Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children to contacts in schools and households: a prospective cohort and environmental sampling study in London.

BACKGROUND: Assessing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children in schools is of crucial importance to inform public health action. We assessed frequency of acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 by contacts of pupils with COVID-19 in schools and households, and quantified SARS-CoV-2 shedding into air and onto fomites in both settings. METHODS: We did a prospective cohort and environmental sampling study in London, UK in eight schools. Schools reporting new cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection to local health protection teams were invited to take part if a child index case had been attending school in the 48 h before a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. At the time of the study, PCR testing was available to symptomatic individuals only. Children aged 2-14 years (extended to <18 years in November, 2020) with a new nose or throat swab SARS-CoV-2 positive PCR from an accredited laboratory were included. Incidents involving exposure to at least one index pupil with COVID-19 were identified (the prevailing variants were original, α, and δ). Weekly PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 was done on immediate classroom contacts (the so-called bubble), non-bubble school contacts, and household contacts of index pupils. Testing was supported by genome sequencing and on-surface and air samples from school and home environments. FINDINGS: Between October, 2020, and July, 2021 from the eight schools included, secondary transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was not detected in 28 bubble contacts, representing ten bubble classes (participation rate 8·8% [IQR 4·6-15·3]). Across eight non-bubble classes, 3 (2%) of 62 pupils tested positive, but these were unrelated to the original index case (participation rate 22·5% [9·7-32·3]). All three were asymptomatic and tested positive in one setting on the same day. In contrast, secondary transmission to previously negative household contacts from infected index pupils was found in six (17%) of 35 household contacts rising to 13 (28%) of 47 household contacts when considering all potential infections in household contacts. Environmental contamination with SARS-CoV-2 was rare in schools: fomite SARS-CoV-2 was identified in four (2%) of 189 samples in bubble classrooms, two (2%) of 127 samples in non-bubble classrooms, and five (4%) of 130 samples in washrooms. This contrasted with fomites in households, where SARS-CoV-2 was identified in 60 (24%) of 248 bedroom samples, 66 (27%) of 241 communal room samples, and 21 (11%) 188 bathroom samples. Air sampling identified SARS-CoV-2 RNA in just one (2%) of 68 of school air samples, compared with 21 (25%) of 85 air samples taken in homes. INTERPRETATION: There was no evidence of large-scale SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools with precautions in place. Low levels of environmental contamination in schools are consistent with low transmission frequency and suggest adequate cleaning and ventilation in schools during the period of study. The high frequency of secondary transmission in households associated with evident viral shedding throughout the home suggests a need to improve advice to households with infection in children to prevent onward community spread. The data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 transmission from children in any setting is very likely to occur when precautions are reduced. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation and UK Department of Health and Social Care, National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Fair domestic vaccine prioritisation

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries have prioritised individuals for vaccination primarily on the basis of (intrinsic) risk factors such as older age and presence of comorbidities. Such a prioritisation strategy ignores risk of exposure to the virus and harm from non-pharmaceutical interventions. In this paper, we develop an account of fair allocation of vaccines. First, we argue fairness requires maximal proportional satisfaction of claims. Second, we argue what grounds people’s claim to vaccines is that they are at risk of harm, and fairness requires people are prioritised for vaccination in proportion to the risks they face. Third, we defend an expansive understanding of relevant harms;when allocating vaccines, governments should, in principle, include all pandemic-related risk of harm. Finally, we consider several ways in which different harms could be traded off against each other and defend giving priority to mitigating direct risk of harm from an infectious agent. Our account also provides a principled reason for compensating people who suffer disproportionally from indirect risks of harm (e.g., harms from non-pharmaceutical interventions).

Addressing challenges for clinical research responses to emerging epidemics and pandemics: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Major infectious disease outbreaks are a constant threat to human health. Clinical research responses to outbreaks generate evidence to improve outcomes and outbreak control. Experiences from previous epidemics have identified multiple challenges to undertaking timely clinical research responses. This scoping review is a systematic appraisal of political, economic, administrative, regulatory, logistical, ethical and social (PEARLES) challenges to clinical research responses to emergency epidemics and solutions identified to address these. METHODS: A scoping review. We searched six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, PsycINFO, Scopus and Epistemonikos) for articles published from 2008 to July 2018. We included publications reporting PEARLES challenges to clinical research responses to emerging epidemics and pandemics and solutions identified to address these. Two reviewers screened articles for inclusion, extracted and analysed the data. RESULTS: Of 2678 articles screened, 76 were included. Most presented data relating to the 2014-2016 Ebola virus outbreak or the H1N1 outbreak in 2009. The articles related to clinical research responses in Africa (n = 37), Europe (n = 8), North America (n = 5), Latin America and the Caribbean (n = 3) and Asia (n = 1) and/or globally (n = 22). A wide range of solutions to PEARLES challenges was presented, including a need to strengthen global collaborations and coordination at all levels and develop pre-approved protocols and equitable frameworks, protocols and standards for emergencies. Clinical trial networks and expedited funding and approvals were some solutions implemented. National ownership and community engagement from the outset were a key enabler for delivery. Despite the wide range of recommended solutions, none had been formally evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: To strengthen global preparedness and response to the COVID-19 pandemic and future epidemics, identified solutions for rapid clinical research deployment, delivery, and dissemination must be implemented. Improvements are urgently needed to strengthen collaborations, funding mechanisms, global and national research capacity and capability, targeting regions vulnerable to epidemics and pandemics. Solutions need to be flexible to allow timely adaptations to context, and research led by governments of affected regions. Research communities globally need to evaluate their activities and incorporate lessons learnt to refine and rehearse collaborative outbreak response plans in between epidemics.