Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-293053

ABSTRACT

We investigate the impact of vaccination and asymptomatic testing uptake on SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a university student population using a stochastic compartmental model. We find that the magnitude and timing of outbreaks is highly variable under different vaccine uptake levels. With low level interventions (no asymptomatic testing, 30% vaccinated), 53-71% of students become infected during the first term;with high interventions (90% using asymptomatic testing, 90% vaccinated) cumulative incidence is 7-9%, with around 80% of these cases estimated to be asymptomatic. Asymptomatic testing is most useful when vaccine uptake is low: when 30% of students are vaccinated, 90% uptake of asymptomatic testing leads to almost half the case numbers. Under high levels of vaccine uptake (70-90%), case numbers in the student population are largely driven by community importation. Our findings suggest that vaccination is critical for controlling SARS-CoV-2 transmission in university settings with asymptomatic testing being a useful supporting measure.

2.
Epidemiology and Infection ; 149, 2021.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1351911

ABSTRACT

UK universities re-opened in September 2020, amidst the coronavirus epidemic. During the first term, various national social distancing measures were introduced, including banning groups of >6 people and the second lockdown in November;however, outbreaks among university students occurred. We aimed to measure the University of Bristol staff and student contact patterns via an online, longitudinal survey capturing self-reported contacts on the previous day. We investigated the change in contacts associated with COVID-19 guidance periods: post-first lockdown (23/06/2020–03/07/2020), relaxed guidance period (04/07/2020–13/09/2020), ‘rule-of-six’ period (14/09/2020–04/11/2020) and the second lockdown (05/11/2020–25/11/2020). In total, 722 staff (4199 responses) and 738 students (1906 responses) were included in the study. For staff, daily contacts were higher in the relaxed guidance and ‘rule-of-six’ periods than the post-first lockdown and second lockdown. Mean student contacts dropped between the ‘rule-of-six’ and second lockdown periods. For both staff and students, the proportion meeting with groups larger than six dropped between the ‘rule-of-six’ period and the second lockdown period, although was higher for students than for staff. Our results suggest university staff and students responded to national guidance by altering their social contacts. Most contacts during the second lockdown were household contacts. The response in staff and students was similar, suggesting that students can adhere to social distancing guidance while at university. The number of contacts recorded for both staff and students were much lower than those recorded by previous surveys in the UK conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic.

3.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 11728, 2021 06 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1258594

ABSTRACT

University students have unique living, learning and social arrangements which may have implications for infectious disease transmission. To address this data gap, we created CONQUEST (COroNavirus QUESTionnaire), a longitudinal online survey of contacts, behaviour, and COVID-19 symptoms for University of Bristol (UoB) staff/students. Here, we analyse results from 740 students providing 1261 unique records from the start of the 2020/2021 academic year (14/09/2020-01/11/2020), where COVID-19 outbreaks led to the self-isolation of all students in some halls of residences. Although most students reported lower daily contacts than in pre-COVID-19 studies, there was heterogeneity, with some reporting many (median = 2, mean = 6.1, standard deviation = 15.0; 8% had ≥ 20 contacts). Around 40% of students' contacts were with individuals external to the university, indicating potential for transmission to non-students/staff. Only 61% of those reporting cardinal symptoms in the past week self-isolated, although 99% with a positive COVID-19 test during the 2 weeks before survey completion had self-isolated within the last week. Some students who self-isolated had many contacts (mean = 4.3, standard deviation = 10.6). Our results provide context to the COVID-19 outbreaks seen in universities and are available for modelling future outbreaks and informing policy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/etiology , COVID-19/psychology , Quarantine/statistics & numerical data , Students/psychology , Universities , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Middle Aged , Quarantine/psychology , Regression Analysis , Social Isolation , Students/statistics & numerical data , Surveys and Questionnaires , United Kingdom , Young Adult
4.
Eur J Public Health ; 31(3): 619-624, 2021 07 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1123256

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In responding to Covid-19, governments have tried to balance protecting health while minimizing gross domestic product (GDP) losses. We compare health-related net benefit (HRNB) and GDP losses associated with government responses of the UK, Ireland, Germany, Spain and Sweden from UK healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: We compared observed cases, hospitalizations and deaths under 'mitigation' to modelled events under 'no mitigation' to 20 July 2020. We thus calculated healthcare costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and HRNB at £20,000/QALY saved by each country. On per population (i.e. per capita) basis, we compared HRNB with forecast reductions in 2020 GDP growth (overall or compared with Sweden as minimal mitigation country) and qualitatively and quantitatively described government responses. RESULTS: The UK saved 3.17 (0.32-3.65) million QALYs, £33 (8-38) billion healthcare costs and £1416 (220-1637) HRNB per capita at £20,000/QALY. Per capita, this is comparable to £1455 GDP loss using Sweden as comparator and offsets 46.1 (7.1-53.2)% of total £3075 GDP loss. Germany, Spain, and Sweden had greater HRNB per capita. These also offset a greater percentage of total GDP losses per capita. Ireland fared worst on both measures. Countries with more mask wearing, testing, and population susceptibility had better outcomes. Highest stringency responses did not appear to have best outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our exploratory analysis indicates the benefit of government Covid-19 responses may outweigh their economic costs. The extent that HRNB offset economic losses appears to relate to population characteristics, testing levels, and mask wearing, rather than response stringency.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Europe , Germany , Health Care Costs , Humans , Ireland , SARS-CoV-2 , Spain , Sweden , United Kingdom
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL