Explore the vast range of titles available.

Although short-range large-droplet transmission is possible for most respiratory infectious agents, deciding on whether the same agent is also airborne has a potentially huge impact on the types (and costs) of infection control interventions that are required. The concept and definition of aerosols is also discussed, as is the concept of large droplet transmission, and airborne transmission which is meant by most authors to be synonymous with aerosol transmission, although some use the term to mean either large droplet or aerosol transmission. However, these terms are often used confusingly when discussing specific infection control interventions for individual pathogens that are accepted to be mostly transmitted by the airborne (aerosol) route (e.g. tuberculosis, measles and chickenpox). It is therefore important to clarify such terminology, where a particular intervention, like the type of personal protective equipment (PPE) to be used, is deemed adequate to intervene for this potential mode of transmission, i.e. at an N95 rather than surgical mask level requirement. With this in mind, this review considers the commonly used term of ‘aerosol transmission’ in the context of some infectious agents that are well-recognized to be transmissible via the airborne route. It also discusses other agents, like influenza virus, where the potential for airborne transmission is much more dependent on various host, viral and environmental factors, and where its potential for aerosol transmission may be underestimated.

We estimate the distribution of serial intervals for 468 confirmed cases of coronavirus disease reported in China as of February 8, 2020. The mean interval was 3.96 days (95% CI 3.53-4.39 days), SD 4.75 days (95% CI 4.46-5.07 days); 12.6% of case reports indicated presymptomatic transmission.

On January 23, 2020, China quarantined Wuhan to contain coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We estimated the probability of transportation of COVID-19 from Wuhan to 369 other cities in China before the quarantine. Expected COVID-19 risk is >50% in 130 (95% CI 89-190) cities and >99% in the 4 largest metropolitan areas.

Influenza virus infections are believed to spread mostly by close contact in the community. Social distancing measures are essential components of the public health response to influenza pandemics. The objective of these mitigation measures is to reduce transmission, thereby delaying the epidemic peak, reducing the size of the epidemic peak, and spreading cases over a longer time to relieve pressure on the healthcare system. We conducted systematic reviews of the evidence base for effectiveness of multiple mitigation measures: isolating ill persons, contact tracing, quarantining exposed persons, school closures, workplace measures/closures, and avoiding crowding. Evidence supporting the effectiveness of these measures was obtained largely from observational studies and simulation studies. Voluntary isolation at home might be a more feasible social distancing measure, and pandemic plans should consider how to facilitate this measure. More drastic social distancing measures might be reserved for severe pandemics.

As of 29 February 2020 there were 79,394 confirmed cases and 2,838 deaths from COVID-19 in mainland China. Of these, 48,557 cases and 2,169 deaths occurred in the epicenter, Wuhan. A key public health priority during the emergence of a novel pathogen is estimating clinical severity, which requires properly adjusting for the case ascertainment rate and the delay between symptoms onset and death. Using public and published information, we estimate that the overall symptomatic case fatality risk (the probability of dying after developing symptoms) of COVID-19 in Wuhan was 1.4% (0.9–2.1%), which is substantially lower than both the corresponding crude or naïve confirmed case fatality risk (2,169/48,557 = 4.5%) and the approximator 1 of deaths/deaths + recoveries (2,169/2,169 + 17,572 = 11%) as of 29 February 2020. Compared to those aged 30–59 years, those aged below 30 and above 59 years were 0.6 (0.3–1.1) and 5.1 (4.2–6.1) times more likely to die after developing symptoms. The risk of symptomatic infection increased with age (for example, at ~4% per year among adults aged 30–60 years). An estimation of the clinical severity of COVID-19, based on the data available so far, can help to inform the public health response during the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The comparative performance of different clinical sampling methods for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR among populations with suspected infection remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to systematically compare the diagnostic performance of different clinical specimen collection methods. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, medRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, and Research Square from Jan 1, 2000, to Nov 16, 2020. We included original clinical studies that examined the performance of nasopharyngeal swabs and any additional respiratory specimens for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals presenting in ambulatory care. Studies without data on paired samples, or those that only examined different samples from confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases were not useful for examining diagnostic performance of a test and were excluded. Diagnostic performance, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, was examined using random effects models and double arcsine transformation. Of the 5577 studies identified in our search, 23 studies including 7973 participants with 16 762 respiratory samples were included. Respiratory specimens examined in these studies included 7973 nasopharyngeal swabs, 1622 nasal swabs, 6110 saliva samples, 338 throat swabs, and 719 pooled nasal and throat swabs. Using nasopharyngeal swabs as the gold standard, pooled nasal and throat swabs gave the highest sensitivity of 97% (95% CI 93–100), whereas lower sensitivities were achieved by saliva (85%, 75–93) and nasal swabs (86%, 77–93) and a much lower sensitivity by throat swabs (68%, 35–94). A comparably high positive predictive value was obtained by pooled nasal and throat (97%, 90–100) and nasal swabs (96%, 87–100) and a slightly lower positive predictive value by saliva (93%, 88–97). Throat swabs have the lowest positive predictive value of 75% (95% CI 45–96). Comparably high specificities (range 97–99%) and negative predictive value (range 95–99%) were observed among different clinical specimens. Comparison between health-care-worker collection and self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs showed comparable diagnostic performance. No significant heterogeneity was observed in the analysis of pooled nasal and throat swabs and throat swabs, whereas moderate to substantial heterogeneity (I2 ≥30%) was observed in studies on saliva and nasal swabs. Our review suggests that, compared with the gold standard of nasopharyngeal swabs, pooled nasal and throat swabs offered the best diagnostic performance of the alternative sampling approaches for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in ambulatory care. Saliva and nasal swabs gave comparable and very good diagnostic performance and are clinically acceptable alternative specimen collection methods. Throat swabs gave a much lower sensitivity and positive predictive value and should not be recommended. Self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs was not associated with any significant impairment of diagnostic accuracy. Our results also provide a useful reference framework for the proper interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 testing results using different clinical specimens. Hong Kong Research Grants Council.

Annual epidemics of seasonal influenza cause hundreds of thousands of deaths, high levels of morbidity, and substantial economic loss. Yet, global influenza circulation has been heavily suppressed by public health measures and travel restrictions since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Notably, the influenza B/Yamagata lineage has not been conclusively detected since April 2020, and A(H3N2), A(H1N1), and B/Victoria viruses have since circulated with considerably less genetic diversity. Travel restrictions have largely confined regional outbreaks of A(H3N2) to South and Southeast Asia, B/Victoria to China, and A(H1N1) to West Africa. Seasonal influenza transmission lineages continue to perish globally, except in these select hotspots, which will likely seed future epidemics. Waning population immunity and sporadic case detection will further challenge influenza vaccine strain selection and epidemic control. We offer a perspective on the potential short- and long-term evolutionary dynamics of seasonal influenza and discuss potential consequences and mitigation strategies as global travel gradually returns to pre-pandemic levels. COVID-19 control measures have suppressed circulation of other infections including influenza. Here, the authors analyse WHO global influenza sequence and case report data and describe changes in the phylogenetic and geographic distribution of influenza lineages during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hand, foot, and mouth disease is a common childhood illness caused by enteroviruses. Increasingly, the disease has a substantial burden throughout east and southeast Asia. To better inform vaccine and other interventions, we characterised the epidemiology of hand, foot, and mouth disease in China on the basis of enhanced surveillance. We extracted epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory data from cases of hand, foot, and mouth disease reported to the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention between Jan 1, 2008, and Dec 31, 2012. We then compiled climatic, geographical, and demographic information. All analyses were stratified by age, disease severity, laboratory confirmation status, and enterovirus serotype. The surveillance registry included 7 200 092 probable cases of hand, foot, and mouth disease (annual incidence, 1·2 per 1000 person-years from 2010–12), of which 267 942 (3·7%) were laboratory confirmed and 2457 (0·03%) were fatal. Incidence and mortality were highest in children aged 12–23 months (38·2 cases per 1000 person-years and 1·5 deaths per 100 000 person-years in 2012). Median duration from onset to diagnosis was 1·5 days (IQR 0·5–2·5) and median duration from onset to death was 3·5 days (2·5–4·5). The absolute number of patients with cardiopulmonary or neurological complications was 82  486 (case-severity rate 1·1%), and 2457 of 82486 patients with severe disease died (fatality rate 3·0%); 1617 of 1737 laboratory confirmed deaths (93%) were associated with enterovirus 71. Every year in June, hand, foot, and mouth disease peaked in north China, whereas southern China had semiannual outbreaks in May and September–October. Geographical differences in seasonal patterns were weakly associated with climate and demographic factors (variance explained 8–23% and 3–19%, respectively). This is the largest population-based study up to now of the epidemiology of hand, foot, and mouth disease. Future mitigation policies should take into account the heterogeneities of disease burden identified. Additional epidemiological and serological studies are warranted to elucidate the dynamics and immunity patterns of local hand, foot, and mouth disease and to optimise interventions. China–US Collaborative Program on Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases, WHO, The Li Ka Shing Oxford Global Health Programme and Wellcome Trust, Harvard Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics, and Health and Medical Research Fund, Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

A retrospective analysis of routine surveillance data involving children hospitalized in central Wuhan, China, for acute lower respiratory infection in early January 2020 revealed six cases of Covid-19. The authors report clinical characteristics of the children and laboratory data.