SARS-CoV-2 Aerosol Transmission Indoors: A Closer Look at Viral Load, Infectivity, the Effectiveness of Preventive Measures and a Simple Approach for Practical Recommendations.

There is uncertainty about the viral loads of infectious individuals required to transmit COVID-19 via aerosol. In addition, there is a lack of both quantification of the influencing parameters on airborne transmission and simple-to-use models for assessing the risk of infection in practice, which furthermore quantify the influence of non-medical preventive measures. In this study, a dose-response model was adopted to analyze 25 documented outbreaks at infection rates of 4-100%. We show that infection was only possible if the viral load was higher than 108 viral copies/mL. Based on mathematical simplifications of our approach to predict the probable situational attack rate (PARs) of a group of persons in a room, and valid assumptions, we provide simplified equations to calculate, among others, the maximum possible number of persons and the person-related virus-free air supply flow necessary to keep the number of newly infected persons to less than one. A comparison of different preventive measures revealed that testing contributes the most to the joint protective effect, besides wearing masks and increasing ventilation. In addition, we conclude that absolute volume flow rate or person-related volume flow rate are more intuitive parameters for evaluating ventilation for infection prevention than air exchange rate.

[Recording of SARS-CoV-2 laboratory tests in Germany]. / Erfassung der Labortestungen auf SARS-CoV-2 in Deutschland.

The collection of data on SARS-CoV­2 tests is central to the assessment of the infection rate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), data collected from various laboratory data recording systems are consolidated. First, this article aims to exemplify significant aspects regarding test procedures. Subsequently the different systems for recording laboratory tests are described and test numbers from the RKI test laboratory query and the laboratory-based SARS-CoV­2 surveillance as well as accounting data from the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians for SARS-CoV­2 laboratory tests are shown.Early in the pandemic, the RKI test laboratory query and the laboratory-based SARS-CoV­2 surveillance became available and able to evaluate data on performed tests and test capacities. By recording the positive and negative test results, statements about the total number of tests and the proportion of positive test rates can be made. While the aggregate test numbers are largely representative nationwide, they are not always representative at the state and district level. The billing data of the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians can complement the laboratory data afterwards. In addition, it can provide a retrospective assessment of the total number of SARS-CoV­2 numbers in Germany, because the services provided by statutory health insurers (around 85% of the population in Germany) are included. The various laboratory data recording systems complement one another and the evaluations flow into the recommended measures for the pandemic response.

COVID-19: cross-border contact tracing in Germany, February to April 2020.

IntroductionThe Robert Koch Institute (RKI) managed the exchange of cross-border contact tracing data between public health authorities (PHA) in Germany and abroad during the early COVID-19 pandemic.AimWe describe the extent of cross-border contact tracing and its challenges.MethodsWe analysed cross-border COVID-19 contact tracing events from 3 February to 5 April 2020 using information exchanged through the European Early Warning Response System and communication with International Health Regulation national focal points. We described events by PHA, number of contacts and exposure context.ResultsThe RKI processed 467 events, initiating contact to PHA 1,099 times (median = 1; interquartile range (IQR): 1-2) and sharing data on 5,099 contact persons. Of 327 (70%) events with known exposure context, the most commonly reported exposures were aircraft (n = 64; 20%), cruise ships (n = 24; 7%) and non-transport contexts (n = 210; 64%). Cruise ship and aircraft exposures generated more contacts with authorities (median = 10; IQR: 2-16, median = 4; IQR: 2-11) and more contact persons (median = 60; IQR: 9-269, median = 2; IQR: 1-3) than non-transport exposures (median = 1; IQR: 1-6 and median = 1; IQR: 1-2). The median time spent on contact tracing was highest for cruise ships: 5 days (IQR: 3-9).ConclusionIn the COVID-19 pandemic, cross-border contact tracing is considered a critical component of the outbreak response. While only a minority of international contact tracing activities were related to exposure events in transport, they contributed substantially to the workload. The numerous communications highlight the need for fast and efficient global outbreak communication channels between PHA.