ABSTRACT
Background: "Lockdowns” to control serious respiratory virus pandemics were widely used during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, there is limited information to understand the settings in which most transmission occurs during lockdowns, to support refinement of similar policies for future pandemics. Methods: Among Virus Watch household cohort participants we identified those infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outside the household. Using survey activity data, we undertook multivariable logistic regressions assessing the contribution of activities on non-household infection risk. We calculated adjusted population attributable fractions (APAF) to estimate which activity accounted for the greatest proportion of non-household infections during the pandemic's second wave. Results: Among 10,858 adults, 18% of cases were likely due to household transmission. Among 10,475 participants (household-acquired cases excluded), including 874 non-household-acquired infections, infection was associated with: leaving home for work or education (AOR 1.20 (1.02 – 1.42), APAF 6.9%);public transport (more than once per week AOR 1.82 (1.49 – 2.23), public transport APAF 12.42%);and shopping (more than once per week AOR 1.69 (1.29 – 2.21), shopping APAF 34.56%). Other non-household activities were rare and not significantly associated with infection. Conclusions: During lockdown, going to work and using public or shared transport independently increased infection risk, however only a minority did these activities. Most participants visited shops, accounting for one-third of non-household transmission. Transmission in restricted hospitality and leisure settings was minimal suggesting these restrictions were effective. If future respiratory infection pandemics emerge these findings highlight the value of working from home, using forms of transport that minimise exposure to others, minimising exposure to shops and restricting non-essential activities.
ABSTRACT
Background: "Lockdowns" to control serious respiratory virus pandemics were widely used during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, there is limited information to understand the settings in which most transmission occurs during lockdowns, to support refinement of similar policies for future pandemics. Methods: Among Virus Watch household cohort participants we identified those infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outside the household. Using survey activity data, we undertook multivariable logistic regressions assessing the contribution of activities on non-household infection risk. We calculated adjusted population attributable fractions (APAF) to estimate which activity accounted for the greatest proportion of non-household infections during the pandemic's second wave. Results: Among 10,858 adults, 18% of cases were likely due to household transmission. Among 10,475 participants (household-acquired cases excluded), including 874 non-household-acquired infections, infection was associated with: leaving home for work or education (AOR 1.20 (1.02 - 1.42), APAF 6.9%); public transport (more than once per week AOR 1.82 (1.49 - 2.23), public transport APAF 12.42%); and shopping (more than once per week AOR 1.69 (1.29 - 2.21), shopping APAF 34.56%). Other non-household activities were rare and not significantly associated with infection. Conclusions: During lockdown, going to work and using public or shared transport independently increased infection risk, however only a minority did these activities. Most participants visited shops, accounting for one-third of non-household transmission. Transmission in restricted hospitality and leisure settings was minimal suggesting these restrictions were effective. If future respiratory infection pandemics emerge these findings highlight the value of working from home, using forms of transport that minimise exposure to others, minimising exposure to shops and restricting non-essential activities.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Misinformation and disinformation around vaccines has grown in recent years, exacerbated during the Covid-19 pandemic. Effective strategies for countering vaccine misinformation and disinformation are crucial for tackling vaccine hesitancy. We conducted a systematic review to identify and describe communications-based strategies used to prevent and ameliorate the effect of mis- and dis-information on people's attitudes and behaviours surrounding vaccination (objective 1) and examined their effectiveness (objective 2). METHODS: We searched CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and MedRxiv in March 2021. The search strategy was built around three themes(1) communications and media; (2) misinformation; and (3) vaccines. For trials addressing objective 2, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias in randomized trials tool (RoB2). RESULTS: Of 2000 identified records, 34 eligible studies addressed objective 1, 29 of which also addressed objective 2 (25 RCTs and 4 before-and-after studies). Nine 'intervention approaches' were identified; most focused on content of the intervention or message (debunking/correctional, informational, use of disease images or other 'scare tactics', use of humour, message intensity, inclusion of misinformation warnings, and communicating weight of evidence), while two focused on delivery of the intervention or message (timing and source). Some strategies, such as scare tactics, appear to be ineffective and may increase misinformation endorsement. Communicating with certainty, rather than acknowledging uncertainty around vaccine efficacy or risks, was also found to backfire. Promising approaches include communicating the weight-of-evidence and scientific consensus around vaccines and related myths, using humour and incorporating warnings about encountering misinformation. Trying to debunk misinformation, informational approaches, and communicating uncertainty had mixed results. CONCLUSION: This review identifies some promising communication strategies for addressing vaccine misinformation. Interventions should be further evaluated by measuring effects on vaccine uptake, rather than distal outcomes such as knowledge and attitudes, in quasi-experimental and real-life contexts.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Humans , Pandemics , COVID-19/prevention & control , Vaccines/adverse effects , Vaccination , CommunicationABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In the UK, during the study period (April to July, 2021), all contacts of people with COVID-19 were required to self-isolate for 10 days, which had adverse impacts on individuals and society. Avoiding the need to self-isolate for those who remain uninfected would be beneficial. We investigated whether daily use of lateral flow devices (LFDs) to test for SARS-CoV-2, with removal of self-isolation for 24 h if negative, could be a safe alternative to self-isolation as a means to minimise onward transmission of the virus. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial in adult contacts identified by COVID-19 contact tracing in England. Consenting participants were randomly assigned to self-isolation (single PCR test, 10-day isolation) or daily contact testing (DCT; seven LFD tests, two PCR tests, no isolation if negative on LFD); participants from a single household were assigned to the same group. Participants were prospectively followed up, with the effect of each intervention on onward transmission established from routinely collected NHS Test and Trace contact tracing data for participants who tested PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period and tertiary cases arising from their contacts (ie, secondary contacts). The primary outcome of the study was the attack rate, the percentage of secondary contacts (close contacts of SARS-CoV-2-positive study participants) who became COVID-19 cases (tertiary cases) in each group. Attack rates were derived from Bernoulli regression models using Huber-White (robust) sandwich estimator clustered standard errors. Attack rates were adjusted for household exposure, vaccination status, and ability to work from home. The non-inferiority margin was 1·9%. The primary analysis was a modified intention-to-treat analysis excluding those who actively withdrew from the study as data from these participants were no longer held. This study is registered with the Research Registry (number 6809). Data collection is complete; analysis is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between April 29 and July 28, 2021, 54 923 eligible individuals were enrolled in the study, with final group allocations (following withdrawals) of 26 123 (52·6%) participants in the DCT group and 23 500 (47·4%) in the self-isolation group. Overall, 4694 participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR (secondary cases), 2364 (10·1%) in the self-isolation group and 2330 (8·9%) in the DCT group. Adjusted attack rates (among secondary contacts) were 7·5% in the self-isolation group and 6·3% in the DCT group (difference of -1·2% [95% CI -2·3 to -0·2]; significantly lower than the non-inferiority margin of 1·9%). INTERPRETATION: DCT with 24 h exemption from self-isolation for essential activities appears to be non-inferior to self-isolation. This study, which provided evidence for the UK Government's daily lateral flow testing policy for vaccinated contacts of COVID-19 cases, indicated that daily testing with LFDs could allow individuals to reduce the risk of onward transmission while minimising the adverse effects of self-isolation. Although contacts in England are no longer required to isolate, the findings will be relevant for future policy decisions around COVID-19 or other communicable infections. FUNDING: UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.