Search

Additional file 1: Fig S1. Model Overview. Fig S2. Susceptibility and epidemic size comparison. Fig S3. Vaccine Immunity. Fig S4. Infections per 100’000 population. Fig S5. R0 values. Fig S6. Decision Tree. Fig S7. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Fig S8. Immunity at 75% coverage. Fig S9. Cumulative infections at 75% coverage. Fig S10. Results at 75% coverage. Fig S11. Immunity at 25% coverage. Fig S12. Cumulative infections at 25% coverage. Fig S13. Results at 25% coverage. Fig S14. Infections with increased susceptibility after vaccination. Fig S15. Results with increased susceptibility after vaccination, Fig S16. Cumulative Infections with fixed reduction in susceptibility. S17. Results with fixed reduction in susceptibility. Fig S18. Immunity for exact efficacies sensitivity. Fig S19. Cumulative infections for exact efficacies sensitivity. Fig S20. Results for exact efficacies sensitivity. S21. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for different per-dose vaccine prices. Table S1. Parameters used in epidemic models. Table S2. Vaccine Efficacy. Table S3. Epidemic Timings. Table S4. Economic DALY parameters, Table S5. Economic cost parameters. Table S6. Willingness to pay thresholds. Table S7. Scenario output summaries. Table S8. Vaccine doses administered. Table S9. Incremental Net Monetary Benefits. Table S10. Threshold per-dose vaccine prices.

Supplementary Information for the publication"Population disruption: estimating changes in population distribution of the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic."

dentifying the potential for SARS-CoV-2 reinfection is crucial for understanding possible long-term epidemic dynamics. We analysed longitudinal PCR and serological testing data from a prospective cohort of 4,411 United States employees in 4 states between April 2020 and February 2021. We conducted a multivariable logistic regression investigating the association between baseline serological status and subsequent PCR test result in order to calculate an odds ratio for reinfection. We estimated an odds ratio for reinfection ranging from 0.14 (95% CI: 0.019 to 0.63) to 0.28 (95% CI: 0.05 to 1.1), implying that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline is associated with around 72% to 86% reduced odds of a subsequent PCR positive test based on our point estimates. This suggests that primary infection with SARS-CoV-2 provides protection against reinfection in the majority of individuals, at least over a 6-month time period. We also highlight 2 major sources of bias and uncertainty to be considered when estimating the relative risk of reinfection, confounders and the choice of baseline time point, and show how to account for both in reinfection analysis. The authors received funding from the following sources: EF was funded by the Medical Research Council (MR/N013638/1); AJK was supported by Wellcome Trust (206250/Z/17/Z) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR200908); RL was funded by a Royal Society Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowship (https://royalsociety.org). EN was supported by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U01 U01GH002238). AM was supported by the Translational Research Institute for Space Health through NASA Cooperative Agreement (https://www.nasa.gov/hrp/tri; NNX16AO69A). GA was supported by the Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness (https://masscpr.hms.harvard.edu/; MassCPR), the National Institutes of Health (3R37AI080289-11S1, R01AI146785, U19AI42790-01, U19AI135995-02, 1U01CA260476-01) and the Musk Foundation (http://www.muskfoundation.org/). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. "Article signat per 18 autors/es: Emilie Finch ,Rachel Lowe,Stephanie Fischinger,Michael de St Aubin,Sameed M. Siddiqui,Diana Dayal,Michael A. Loesche,Justin Rhee,Samuel Beger,Yiyuan Hu,Matthew J. Gluck,Benjamin Mormann,Mohammad A. Hasdianda,Elon R. Musk,Galit Alter,Anil S. Menon ,Eric J. Nilles ,Adam J. Kucharski ,on behalf of the CMMID COVID-19 working group and the SpaceX COVID-19 Cohort Collaborative"

We hypothesized that cross-protection from seasonal epidemics of human coronaviruses (HCoVs) could have affected severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, including generating reduced susceptibility in children. To determine what the prepandemic distribution of immunity to HCoVs was, we fitted a mathematical model to 6 y of seasonal coronavirus surveillance data from England and Wales. We estimated a duration of immunity to seasonal HCoVs of 7.8 y (95% CI 6.3 to 8.1) and show that, while cross-protection between HCoV and SARS-CoV-2 may contribute to the age distribution, it is insufficient to explain the age pattern of SARS-CoV-2 infections in the first wave of the pandemic in England and Wales. Projections from our model illustrate how different strengths of cross-protection between circulating coronaviruses could determine the frequency and magnitude of SARS-CoV-2 epidemics over the coming decade, as well as the potential impact of cross-protection on future seasonal coronavirus transmission.

The global spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has emphasized the need for evidence-based strategies for the safe operation of schools during pandemics that balance infection risk with the society's responsibility of allowing children to attend school. Due to limited empirical data, existing analyses assessing school-based interventions in pandemic situations often impose strong assumptions, for example, on the relationship between class size and transmission risk, which could bias the estimated effect of interventions, such as split classes and staggered attendance. To fill this gap in school outbreak studies, we parameterized an individual-based model that accounts for heterogeneous contact rates within and between classes and grades to a multischool outbreak data of influenza. We then simulated school outbreaks of respiratory infectious diseases of ongoing threat (i.e., COVID-19) and potential threat (i.e., pandemic influenza) under a variety of interventions (changing class structures, symptom screening, regular testing, cohorting, and responsive class closures). Our results suggest that interventions changing class structures (e.g., reduced class sizes) may not be effective in reducing the risk of major school outbreaks upon introduction of a case and that other precautionary measures (e.g., screening and isolation) need to be employed. Class-level closures in response to detection of a case were also suggested to be effective in reducing the size of an outbreak., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(37), art. no. e2203019119; 2022

We assess the feasibility of reaching the herd immunity threshold against SARS-CoV-2 through vaccination, considering vaccine effectiveness (VE), transmissibility of the virus and the level of pre-existing immunity in populations, as well as their age structure. If highly transmissible variants of concern become dominant in areas with low levels of naturally-acquired immunity and/or in populations with large proportions of < 15 year-olds, control of infection without non-pharmaceutical interventions may only be possible with a VE ≥ 80%, and coverage extended to children. Initial reports of vaccine effectiveness against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARSCoV-2), the virus responsible for coronavirus disease (COVID-19), have suggested a substantial reduction of the risk of infection [1]. Nevertheless, with the emergence of more transmissible variants such as B.1.1.7 [2], how large-scale immunisation programmes against SARS-CoV-2 will perform is currently unclear. This study assesses the potential of COVID-19 vaccination to generate herd immunity and takes into account vaccine effectiveness, naturally-acquired immunity and achievable vaccination coverage (depending on the population age structure), as well as two transmissibility scenarios ((i) with pre-B.1.1.7, and (ii) with exclusively B.1.1.7 variants).

Additional file 1 List of search terms. Supplementary Table A. Description of information extracted from included studies. Fig SA: LoS by disease severity. Fig SB: LoS by study median age. Fig SC: LoS by outcome status. Fig SD: Summary distributions for China/other and total/ICU. Fig SE: Sensitivity of length of stay (LoS) with and without overlapping populations removed. Fig SF: Sensitivity analysis of summary distributions to weighting.

Background: Mobility data have demonstrated major changes in human movement patterns in response to COVID-19 and associated interventions in many countries. This involves sub-national redistribution, short-term relocations, and international migration. Aggregated mobile phone location data combined with small-area census population data allow changes in the population distribution of the UK to be quantified with high spatial and temporal granularity. Methods: In this paper, we combine detailed data from Facebook, measuring the location of approximately 6 million daily active Facebook users in 5km2 tiles in the UK with census-derived population estimates to measure population mobility and redistribution. We provide time-varying population estimates and assess spatial population changes with respect to population density and four key reference dates in 2020 (first UK lockdown, end of term, beginning of term, Christmas). Results: We show how population estimates derived from Facebook data vary compared to mid-2020 small area population estimates by UK national statistics agencies. We also estimate that between March 2020 and March 2021, the total population of the UK declined and we identify important spatial variations in this population change, showing that low-density areas have experienced lower population decreases than urban areas. We estimate that, for the top 10% highest population tiles, the population has decreased by 6.6%. Finally, we provide evidence that geographic redistributions of population within the UK coincide with dates of non-pharmaceutical interventions including lockdowns and movement restrictions, as well as seasonal patterns of migration around holiday dates. Conclusions: The methods used in this study reveal significant changes in population distribution at high spatial and temporal resolutions that have not previously been quantified by available demographic surveys in the UK. We found early indicators of potential longer-term changes in the population distribution of the UK although it is not clear if these changes will persist after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mobility data have demonstrated major changes in human movement patterns in response to COVID-19 and associated interventions in many countries. This can involve sub-national redistribution, short-term relocations as well as international migration. In this paper, we combine detailed location data from Facebook measuring the location of approximately 6 million daily active Facebook users in 5km 2 tiles in the UK with census-derived population estimates to measure population mobility and redistribution. We provide time-varying population estimates and assess spatial population changes with respect to population density and four key reference dates in 2020 (First lockdown, End of term, Beginning of term, Christmas). We also show how population estimates derived from the distribution of Facebook users vary compared to mid-2020 small area population estimates by the UK national statistics agencies. We estimate that between March 2020 and March 2021, the total population of the UK declined and we identify important spatial variations in this population change, showing that low-density areas have experienced lower population decreases than urban areas. We estimate that, for the top 10% highest population tiles, the population has decreased by 6.6%. Further, we provide evidence that geographic redistributions of population within the UK coincide with dates of non-pharmaceutical interventions including lockdowns and movement restrictions, as well as seasonal patterns of migration around holiday dates. The methods used in this study reveal significant changes in population distribution at high spatial and temporal resolutions that have not previously been quantified by available demographic surveys in the UK. We found early indicators of potential longer-term changes in the population distribution of the UK although it is not clear if these changes may persist after the COVID-19 pandemic.