Sustaining disaster aid in the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic had a global reach and impact, introducing stay at home orders, social distancing, facemask wearing, and closing national and international borders. Yet, the need for international disaster aid as a result of previous disasters and ongoing crises remained present. Interviews with staff from United Kingdom aid agencies and their partner organizations examined how development and humanitarian activities changed during the first six months of the pandemic. Seven key themes were highlighted. The need to recognize individual country contexts and experiences when dealing with a pandemic was emphasized, together with appropriate strategic decisions around guidance and supporting staff and the value of learning from previous experiences. Restrictions limited agencies' ability to monitor programs and ensure accountability effectively, but relationships between partners adjusted, with a move to a greater reliance on local partners and increased empowerment in these groups. Trust was vital to allow for the continuation of programs and services during the first months of the pandemic. Most programs continued but with significant adaptations. An enhanced use of communication technology was a key adaptation, though caveats remained around access. Concern around safeguarding and stigmatization of vulnerable groups was reported as an increasing issue in some contexts. The impact of COVID-19 restrictions on ongoing disaster aid was rapid and extensive, forcing aid agencies at different scales to work swiftly to try to ensure as little disruption as possible, and -generating important lessons for both the ongoing and future crises.

Super-spreaders of novel coronaviruses that cause SARS, MERS and COVID-19: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Most index cases with novel coronavirus infections transmit disease to just one or two other individuals, but some individuals "super-spread"-they infect many secondary cases. Understanding common factors that super-spreaders may share could inform outbreak models, and be used to guide contact tracing during outbreaks. METHODS: We searched in MEDLINE, Scopus, and preprints to identify studies about people documented as transmitting pathogens that cause SARS, MERS, or COVID-19 to at least nine other people. We extracted data to describe them by age, sex, location, occupation, activities, symptom severity, any underlying conditions, disease outcome and undertook quality assessment for outbreaks published by June 2021. RESULTS: The most typical super-spreader was a male age 40+. Most SARS or MERS super-spreaders were very symptomatic, the super-spreading occurred in hospital settings and frequently the individual died. In contrast, COVID-19 super-spreaders often had very mild disease and most COVID-19 super-spreading happened in community settings. CONCLUSIONS: SARS and MERS super-spreaders were often symptomatic, middle- or older-age adults who had a high mortality rate. In contrast, COVID-19 super-spreaders tended to have mild disease and were any adult age. More outbreak reports should be published with anonymized but useful demographic information to improve understanding of super-spreading, super-spreaders, and the settings in which super-spreading happens.

English care home staff morale and preparedness during the COVID pandemic: A longitudinal analysis.

BACKGROUND: Staff actions to prevent infection introduction and transmission in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) were key to reducing morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. Implementing infection control measures (ICMs) requires training, adherence and complex decision making while trying to deliver high quality care. We surveyed LTCF staff in England about their preparedness and morale at 3 timepoints during the COVID-19 epidemic. METHODS: Online structured survey targeted at LTCF workers (any role) administered at 3 timepoints (November 2020-January 2021; August-November 2021; March-May 2022). Narrative summary of answers, narrative and statistical summary (proportionality with Pearson's chi-square or Fisher's Exact Test) of possible differences in answers between waves. RESULTS: Across all 3 survey waves, 387 responses were received. Morale, attitudes towards working environment and perception about colleague collaboration were mostly positive at all survey points. Infection control training was perceived as adequate. Staff felt mostly positive emotions at work. The working environment remained challenging. Masks were the single form of PPE most consistently used; eye protection the least used. Mask-wearing was linked to poorer communication and resident discomfort as well as mild negative health impacts on many staff, such as dehydration and adverse skin reactions. Hand sanitizer caused skin irritation. CONCUSIONS: Staff morale and working practices were generally good even though the working environment provided many new challenges that did not exist pre-pandemic.

Mental Health Presentations Across Health Care Settings During the First 9 Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic in England: Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented impact on the day-to-day lives of people, with several features potentially adversely affecting mental health. There is growing evidence of the size of the impact of COVID-19 on mental health, but much of this is from ongoing population surveys using validated mental health scores. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the impact of the pandemic and control measures on mental health conditions presenting to a spectrum of national health care services monitored using real-time syndromic surveillance in England. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational descriptive study of mental health presentations (those calling the national medical helpline, National Health Service [NHS] 111; consulting general practitioners [GPs] in and out-of-hours; calling ambulance services; and attending emergency departments) from January 1, 2019, to September 30, 2020. Estimates for the impact of lockdown measures were provided using an interrupted time series analysis. RESULTS: Mental health presentations showed a marked decrease during the early stages of the pandemic. Postlockdown, attendances for mental health conditions reached higher than prepandemic levels across most systems-a rise of 10% compared to that expected for NHS 111 and 21% for GP out-of-hours service-while the number of consultations to GP in-hours service was 13% lower compared to the same time previous year. Increases were observed in calls to NHS 111 for sleep problems. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses showed marked changes in the health care attendances and prescribing for common mental health conditions across a spectrum of health care provision, with some of these changes persisting. The reasons for such changes are likely to be complex and multifactorial. The impact of the pandemic on mental health may not be fully understood for some time, and therefore, these syndromic indicators should continue to be monitored.

Enhancing epidemiological surveillance of the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant using spike gene target failure data, England, 15 November to 31 December 2021.

When SARS-CoV-2 Omicron emerged in 2021, S gene target failure enabled differentiation between Omicron and the dominant Delta variant. In England, where S gene target surveillance (SGTS) was already established, this led to rapid identification (within ca 3 days of sample collection) of possible Omicron cases, alongside real-time surveillance and modelling of Omicron growth. SGTS was key to public health action (including case identification and incident management), and we share applied insights on how and when to use SGTS.

The COVID University Challenge: A Hazard Analysis of Critical Control Points Assessment of the Return of Students to Higher Education Establishments.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted economies and societies throughout the world since early 2020. Education is especially affected, with schools and universities widely closed for long periods. People under 25 years have the lowest risk of severe disease but their activities can be key to persistent ongoing community transmission. A challenge arose for how to provide education, including university level, without the activities of students increasing wider community SARS-CoV-2 infections. We used a Hazard Analysis of Critical Control Points (HACCP) framework to assess the risks associated with university student activity and recommend how to mitigate these risks. This tool appealed because it relies on multiagency collaboration and interdisciplinary expertise and yet is low cost, allowing rapid generation of evidence-based recommendations. We identified key critical control points associated with university student' activities, lifestyle, and interaction patterns both on-and-off campus. Unacceptable contact thresholds and the most up-to-date guidance were used to identify levels of risk for potential SARS-CoV-2 transmission, as well as recommendations based on existing research and emerging evidence for strategies that can reduce the risks of transmission. Employing the preventative measures we suggest can reduce the risks of SARS-CoV-2 transmission among and from university students. Reduction of infectious disease transmission in this demographic will reduce overall community transmission, lower demands on health services and reduce risk of harm to clinically vulnerable individuals while allowing vital education activity to continue. HACCP assessment proved a flexible tool for risk analysis in a specific setting in response to an emerging infectious disease threat. Systematic approaches to assessing hazards and risk critical control points (#HACCP) enable robust strategies for protecting students and staff in HE settings during #COVID19 pandemic.

The spatio-temporal distribution of COVID-19 infection in England between January and June 2020.

The spatio-temporal dynamics of an outbreak provide important insights to help direct public health resources intended to control transmission. They also provide a focus for detailed epidemiological studies and allow the timing and impact of interventions to be assessed.A common approach is to aggregate case data to administrative regions. Whilst providing a good visual impression of change over space, this method masks spatial variation and assumes that disease risk is constant across space. Risk factors for COVID-19 (e.g. population density, deprivation and ethnicity) vary from place to place across England so it follows that risk will also vary spatially. Kernel density estimation compares the spatial distribution of cases relative to the underlying population, unfettered by arbitrary geographical boundaries, to produce a continuous estimate of spatially varying risk.Using test results from healthcare settings in England (Pillar 1 of the UK Government testing strategy) and freely available methods and software, we estimated the spatial and spatio-temporal risk of COVID-19 infection across England for the first 6 months of 2020. Widespread transmission was underway when partial lockdown measures were introduced on 23 March 2020 and the greatest risk erred towards large urban areas. The rapid growth phase of the outbreak coincided with multiple introductions to England from the European mainland. The spatio-temporal risk was highly labile throughout.In terms of controlling transmission, the most important practical application of our results is the accurate identification of areas within regions that may require tailored intervention strategies. We recommend that this approach is absorbed into routine surveillance outputs in England. Further risk characterisation using widespread community testing (Pillar 2) data is needed as is the increased use of predictive spatial models at fine spatial scales.

Community use of face masks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID-19: a rapid scoping review.

BackgroundEvidence for face-mask wearing in the community to protect against respiratory disease is unclear.AimTo assess effectiveness of wearing face masks in the community to prevent respiratory disease, and recommend improvements to this evidence base.MethodsWe systematically searched Scopus, Embase and MEDLINE for studies evaluating respiratory disease incidence after face-mask wearing (or not). Narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analysis of attack rates for primary and secondary prevention were performed, subgrouped by design, setting, face barrier type, and who wore the mask. Preferred outcome was influenza-like illness. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) quality assessment was undertaken and evidence base deficits described.Results33 studies (12 randomised control trials (RCTs)) were included. Mask wearing reduced primary infection by 6% (odds ratio (OR): 0.94; 95% CI: 0.75-1.19 for RCTs) to 61% (OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.32-2.27; OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.18-0.84 and OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.45-0.85 for cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies respectively). RCTs suggested lowest secondary attack rates when both well and ill household members wore masks (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.48-1.37). While RCTs might underestimate effects due to poor compliance and controls wearing masks, observational studies likely overestimate effects, as mask wearing might be associated with other risk-averse behaviours. GRADE was low or very low quality.ConclusionWearing face masks may reduce primary respiratory infection risk, probably by 6-15%. It is important to balance evidence from RCTs and observational studies when their conclusions widely differ and both are at risk of significant bias. COVID-19-specific studies are required.