The world identified the rapidly increasing incidence of the causative variant of SARS-CoV-2 Pangolin B [...]

To understand the severity of infection for a given disease, it is common epidemiological practice to estimate the case fatality risk, defined as the risk of death among cases. However, there are three technical obstacles that should be addressed to appropriately measure this risk. First, division of the cumulative number of deaths by that of cases tends to underestimate the actual risk because deaths that will occur have not yet observed, and so the delay in time from illness onset to death must be addressed. Second, the observed dataset of reported cases represents only a proportion of all infected individuals and there can be a substantial number of asymptomatic and mildly infected individuals who are never diagnosed. Third, ascertainment bias and risk of death among all those infected would be smaller when estimated using shorter virus detection windows and less sensitive diagnostic laboratory tests. In the ongoing COVID-19 epidemic, health authorities must cope with the uncertainty in the risk of death from COVID-19, and high-risk individuals should be identified using approaches that can address the abovementioned three problems. Although COVID-19 involves mostly mild infections among the majority of the general population, the risk of death among young adults is higher than that of seasonal influenza, and elderly with underlying comorbidities require additional care.

The impact of the drastic reduction in travel volume within mainland China in January and February 2020 was quantified with respect to reports of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) infections outside China. Data on confirmed cases diagnosed outside China were analyzed using statistical models to estimate the impact of travel reduction on three epidemiological outcome measures: (i) the number of exported cases, (ii) the probability of a major epidemic, and (iii) the time delay to a major epidemic. From 28 January to 7 February 2020, we estimated that 226 exported cases (95% confidence interval: 86,449) were prevented, corresponding to a 70.4% reduction in incidence compared to the counterfactual scenario. The reduced probability of a major epidemic ranged from 7% to 20% in Japan, which resulted in a median time delay to a major epidemic of two days. Depending on the scenario, the estimated delay may be less than one day. As the delay is small, the decision to control travel volume through restrictions on freedom of movement should be balanced between the resulting estimated epidemiological impact and predicted economic fallout.

The impact of the drastic reduction in travel volume within mainland China in January and February 2020 was quantified with respect to reports of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) infections outside China. Data on confirmed cases diagnosed outside China were analyzed using statistical models to estimate the impact of travel reduction on three epidemiological outcome measures: (i) the number of exported cases, (ii) the probability of a major epidemic, and (iii) the time delay to a major epidemic. From 28 January to 7 February 2020, we estimated that 226 exported cases (95% confidence interval: 86, 449) were prevented, corresponding to a 70.4% reduction in incidence compared to the counterfactual scenario. The reduced probability of a major epidemic ranged from 7% to 20% in Japan, which resulted in a median time delay to a major epidemic of two days. Depending on the scenario, the estimated delay may be less than one day. As the delay is small, the decision to control travel volume through restrictions on freedom of movement should be balanced between the resulting estimated epidemiological impact and predicted economic fallout.

The Japanese government initiated the Go To Travel campaign on 22 July 2020, offering deep discounts on hotel charges and issuing coupons to be used for any consumption at travel destinations in Japan. In the present study, we aimed to describe the possible epidemiological impact of the tourism campaign on increasing travel-associated cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the country. We compared the incidence rates of travel-associated and tourism-related cases prior to and during the campaign. The incidence of travel-associated COVID-19 cases during the tourism campaign was approximately three times greater than the control period 22 June to 21 July 2020 and approximately 1.5 times greater than the control period of 15 to 19 July. The incidence owing to tourism was approximately 8 times and 2–3 times greater than the control periods of 22 June to 21 July and 15 to 19 July, respectively. Although the second epidemic wave in Japan had begun to decline by mid-August, enhanced domestic tourism may have contributed to increasing travel-associated COVID-19 cases during 22 to 26 July, the early stage of the Go To Travel campaign.

When a novel infectious disease emerges, enhanced contact tracing and isolation are implemented to prevent a major epidemic, and indeed, they have been successful for the control of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), which have been greatly reduced without causing a global pandemic. Considering that asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic infections are substantial for the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the feasibility of preventing the major epidemic has been questioned. Using a two-type branching process model, the present study assesses the feasibility of containing COVID-19 by computing the probability of a major epidemic. We show that if there is a substantial number of asymptomatic transmissions, cutting chains of transmission by means of contact tracing and case isolation would be very challenging without additional interventions, and in particular, untraced cases contribute to lowering the feasibility of containment. Even if isolation of symptomatic cases is conducted swiftly after symptom onset, only secondary transmissions after the symptom onset can be prevented.

BackgroundPublic health and social measures (PHSM) against COVID-19 in Japan involve requesting the public to voluntarily reduce social contact; these measures are not legally binding. The effectiveness of such PHSM has been questioned with emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant (B.1.1.7), which exhibited elevated transmissibility.Materials and MethodsWe investigated the epidemic dynamics during the fourth epidemic wave in Japan from March to June 2021 involving pre-emergency measures and declaration of a state of emergency (SoE). We estimated the effective reproduction number (Rt) before and after these interventions, and then analyzed the relationship between lower Rt values and each PHSM.ResultsWith implementation of pre-emergency measures (PEM) in 16 prefectures, the Rt was estimated to be < 1 in six prefectures; its average relative reduction ranged from 2 to 19%. During the SoE, 8 of 10 prefectures had an estimated Rt < 1, and the average relative reduction was 26%–39%. No single intervention was identified that uniquely resulted in an Rt value < 1.ConclusionAn SoE can substantially reduce the Rt and may be required to curb a surge in cases caused by future SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern with elevated transmissibility. More customized interventions did not reduce the Rt value to < 1 in this study, but that may be partly attributable to the greater transmissibility of the Alpha variant.

No abstract