Search

The SARS‐CoV‐2 Gamma variant spread rapidly across Brazil, causing substantial infection and death wa ves. We use individual‐level patient records following hospitalisation with suspected or confirmed COVID‐19 to document the extensive shocks in hospital fatality rates that followed Gamma’s spread across 14 state capitals, and in which more than half of hospitalised patients died over sustained time pe riods. We show that extensive fluctuations in COVID‐19 in‐hospital fatality rates also existed prior to Gamma’s detection, and were largely transient after Gamma’s detection, subsiding with hospital d emand. Using a Bayesian fatality rate model, we find that the geo‐graphic and temporal fluctuations in Brazil’s COVID‐19 in‐hospital fatality rates are primarily associated with geo‐graphic inequities and shortages in healthcare c apacity. We project that approximately half of Brazil’s COVID‐19 deaths in hospitals could have been avoided without pre‐pandemic geographic inequities and without pandemic healthcare pressure. Our results suggest that investments in healthcare resources, healthcare optimization, and pandemic preparedness are critical to minimize population wide mortality and morbidity caused by highly trans‐missible and deadly pathogens such as SARS‐CoV‐2, especially in low‐ and middle‐income countries.

Since its emergence in Autumn 2020, the SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern (VOC) B.1.1.7 rapidly became the dominant lineage across much of Europe. Simultaneously, several other VOCs were identified globally. Unlike B.1.1.7, some of these VOCs possess mutations thought to confer partial immune escape. Understanding when, whether, and how these additional VOCs pose a threat in settings where B.1.1.7 is currently dominant is vital. This is particularly true for England, which has high coverage from vaccines that are likely more protective against B.1.1.7 than some other VOCs. We examine trends in B.1.1.7’s prevalence in London and other English regions using passive-case detection PCR data, cross-sectional community infection surveys, genomic surveillance, and wastewater monitoring. Our results suggest shifts in the composition of SARS-CoV-2 lineages driving transmission in England between March and April 2021. Local transmission of non-B.1.1.7 VOCs may be increasing; this warrants urgent further investigation.

Following ini􀀂al declines, in mid 2020, a resurgence in transmission of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has occurred in the United States and parts of Europe. Despite the wide implementa􀀂on of non-pharmaceu􀀂cal inter-ven􀀂ons, it is s􀀂ll not known how they are impacted by changing contact pa􀀁erns, age and other demographics. As COVID-19 disease control becomes more localised, understanding the age demographics driving transmission and how these impact the loosening of interven􀀂ons such as school reopening is crucial. Considering dynamics for the United States, we analyse aggregated, age-specific mobility trends from more than 10 million individuals and link these mechanis􀀂cally to age-specific COVID-19 mortality data. In contrast to previous approaches, we link mobility to mortality via age specific contact pa􀀁erns and use this rich rela􀀂onship to reconstruct accurate trans-mission dynamics. Contrary to anecdotal evidence, we find li􀀁le support for age-shi􀀃s in contact and transmission dynamics over 􀀂me. We es􀀂mate that, un􀀂l August, 63.4% [60.9%-65.5%] of SARS-CoV-2 infec􀀂ons in the United States originated from adults aged 20-49, while 1.2% [0.8%-1.8%] originated from children aged 0-9. In areas with con􀀂nued, community-wide transmission, our transmission model predicts that re-opening kindergartens and el-ementary schools could facilitate spread and lead to considerable excess COVID-19 a􀀁ributable deaths over a 90-day period. These findings indicate that targe􀀂ng interven􀀂ons to adults aged 20-49 are an important con-sidera􀀂on in hal􀀂ng resurgent epidemics, and preven􀀂ng COVID-19-a􀀁ributable deaths when kindergartens and elementary schools reopen.

Since early March 2020, the COVID-19 epidemic across the United Kingdom has led to a range of social distancing policies, which have resulted in reduced mobility across different regions. Crowd level data on mobile phone usage can be used as a proxy for actual population mobility patterns and provide a way of quantifying the impact of social distancing measures on changes in mobility. Here, we use two mobile phone-based datasets (anonymised and aggregated crowd level data from O2 and from the Facebook app on mobile phones) to assess changes in average mobility, both overall and broken down into high and low population density areas, and changes in the distribution of journey lengths. We show that there was a substantial overall reduction in mobility with the most rapid decline on the 24th March 2020, the day after the Prime Minister’s announcement of an enforced lockdown. The reduction in mobility was highly synchronized across the UK. Although mobility has remained low since 26th March 2020, we detect a gradual increase since that time. We also show that the two different datasets produce similar trends, albeit with some location-specific differences. We see slightly larger reductions in average mobility in high-density areas than in low-density areas, with greater variation in mobility in the high-density areas: some high-density areas eliminated almost all mobility. We are only able to observe populations living in locations where sufficient number of people use Facebook or a device connected to the relevant provider’s network such that no individual is identifiable. These analyses form a baseline with which to monitor changes in behaviour in the UK as social distancing is eased.

our estimates show that the percentage of individuals that have been infected is 4.1% [3.7%-4.5%], with wide variation between states. For all states, even for the worst affected states, we estimate that less than a quarter of the population has been infected; in New York, for example, we estimate that 16.6% [12.8%-21.6%] of individuals have been infected to date. Our attack rates for New York are in line with those from recent serological studies [1] broadly supporting our choice of infection fatality rate. There is variation in the initial reproduction number, which is likely due to a range of factors; we find a strong association between the initial reproduction number with both population density (measured at the state level) and the chronological date when 10 cumulative deaths occurred (a crude estimate of the date of locally sustained transmission). Our estimates suggest that the epidemic is not under control in much of the US: as of 17 May 2020 the reproduction number is above the critical threshold (1.0) in 24 [95% CI: 20-30] states. Higher reproduction numbers are geographically clustered in the South and Midwest, where epidemics are still developing, while we estimate lower reproduction numbers in states that have already suffered high COVID-19 mortality (such as the Northeast). These estimates suggest that caution must be taken in loosening current restrictions if effective additional measures are not put in place. We predict that increased mobility following relaxation of social distancing will lead to resurgence of transmission, keeping all else constant. We predict that deaths over the next two-month period could exceed current cumulative deaths by greater than two-fold, if the relationship between mobility and transmission remains unchanged. Our results suggest that factors modulating transmission such as rapid testing, contact tracing and behavioural precautions are crucial to offset the rise of transmission associated with loosening of social distancing. Overall, we show that while all US states have substantially reduced their reproduction numbers, there is little evidence that any states are approaching herd immunity and thus the epidemic is close to over in any state.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in low-income settings is likely to be more severe due to limited healthcare capacity. Within these settings, however, there exists unfair or avoidable differences in health among different groups in society – health inequities – that mean that some groups are particularly at risk from the negative direct and indirect consequences of COVID-19. The structural determinants of these are often reflected in differences by income strata, with the poorest populations having limited access to preventative measures such as handwashing. Their more fragile income status will also mean that they are likely to be employed in occupations that are not amenable to social-distancing measures, thereby further reducing their ability to protect themselves from infection. Furthermore, these populations may also lack access to timely healthcare on becoming ill. We explore these relationships by using large-scale household surveys to quantify the differences in handwashing access, occupation and hospital access with respect to wealth status in low-income settings. We use a COVID-19 transmission model to demonstrate the impact of these differences. Our results demonstrate clear trends that the probability of death from COVID-19 increases with increasing poverty. On average, we estimate a 32.0% (2.5th-97.5th centile 8.0%-72.5%) increase in the probability of death in the poorest quintile compared to the wealthiest quintile from these three factors alone. We further explore how risk mediators and the indirect impacts of COVID-19 may also hit these same disadvantaged and vulnerable the hardest. We find that larger, inter-generational households that may hamper efforts to protect the elderly if social distancing are associated with lower-income countries and, within LMICs, lower wealth status. Poorer populations are also more susceptible to food security issues - with these populations having the highest levels under-nourishment whilst also being most dependent on their own food production. We show that timing of the COVID-19 epidemic in low-resource settings has the potential to interrupt planting and harvesting seasons for staple crops, thereby accentuating this vulnerability. These enhanced risks and key vulnerabilities – alongside the broader concerns surrounding displaced or conflict-affected populations - demonstrate the challenges that the most marginalised populations face during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 has the potential to cause disruptions to health services in different ways; through the health system becoming overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients, through the intervention used to slow transmission of COVID-19 inhibiting access to preventative interventions and services, and through supplies of medicine being interrupted. We aim to quantify the extent to which such disruptions in services for HIV, TB and malaria in high burden low- and middle-income countries could lead to additional loss of life. In high burden settings, HIV, TB and malaria related deaths over 5 years may be increased by up to 10%, 20% and 36%, respectively, compared to if there were no COVID-19 epidemic. We estimate the greatest impact on HIV to be from interruption to ART, which may occur during a period of high or extremely high health system demand; for TB, we estimate the greatest impact is from reductions in timely diagnosis and treatment of new cases, which may result from a long period of COVID-19 suppression interventions; for malaria, we estimate that the greatest impact could come from reduced prevention activities including interruption of planned net campaigns, through all phases of the COVID-19 epidemic. In high burden settings, the impact of each type of disruption could be significant and lead to a loss of life-years over five years that is of the same order of magnitude as the direct impact from COVID-19 in places with a high burden of malaria and large HIV/TB epidemics. Maintaining the most critical prevention activities and healthcare services for HIV, TB and malaria could significantly reduce the overall impact of the COVID-19 epidemic.