Transmission of COVID-19 in Nightlife, Household, and Health Care Settings in Tokyo, Japan, in 2020.

Importance: There have been few studies on the heterogeneous interconnection of COVID-19 outbreaks occurring in different social settings using robust, surveillance epidemiological data. Objectives: To describe the characteristics of COVID-19 transmission within different social settings and to evaluate settings associated with onward transmission to other settings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a case series study of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases in Tokyo between January 23 and December 5, 2020, when vaccination was not yet implemented. Using epidemiological investigation data collected by public health centers, epidemiological links were identified and classified into 7 transmission settings: imported, nightlife, dining, workplace, household, health care, and other. Main Outcomes and Measures: The number of cases per setting and the likelihood of generating onward transmissions were compared between different transmission settings. Results: Of the 44 054 confirmed COVID-19 cases in this study, 25 241 (57.3%) were among male patients, and the median (IQR) age of patients was 36 (26-52) years. Transmission settings were identified in 13 122 cases, including 6768 household, 2733 health care, and 1174 nightlife cases. More than 6600 transmission settings were detected, and nightlife (72 of 380 [18.9%]; P < .001) and health care (119 [36.2%]; P < .001) settings were more likely to involve 5 or more cases than dining, workplace, household, and other settings. Nightlife cases appeared in the earlier phase of the epidemic, while household and health care cases appeared later. After adjustment for transmission setting, sex, age group, presence of symptoms, and wave, household and health care cases were less likely to generate onward transmission compared with nightlife cases (household: adjusted odds ratio, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.02-0.05; health care: adjusted odds ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41-0.79). Household settings were associated with intergenerational transmission, while nonhousehold settings mainly comprised transmission between the same age group. Among 30 932 cases without identified transmission settings, cases with a history of visiting nightlife establishments were more likely to generate onward transmission to nonhousehold settings (adjusted odds ratio, 5.30 [95% CI, 4.64-6.05]; P < .001) than those without such history. Conclusions and Relevance: In this case series study, COVID-19 cases identified in nightlife settings were associated with a higher likelihood of spreading COVID-19 than household and health care cases. Surveillance and interventions targeting nightlife settings should be prioritized to disrupt COVID-19 transmission, especially in the early stage of an epidemic.

The 2011 measles outbreak in Tokyo. An analysis of surveillance data.

OBJECTIVES: The study was conducted with the intention of establishing a strategy to eliminate measles on the basis of an analysis of the epidemiological profile of measles cases reported in Tokyo during the year 2011. METHODS: We investigated measles cases reported to the Tokyo Metropolitan Government in 2011, recorded as part of the National Epidemiological Surveillance of Infectious Diseases. Factors analyzed included age, vaccination status for each patient, cases for which records were discarded after laboratory confirmation, genotype of the measles virus and relationships between dates of specimen collection and results of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and IgM antibody tests. RESULTS: A total of 178 measles cases were reported in Tokyo during 2011, and the majority of cases (128, 71.9%) were reported during the peak period from epiweeks 13 to 24. The largest age group reported was one to four years of age (40, 22.5%) followed by groups of 20-29 and 30-39 years of age (both 34, 19.1%). Most cases were sporadic, with only six outbreaks occurring. Even then, the numbers of cases for each outbreak was less than five. More than half of the patients in all age groups, except for the 1-4-year-old group, had not been vaccinated or did not have a record of vaccination. Genotypes D4 and D9 of measles virus were detected in most cases. However, genotype D5, which had been circulating in Japan before 2008, was not detected. CONCLUSION: Imported viruses were the cause of measles cases reported in Tokyo during 2011. The disease control was better than that in 2007 and 2008 because of the swift and appropriate responses to the occurrences. It is also possible that there has been an increase in the proportion of people with immunity to measles. Increasing the rate of immunization, performing effective surveillance, and confirming suspicious measles cases by using molecular methods are important for achieving the elimination of measles.

[Training programs for staff at local Infectious Disease Surveillance Centers: the needs and usefulness].

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess the need for and usefulness of training programs for Local Infectious Disease Surveillance Center (LIDSC) staff. METHODS: A structured questionnaire survey was conducted to assess the needs and usefulness of training programs. The subjects of the survey were participants of a workshop held after an annual conference for the LIDSC staff. Data on demographic information, the necessity of training programs for LIDSC staff, the themes and contents of the training program, self-assessment of knowledge on epidemiology and statistics were covered by the questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 55 local government officials responded to the questionnaire (response rate: 100%). Among these, 95% of participants believed that the training program for the LIDSC staff was necessary. Basic statistical analysis (85%), descriptive epidemiology (65%), outline of epidemiology (60%), interpretation of surveillance data (65%), background and objectives of national infectious disease surveillance in Japan (60%), methods of field epidemiology (60%), and methods of analysis data (51%) were selected by over half of the respondents as suitable themes for training programs. A total of 34 LIDSC staff answered the self-assessment question on knowledge of epidemiology. A majority of respondents selected "a little" or "none" for all questions about knowledge. Only a few respondents had received education in epidemiology. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that LIDSC staff have basic demands for fundamental and specialized education to improve their work. Considering the current situation regarding the capacity of LIDSC staff, these training programs should be started immediately.