Background Accumulating evidence indicates that COVID-19 causes adverse outcomes in ethnic minority groups. However, little is known about the impact of ethnicity and household size on acquiring infection with SARS-CoV-2. Methods We undertook a retrospective cohort study, in Leicester (UK), of all individuals assessed for COVID-19 with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing at University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust between 1st March and 28th April 2020. We used logistic regression to identify sociodemographic, clinical and temporal factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity before/after lockdown. Findings 971/4051 (24.0%) patients with suspected COVID-19 were found to be PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2. PCR positivity was more common amongst individuals from ethnic minortiy backgrounds than their White counterparts (White 20.0%, South Asian 37.5%, Black 36.1%, Other 32.2%; p <0.001 for all ethnic minority groups vs White). After adjustment, compared to White ethnicity, South Asian (aOR 2.44 95%CI 2.01, 2.97), Black (aOR 2.56 95%CI 1.71, 3.84) and Other (aOR 2.53 95%CI 1.74, 3.70) ethnicities were more likely to test positive, as were those with a larger estimated household size (aOR 1.06 95%CI 1.02, 1.11). We saw increasing proportions of positive tests in the three weeks post-lockdown amongst the ethnic minority , but not the White, cohort. Estimated household size was associated with PCR positivity after, but not before, lockdown (aOR 1.10 95%CI 1.03, 1.16). Interpretation In individuals presenting with suspected COVID-19, those from ethnic minority communities and larger households had an increased likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity. Pandemic control measures may have more rapid impact on slowing viral transmission amongst those of White ethnicity compared to ethnic minority groups, Research is urgently required to understand the mechanisms underlying these disparities and whether public health interventions have differential effects on individuals from ethnic minority groups. Funding

Infectious micro-organisms may be transmitted by a variety of routes, and some may be spread by more than one route. Respiratory and facial protection is required for those organisms that are usually transmitted via the droplet/airborne route, or when airborne particles have been artificially created, such as during 'aerosol-generating procedures'. A range of personal protective equipment that provides different degrees of facial and respiratory protection is available. It is apparent from the recent experiences with severe acute respiratory syndrome and pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza that healthcare workers may have difficulty in choosing the correct type of facial and respiratory protection in any given clinical situation. To address this issue, the Scientific Development Committee of the Healthcare Infection Society established a short-life working group to develop guidance. The guidance is based upon a review of the literature, which is published separately, and expert consensus.

When tackling antimicrobial resistance, the tensions between immediate individual risks and long-term collective risks need to be taken into account. Efforts to reduce diagnostic uncertainty and to change risk perceptions will be critical in shifting practice.

Background Although evidence suggests that demographic characteristics including minority ethnicity increase the risk of infection with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), it is unclear whether these characteristics, together with occupational factors, influence anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroprevalence in hospital staff. Methods We conducted cross-sectional surveillance examining seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG amongst staff at University Hospitals of Leicester (UHL) NHS Trust. We quantified seroprevalence stratified by ethnicity, occupation and seniority of practitioner and used logistic regression to examine demographic and occupational factors associated with seropositivity. Results A total of 1148/10662 (10.8%) hospital staff members were seropositive. Compared to White staff (seroprevalence 9.1%), seroprevalence was higher in South Asian (12.3%) and Black (21.2%) staff. The occupations and department with the highest seroprevalence were nurses/healthcare assistants (13.7%) and the Emergency Department (ED)/Acute Medicine (17.5%), respectively. Seroprevalence decreased with seniority in medical/nursing practitioners. Minority ethnicity was associated with seropositivity on an adjusted analysis (South Asian: aOR 1.26; 95%CI: 1.07–1.49 and Black: 2.42; 1.90–3.09). Anaesthetics/ICU staff members were less likely to be seropositive than ED/Acute medicine staff (0.41; 0.27–0.61). Conclusions Ethnicity and occupational factors, including specialty and seniority, are associated with seropositivity for anti-SARS-Cov-2 IgG. These findings could be used to inform occupational risk assessments for front-line healthcare workers.