissible infectious diseases such as norovirus. It is unclear what future norovirus disease incidence is likely to look like upon lifting these restrictions. Methods: Here we use a mathematical model of norovirus fitted to community incidence data in England to project forward expected incidence based on contact surveys that have been collected throughout 2020-2021. Results: We report that susceptibility to norovirus infection has likely increased between March 2020 to mid-2021. Depending upon assumptions of future contact patterns incidence of norovirus that is similar to pre-pandemic levels or an increase beyond what has been previously reported is likely to occur once restrictions are lifted. Should adult contact patterns return to 80% of pre-pandemic levels the incidence of norovirus will be similar to previous years. If contact patterns return to pre-pandemic levels there is a potential for the expected annual incidence to be up to 2-fold larger than in a typical year. The age-specific incidence is similar across all ages. Conclusions: Continued national surveillance for endemic diseases such as norovirus will be essential after NPIs are lifted to allow healthcare services to adequately prepare for a potential increase in cases and hospital pressures beyond what is typically experienced.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Disease Models, Animal , Coronavirus InfectionsABSTRACT
Background Even with good progress on vaccination, SARS-CoV-2 infections in the UK may continue to impose a high burden of disease and therefore pose substantial challenges for health policy decision makers. Stringent government-mandated physical distancing measures (lockdown) have been demonstrated to be epidemiologically effective, but can have both positive and negative economic consequences. The duration and frequency of any intervention policy could, in theory, could be optimised to maximise economic benefits while achieving substantial reductions in disease. Methods Here we use a pre-existing SARS-CoV-2 transmission model to assess the health and economic implications of different strengths of control through time in order to identify optimal approaches to non-pharmaceutical intervention stringency in the UK, considering the role of vaccination in reducing the need for future physical distancing measures. The model is calibrated to the COVID-19 epidemic in England and we carry out retrospective analysis of the optimal timing of precautionary breaks in 2020 and the optimal relaxation policy from the January 2021 lockdown, considering the willingness to pay for health improvement. Results We find that the precise timing and intensity of interventions is highly dependent upon the objective of control. As intervention measures are relaxed, we predict a resurgence in cases, but the optimal intervention policy can be established dependent upon the willingness to pay (WTP) per QALY loss avoided. Our results show that establishing an optimal level of control can result in a reduction in net monetary loss of billions of pounds, dependent upon the precise WTP value. Conclusions It is vital, as the UK emerges from lockdown, but continues to face an on-going pandemic, to accurately establish the overall health and economic costs when making policy decisions. We demonstrate how some of these can be quantified, employing mechanistic infectious disease transmission models to establish optimal levels of control for the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome , Communicable DiseasesABSTRACT
Background In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the UK adopted mandatory physical distancing measures in March 2020. Vaccines against the newly emerged severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) may become available as early as late 2020. We explored the health and economic value of introducing SARS-CoV-2 immunisation alongside physical distancing scenarios in the UK. Methods We used an age-structured dynamic-transmission and economic model to explore different scenarios of immunisation programmes over ten years. Assuming vaccines are effective in 5-64 year olds, we compared vaccinating 90% of individuals in this age group to no vaccination. We assumed either vaccine effectiveness of 25% and 1-year protection and 90% re-vaccinated annually, or 75% vaccine effectiveness and 10-year protection and 10% re-vaccinated annually. Natural immunity was assumed to last 45 weeks in the base case. We also explored the additional impact of physical distancing. We considered benefits from disease prevented in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs to the healthcare payer versus the national economy. We discounted at 3.5% annually and monetised health impact at 20,000 per QALY to obtain the net monetary value, which we explored in sensitivity analyses. Findings Without vaccination and physical distancing, we estimated 147.9 million COVID-19 cases (95% uncertainty interval: 48.5 million, 198.7 million) and 2.8 million (770,000, 4.2 million) deaths in the UK over ten years. Vaccination with 75% vaccine effectiveness and 10-year protection may stop community transmission entirely for several years, whereas SARS-CoV-2 becomes endemic without highly effective vaccines. Introducing vaccination compared to no vaccination leads to economic gains (positive net monetary value) of 0.37 billion to +1.33 billion across all physical distancing and vaccine effectiveness scenarios from the healthcare perspective, but net monetary values of physical distancing scenarios may be negative from societal perspective if the daily national economy losses are persistent and large. Interpretation Our model findings highlight the substantial health and economic value of introducing SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Given uncertainty around both characteristics of the eventually licensed vaccines and long-term COVID-19 epidemiology, our study provides early insights about possible future scenarios in a post-vaccination era from an economic and epidemiological perspective.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: Social distancing is an important public health intervention to reduce or interrupt the sustained community transmission of emerging infectious pathogens, such as SARS-CoV-2 during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We aimed to explore the impact on the epidemic curve of fewer contacts when individuals reduce the time they spend on selected daily activities. Methods: We combined the large-scale empirical data of a social contact survey and a time-use survey to estimate contact matrices by age group (0-15, 16-24, 25-44, 45-64, 65+) and daily activity (work, schooling, transportation, and four leisure activities: social visits, bar/cafe/restaurant visits, park visits, and non-essential shopping). We assumed that reductions in time are proportional to reductions in contacts. The derived matrices were then applied in an age-structured dynamic-transmission model of COVID-19 to explore the effects. Findings: The relative reductions in the derived contact matrices were highest when closing schools (in ages 0-14 years), workplaces (15-64 years), and stopping social visits (65+ years). For COVID-19, the closure of workplaces, schools, and stopping social visits had the largest impact on reducing the epidemic curve and delaying its peak, while the predicted impact of fewer contacts in parks, bars/cafes/restaurants, and non-essential shopping were minimal. Interpretation: We successfully augmented contact matrices with time-use data to predict the highest impact of social distancing measures from reduced contacts when spending less time at work, school, and on social visits. Although the predicted impact from other leisure activities with potential for close physical contact were minimal, changes in mixing patterns and time-use immediately after re-allowing social activities may pose increased short-term transmission risks, especially in potentially crowded environments indoors.