Between-occupation differences in work-related COVID-19 mitigation strategies over time: Analysis of the Virus Watch Cohort in England and Wales.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 mitigations have had a profound impact on workplaces, however, multisectoral comparisons of how work-related mitigations were applied are limited. This study aimed to investigate (i) occupational differences in the usage of key work-related mitigations over time and (ii) workers' perceptions of these mitigations. METHODS: Employed/self-employed Virus Watch study participants (N=6279) responded to a mitigation-related online survey covering the periods of December 2020-February 2022. Logistic regression was used to investigate occupation- and time-related differences in the usage of work-related mitigation methods. Participants' perceptions of mitigation methods were investigated descriptively using proportions. RESULTS: Usage of work-related mitigation methods differed between occupations and over time, likely reflecting variation in job roles, workplace environments, legislation and guidance. Healthcare workers had the highest predicted probabilities for several mitigations, including reporting frequent hand hygiene [predicted probability across all survey periods 0.61 (95% CI 0.56-0.66)] and always wearing face coverings [predicted probability range 0.71 (95% CI 0.66-0.75) - 0.80 (95% CI 0.76-0.84) across survey periods]. There were significant cross-occupational trends towards reduced mitigations during periods of less stringent national restrictions. The majority of participants across occupations (55-88%) agreed that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile even after the relaxation of national restrictions; agreement was lower for physical distancing (39-44%). CONCLUSIONS: While usage of work-related mitigations appeared to vary alongside stringency of national restrictions, agreement that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile remained substantial. Further investigation into the factors underlying between-occupational differences could assist pandemic planning and prevention of workplace COVID-19 transmission.

Differential Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Occupation: Evidence from the Virus Watch prospective cohort study in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Workers across different occupations vary in their risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the direct contribution of occupation to this relationship is unclear. This study aimed to investigate how infection risk differed across occupational groups in England and Wales up to April 2022, after adjustment for potential confounding and stratification by pandemic phase. METHODS: Data from 15,190 employed/self-employed participants in the Virus Watch prospective cohort study were used to generate risk ratios for virologically- or serologically-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection using robust Poisson regression, adjusting for socio-demographic and health-related factors and non-work public activities. We calculated attributable fractions (AF) amongst the exposed for belonging to each occupational group based on adjusted risk ratios (aRR). RESULTS: Increased risk was seen in nurses (aRR = 1.44, 1.25-1.65; AF = 30%, 20-39%), doctors (aRR = 1.33, 1.08-1.65; AF = 25%, 7-39%), carers (1.45, 1.19-1.76; AF = 31%, 16-43%), primary school teachers (aRR = 1.67, 1.42- 1.96; AF = 40%, 30-49%), secondary school teachers (aRR = 1.48, 1.26-1.72; AF = 32%, 21-42%), and teaching support occupations (aRR = 1.42, 1.23-1.64; AF = 29%, 18-39%) compared to office-based professional occupations. Differential risk was apparent in the earlier phases (Feb 2020-May 2021) and attenuated later (June-October 2021) for most groups, although teachers and teaching support workers demonstrated persistently elevated risk across waves. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection risk vary over time and are robust to adjustment for socio-demographic, health-related, and non-workplace activity-related potential confounders. Direct investigation into workplace factors underlying elevated risk and how these change over time is needed to inform occupational health interventions.

How prepared is the world? Identifying weaknesses in existing assessment frameworks for global health security through a One Health approach.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed faults in the way we assess preparedness and response capacities for public health emergencies. Existing frameworks are limited in scope, and do not sufficiently consider complex social, economic, political, regulatory, and ecological factors. One Health, through its focus on the links among humans, animals, and ecosystems, is a valuable approach through which existing assessment frameworks can be analysed and new ways forward proposed. Although in the past few years advances have been made in assessment tools such as the International Health Regulations Joint External Evaluation, a rapid and radical increase in ambition is required. To sufficiently account for the range of complex systems in which health emergencies occur, assessments should consider how problems are defined across stakeholders and the wider sociopolitical environments in which structures and institutions operate. Current frameworks do little to consider anthropogenic factors in disease emergence or address the full array of health security hazards across the social-ecological system. A complex and interdependent set of challenges threaten human, animal, and ecosystem health, and we cannot afford to overlook important contextual factors, or the determinants of these shared threats. Health security assessment frameworks should therefore ensure that the process undertaken to prioritise and build capacity adheres to core One Health principles and that interventions and outcomes are assessed in terms of added value, trade-offs, and cobenefits across human, animal, and environmental health systems.

A case-crossover study of the effect of vaccination on SARS-CoV-2 transmission relevant behaviours during a period of national lockdown in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Studies of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness show increases in COVID-19 cases within 14 days of a first dose, potentially reflecting post-vaccination behaviour changes associated with SARS-CoV-2 transmission before vaccine protection. However, direct evidence for a relationship between vaccination and behaviour is lacking. We aimed to examine the association between vaccination status and self-reported non-household contacts and non-essential activities during a national lockdown in England and Wales. METHODS: Participants (n = 1154) who had received the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine reported non-household contacts and non-essential activities from February to March 2021 in monthly surveys during a national lockdown in England and Wales. We used a case-crossover study design and conditional logistic regression to examine the association between vaccination status (pre-vaccination vs 14 days post-vaccination) and self-reported contacts and activities within individuals. Stratified subgroup analyses examined potential effect heterogeneity by sociodemographic characteristics such as sex, household income or age group. RESULTS: 457/1154 (39.60 %) participants reported non-household contacts post-vaccination compared with 371/1154 (32.15 %) participants pre-vaccination. 100/1154 (8.67 %) participants reported use of non-essential shops or services post-vaccination compared with 74/1154 (6.41 %) participants pre-vaccination. Post-vaccination status was associated with increased odds of reporting non-household contacts (OR 1.65, 95 % CI 1.31-2.06, p < 0.001) and use of non-essential shops or services (OR 1.50, 95 % CI 1.03-2.17, p = 0.032). This effect varied between men and women and different age groups. CONCLUSION: Participants had higher odds of reporting non-household contacts and use of non-essential shops or services within 14 days of their first COVID-19 vaccine compared to pre-vaccination. Public health emphasis on maintaining protective behaviours during this post-vaccination time period when individuals have yet to develop full protection from vaccination could reduce risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Comparative effectiveness of different primary vaccination courses on mRNA-based booster vaccines against SARs-COV-2 infections: a time-varying cohort analysis using trial emulation in the Virus Watch community cohort.

BACKGROUND: The Omicron B.1.1.529 variant increased severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in doubly vaccinated individuals, particularly in the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1) recipients. To tackle infections, the UK's booster vaccination programmes used messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines irrespective of an individual's primary course vaccine type, and prioritized the clinically vulnerable. These mRNA vaccines included the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (mRNA-1273). There is limited understanding of the effectiveness of different primary vaccination courses on mRNA booster vaccines against SARs-COV-2 infections and how time-varying confounders affect these evaluations. METHODS: Trial emulation was applied to a prospective community observational cohort in England and Wales to reduce time-varying confounding-by-indication driven by prioritizing vaccination based upon age, vulnerability and exposure. Trial emulation was conducted by meta-analysing eight adult cohort results whose booster vaccinations were staggered between 16 September 2021 and 05 January 2022 and followed until 23 January 2022. Time from booster vaccination until SARS-CoV-2 infection, loss of follow-up or end of study was modelled using Cox proportional hazard models and adjusted for age, sex, minority ethnic status, clinically vulnerability and deprivation. RESULTS: A total of 19 159 participants were analysed, with 11 709 ChAdOx1 primary courses and 7450 BNT162b2 primary courses. Median age, clinical vulnerability status and infection rates fluctuate through time. In mRNA-boosted adults, 7.4% (n = 863) of boosted adults with a ChAdOx1 primary course experienced a SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with 7.7% (n = 571) of those who had BNT162b2 as a primary course. The pooled adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) was 1.01 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of: 0.90 to 1.13. CONCLUSION: After an mRNA booster dose, we found no difference in protection comparing those with a primary course of BNT162b2 with those with a ChAdOx1 primary course. This contrasts with pre-booster findings where previous research shows greater effectiveness of BNT162b2 than ChAdOx1 in preventing infection.

A case-crossover study of the effect of vaccination on SARS-CoV-2 transmission relevant behaviours during a period of national lockdown in England and Wales

Background Studies of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness show increases in COVID-19 cases within 14 days of a first dose, potentially reflecting post-vaccination behaviour changes associated with SARS-CoV-2 transmission before vaccine protection. However, direct evidence for a relationship between vaccination and behaviour is lacking. We aimed to examine the association between vaccination status and self-reported non-household contacts and non-essential activities during a national lockdown in England and Wales. Methods Participants (n=1,154) who had received the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine reported non-household contacts and non-essential activities from February to March 2021 in monthly surveys during a national lockdown in England and Wales. We used a case-crossover study design and conditional logistic regression to examine the association between vaccination status (pre-vaccination vs. 14 days post-vaccination) and self-reported contacts and activities within individuals. Stratified subgroup analyses examined potential effect heterogeneity by sociodemographic characteristics such as sex, household income or age group. Results 457/1,154 (39.60%) participants reported non-household contacts post-vaccination compared with 371/1,154 (32.15%) participants pre-vaccination. 100/1,154 (8.67%) participants reported use of non-essential shops or services post-vaccination compared with 74/1,154 (6.41%) participants pre-vaccination. Post-vaccination status was associated with increased odds of reporting non-household contacts (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.31-2.06, p<0.001) and use of non-essential shops or services (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.03-2.17, p=0.032). This effect varied between men and women and different age groups. Conclusion Participants had higher odds of reporting non-household contacts and use of non-essential shops or services within 14 days of their first COVID-19 vaccine compared to pre-vaccination. Public health emphasis on maintaining protective behaviours during this post-vaccination time period when individuals have yet to develop full protection from vaccination could reduce risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Bayesian reconstruction of household transmissions to infer the serial interval of COVID-19 by variants of concern: analysis from a prospective community cohort study (Virus Watch).

BACKGROUND: The serial interval is a key epidemiological measure that quantifies the time between an infector's and an infectee's onset of symptoms. This measure helps investigate epidemiological links between cases, and is an important parameter in transmission models used to estimate transmissibility and inform control strategies. The emergence of multiple variants of concern (VOC) during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has led to uncertainties about potential changes in the serial interval of COVID-19. We estimated the household serial interval of multiple VOC using data collected by the Virus Watch study. This online, prospective, community cohort study followed-up entire households in England and Wales since mid-June 2020. METHODS: This analysis included 5842 symptomatic individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection among 2579 households from Sept 1, 2020, to Aug 10, 2022. SARS-CoV-2 variant designation was based upon national surveillance data of variant prevalence by date and geographical region. We used a Bayesian framework to infer who infected whom by exploring all transmission trees compatible with the observed dates of symptoms, given assumptions on the incubation period and generation time distributions using the R package outbreaker2. FINDINGS: We characterised the serial interval of COVID-19 by VOC. The mean serial interval was shortest for omicron BA5 (2·02 days; 95% credible interval [CrI] 1·26-2·84) and longest for alpha (3·37 days; 2·52-4·04). The mean serial interval before alpha (wild-type) was 2·29 days (95% CrI 1·39-2·94), 3·11 days (2·28-3·90) for delta, 2·72 days (2·01-3·47) for omicron BA1, and 2·67 days (1·90-3·46) for omicron BA2. We estimated that 17% (95% CrI 5-26) of serial interval values are negative across all variants. INTERPRETATION: Most methods estimating the reproduction number from incidence time series do not allow for a negative serial interval by construction. Further research is needed to extend these methods and assess biases introduced by not accounting for negative serial intervals. To our knowledge, this study is the first to use a Bayesian framework to estimate the serial interval of all major SARS-CoV-2 VOC from thousands of confirmed household cases. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and Wellcome Trust.

Occupation, Worker Vulnerability, and COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake: Analysis of the Virus Watch prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Occupational disparities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake can impact the effectiveness of vaccination programmes and introduce particular risk for vulnerable workers and those with high workplace exposure. This study aimed to investigate COVID-19 vaccine uptake by occupation, including for vulnerable groups and by occupational exposure status. METHODS: We used data from employed or self-employed adults who provided occupational information as part of the Virus Watch prospective cohort study (n = 19,595) and linked this to study-obtained information about vulnerability-relevant characteristics (age, medical conditions, obesity status) and work-related COVID-19 exposure based on the Job Exposure Matrix. Participant vaccination status for the first, second, and third dose of any COVID-19 vaccine was obtained based on linkage to national records and study records. We calculated proportions and Sison-Glaz multinomial 95% confidence intervals for vaccine uptake by occupation overall, by vulnerability-relevant characteristics, and by job exposure. FINDINGS: Vaccination uptake across occupations ranged from 89-96% for the first dose, 87-94% for the second dose, and 75-86% for the third dose, with transport, trade, service and sales workers persistently demonstrating the lowest uptake. Vulnerable workers tended to demonstrate fewer between-occupational differences in uptake than non-vulnerable workers, although clinically vulnerable transport workers (76%-89% across doses) had lower uptake than several other occupational groups (maximum across doses 86%-96%). Workers with low SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk had higher vaccine uptake (86%-96% across doses) than those with elevated or high risk (81-94% across doses). INTERPRETATION: Differential vaccination uptake by occupation, particularly amongst vulnerable and highly-exposed workers, is likely to worsen occupational and related socioeconomic inequalities in infection outcomes. Further investigation into occupational and non-occupational factors influencing differential uptake is required to inform relevant interventions for future COVID-19 booster rollouts and similar vaccination programmes.

Nucleocapsid and spike antibody responses following virologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection: an observational analysis in the Virus Watch community cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Seroprevalence studies can provide a measure of SARS-CoV-2 cumulative incidence, but a better understanding of spike and nucleocapsid (anti-N) antibody dynamics following infection is needed to assess the longevity of detectability. METHODS: Adults aged ≥18 years, from households enrolled in the Virus Watch prospective community cohort study in England and Wales, provided monthly capillary blood samples, which were tested for spike antibody and anti-N. Participants self-reported vaccination dates and past medical history. Previous polymerase chain reaction (PCR) swabs were obtained through Second Generation Surveillance System linkage data. The primary outcome variables were seropositivity and total anti-N and spike antibody levels after PCR-confirmed infection. RESULTS: A total of 13,802 eligible individuals provided 58,770 capillary blood samples. A total of 537 of these had a previous positive PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 0-269 days of antibody sample date, among them 432 (80.45%) having a positive anti-N result. Median anti-N levels peaked between days 90 and 119 after PCR results and then began to decline. There is evidence of anti-N waning from 120 days onwards, with earlier waning for females and younger age categories. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that anti-N has around 80% sensitivity for identifying previous COVID-19 infection, and the duration of detectability is affected by sex and age.

SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and breakthrough infections in the Virus Watch cohort.

A range of studies globally demonstrate that the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines wane over time, but the total effect of anti-S antibody levels on risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and whether this varies by vaccine type is not well understood. Here we show that anti-S levels peak three to four weeks following the second dose of vaccine and the geometric mean of the samples is nine fold higher for BNT162b2 than ChAdOx1. Increasing anti-S levels are associated with a reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Hazard Ratio 0.85; 95%CIs: 0.79-0.92). We do not find evidence that this antibody relationship with risk of infection varies by second dose vaccine type (BNT162b2 vs. ChAdOx1). In keeping with our anti-S antibody data, we find that people vaccinated with ChAdOx1 had 1.64 times the odds (95% confidence interval 1.45-1.85) of a breakthrough infection compared to BNT162b2. We anticipate our findings to be useful in the estimation of the protective effect of anti-S levels on risk of infection due to Delta. Our findings provide evidence about the relationship between antibody levels and protection for different vaccines and will support decisions on optimising the timing of booster vaccinations and identifying individuals who should be prioritised for booster vaccination, including those who are older, clinically extremely vulnerable, or received ChAdOx1 as their primary course. Our finding that risk of infection by anti-S level does not interact with vaccine type, but that individuals vaccinated with ChAdOx1 were at higher risk of infection, provides additional support for the use of using anti-S levels for estimating vaccine efficacy.

Workplace contact patterns in England during the COVID-19 pandemic: Analysis of the Virus Watch prospective cohort study.

Background: Workplaces are an important potential source of SARS-CoV-2 exposure; however, investigation into workplace contact patterns is lacking. This study aimed to investigate how workplace attendance and features of contact varied between occupations across the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Methods: Data were obtained from electronic contact diaries (November 2020-November 2021) submitted by employed/self-employed prospective cohort study participants (n=4,616). We used mixed models to investigate the effects of occupation and time for: workplace attendance, number of people sharing workspace, time spent sharing workspace, number of close contacts, and usage of face coverings. Findings: Workplace attendance and contact patterns varied across occupations and time. The predicted probability of intense space sharing during the day was highest for healthcare (78% [95% CI: 75-81%]) and education workers (64% [59%-69%]), who also had the highest probabilities for larger numbers of close contacts (36% [32%-40%] and 38% [33%-43%] respectively). Education workers also demonstrated relatively low predicted probability (51% [44%-57%]) of wearing a face covering during close contact. Across all occupational groups, workspace sharing and close contact increased and usage of face coverings decreased during phases of less stringent restrictions. Interpretation: Major variations in workplace contact patterns and mask use likely contribute to differential COVID-19 risk. Patterns of variation by occupation and restriction phase may inform interventions for future waves of COVID-19 or other respiratory epidemics. Across occupations, increasing workplace contact and reduced face covering usage is concerning given ongoing high levels of community transmission and emergence of variants. Funding: Medical Research Council; HM Government; Wellcome Trust.

The Global Health Security index and Joint External Evaluation score for health preparedness are not correlated with countries' COVID-19 detection response time and mortality outcome.

Global Health Security Index (GHSI) and Joint External Evaluation (JEE) are two well-known health security and related capability indices. We hypothesised that countries with higher GHSI or JEE scores would have detected their first COVID-19 case earlier, and would experience lower mortality outcome compared to countries with lower scores. We evaluated the effectiveness of GHSI and JEE in predicting countries' COVID-19 detection response times and mortality outcome (deaths/million). We used two different outcomes for the evaluation: (i) detection response time, the duration of time to the first confirmed case detection (from 31st December 2019 to 20th February 2020 when every country's first case was linked to travel from China) and (ii) mortality outcome (deaths/million) until 11th March and 1st July 2020, respectively. We interpreted the detection response time alongside previously published relative risk of the importation of COVID-19 cases from China. We performed multiple linear regression and negative binomial regression analysis to evaluate how these indices predicted the actual outcome. The two indices, GHSI and JEE were strongly correlated (r = 0.82), indicating a good agreement between them. However, both GHSI (r = 0.31) and JEE (r = 0.37) had a poor correlation with countries' COVID-19-related mortality outcome. Higher risk of importation of COVID-19 from China for a given country was negatively correlated with the time taken to detect the first case in that country (adjusted R2 = 0.63-0.66), while the GHSI and JEE had minimal predictive value. In the negative binomial regression model, countries' mortality outcome was strongly predicted by the percentage of the population aged 65 and above (incidence rate ratio (IRR): 1.10 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.21) while overall GHSI score (IRR: 1.01 (95% CI: 0.98-1.01)) and JEE (IRR: 0.99 (95% CI: 0.96-1.02)) were not significant predictors. GHSI and JEE had lower predictive value for detection response time and mortality outcome due to COVID-19. We suggest introduction of a population healthiness parameter, to address demographic and comorbidity vulnerabilities, and reappraisal of the ranking system and methods used to obtain the index based on experience gained from this pandemic.

Passengers' destinations from China: low risk of Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) transmission into Africa and South America.

Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV [SARS-COV-2]) was detected in humans during the last week of December 2019 at Wuhan city in China, and caused 24 554 cases in 27 countries and territories as of 5 February 2020. The objective of this study was to estimate the risk of transmission of 2019-nCoV through human passenger air flight from four major cities of China (Wuhan, Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou) to the passengers' destination countries. We extracted the weekly simulated passengers' end destination data for the period of 1-31 January 2020 from FLIRT, an online air travel dataset that uses information from 800 airlines to show the direct flight and passengers' end destination. We estimated a risk index of 2019-nCoV transmission based on the number of travellers to destination countries, weighted by the number of confirmed cases of the departed city reported by the World Health Organization (WHO). We ranked each country based on the risk index in four quantiles (4th quantile being the highest risk and 1st quantile being the lowest risk). During the period, 388 287 passengers were destined for 1297 airports in 168 countries or territories across the world. The risk index of 2019-nCoV among the countries had a very high correlation with the WHO-reported confirmed cases (0.97). According to our risk score classification, of the countries that reported at least one Coronavirus-infected pneumonia (COVID-19) case as of 5 February 2020, 24 countries were in the 4th quantile of the risk index, two in the 3rd quantile, one in the 2nd quantile and none in the 1st quantile. Outside China, countries with a higher risk of 2019-nCoV transmission are Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia, Canada and the USA, all of which reported at least one case. In pan-Europe, UK, France, Russia, Germany and Italy; in North America, USA and Canada; in Oceania, Australia had high risk, all of them reported at least one case. In Africa and South America, the risk of transmission is very low with Ethiopia, South Africa, Egypt, Mauritius and Brazil showing a similar risk of transmission compared to the risk of any of the countries where at least one case is detected. The risk of transmission on 31 January 2020 was very high in neighbouring Asian countries, followed by Europe (UK, France, Russia and Germany), Oceania (Australia) and North America (USA and Canada). Increased public health response including early case recognition, isolation of identified case, contract tracing and targeted airport screening, public awareness and vigilance of health workers will help mitigate the force of further spread to naïve countries.