Estimation of the effective reproductive number Rt is important for detecting changes in disease transmission over time. During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, policy makers and public health officials are using Rt to assess the effectiveness of interventions and to inform policy. However, estimation of Rt from available data presents several challenges, with critical implications for the interpretation of the course of the pandemic. The purpose of this document is to summarize these challenges, illustrate them with examples from synthetic data, and, where possible, make recommendations. For near real-time estimation of Rt, we recommend the approach of Cori and colleagues, which uses data from before time t and empirical estimates of the distribution of time between infections. Methods that require data from after time t, such as Wallinga and Teunis, are conceptually and methodologically less suited for near real-time estimation, but may be appropriate for retrospective analyses of how individuals infected at different time points contributed to the spread. We advise caution when using methods derived from the approach of Bettencourt and Ribeiro, as the resulting Rt estimates may be biased if the underlying structural assumptions are not met. Two key challenges common to all approaches are accurate specification of the generation interval and reconstruction of the time series of new infections from observations occurring long after the moment of transmission. Naive approaches for dealing with observation delays, such as subtracting delays sampled from a distribution, can introduce bias. We provide suggestions for how to mitigate this and other technical challenges and highlight open problems in Rt estimation.

Estimation of the effective reproductive number, Rt, is important for detecting changes in disease transmission over time. During the COVID-19 pandemic, policymakers and public health officials are using Rt to assess the effectiveness of interventions and to inform policy. However, estimation of Rt from available data presents several challenges, with critical implications for the interpretation of the course of the pandemic. The purpose of this document is to summarize these challenges, illustrate them with examples from synthetic data, and, where possible, make methodological recommendations. For near real-time estimation of Rt, we recommend the approach of Cori et al. (2013), which uses data from before time t and empirical estimates of the distribution of time between infections. Methods that require data from after time t, such as Wallinga and Teunis (2004), are conceptually and methodologically less suited for near real-time estimation, but may be appropriate for some retrospective analyses. We advise against using methods derived from Bettencourt and Ribeiro (2008), as the resulting Rt estimates may be biased if the underlying structural assumptions are not met. A challenge common to all approaches is reconstruction of the time series of new infections from observations occurring long after the moment of transmission. Naive approaches for dealing with observation delays, such as subtracting delays sampled from a distribution, can introduce bias. We provide suggestions for how to mitigate this and other technical challenges and highlight open problems in Rt estimation.

Background Voluntary individual quarantine and voluntary active monitoring of contacts are core disease control strategies for emerging infectious diseases such as COVID-19. Given the impact of quarantine on resources and individual liberty, it is vital to assess under what conditions individual quarantine can more effectively control COVID-19 than active monitoring. As an epidemic grows, it is also important to consider when these interventions are no longer feasible and broader mitigation measures must be implemented.Methods To estimate the comparative efficacy of individual quarantine and active monitoring of contacts to control severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), we fit a stochastic branching model to reported parameters for the dynamics of the disease. Specifically, we fit a model to the incubation period distribution (mean 5•2 days) and to two estimates of the serial interval distribution: a shorter one with a mean serial interval of 4•8 days and a longer one with a mean of 7•5 days. To assess variable resource settings, we considered two feasibility settings: a high-feasibility setting with 90% of contacts traced, a half-day average delay in tracing and symptom recognition, and 90% effective isolation; and a low-feasibility setting with 50% of contacts traced, a 2-day average delay, and 50% effective isolation. FindingsModel fitting by sequential Monte Carlo resulted in a mean time of infectiousness onset before symptom onset of 0•77 days (95% CI -1•98 to 0•29) for the shorter serial interval, and for the longer serial interval it resulted in a mean time of infectiousness onset after symptom onset of 0•51 days (95% CI -0•77 to 1•50). Individual quarantine in high-feasibility settings, where at least 75% of infected contacts are individually quarantined, contains an outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 with a short serial interval (4•8 days) 84% of the time. However, in settings where the outbreak continues to grow (eg, low-feasibility settings), so too will the burden of the number of contacts traced for active monitoring or quarantine, particularly uninfected contacts (who never develop symptoms). When resources are prioritised for scalable interventions such as physical distancing, we show active monitoring or individual quarantine of high-risk contacts can contribute synergistically to mitigation efforts. Even under the shorter serial interval, if physical distancing reduces the reproductive number to 1•25, active monitoring of 50% of contacts can result in overall outbreak control (ie, effective reproductive number <1).Interpretation Our model highlights the urgent need for more data on the serial interval and the extent of presymptomatic transmission to make data-driven policy decisions regarding the cost-benefit comparisons of individual quarantine versus active monitoring of contacts. To the extent that these interventions can be implemented, they can help mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

In response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, public health scientists have produced a large and rapidly expanding body of literature that aims to answer critical questions, such as the proportion of the population in a geographic area that has been infected; the transmissibility of the virus and factors associated with high infectiousness or susceptibility to infection; which groups are the most at risk of infection, morbidity and mortality; and the degree to which antibodies confer protection to re-infection. Observational studies are subject to a number of different biases, including confounding, selection bias, and measurement error, that may threaten their validity or influence the interpretation of their results. To assist in the critical evaluation of a vast body of literature and contribute to future study design, we outline and propose solutions to biases that can occur across different categories of observational studies of COVID-19. We consider potential biases that could occur in five categories of studies: (1) cross-sectional seroprevalence, (2) longitudinal seroprotection, (3) risk factor studies to inform interventions, (4) studies to estimate the secondary attack rate, and (5) studies that use secondary attack rates to make inferences about infectiousness and susceptibility.

words: 401 Main text words: 2610

Background BNT162b2 was shown to be 92% effective in preventing COVID-19. Prioritizing vaccine rollout, and achievement of herd immunity depend on SARS-CoV-2 transmission reduction. The vaccine's effect on infectivity is thus a critical priority. Methods Among all 9650 HCW of a large tertiary medical center in Israel, we calculated the prevalence of positive SARS-CoV-2 qRT-PCR cases with asymptomatic presentation, tested following known or presumed exposure and the infectious subset (N-gene-Ct-value<30) of these. Additionally, infection incidence rates were calculated for symptomatic cases and infectious (Ct<30) cases. Vaccine effectiveness within three months of vaccine rollout was measured as one minus the relative risk or rate ratio, respectively. To further assess infectiousness, we compared the mean Ct-value and the proportion of infections with a positive SARS-CoV-2 antigen test of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. The correlation between IgG levels within the week before detection and Ct level was assessed. Findings Reduced prevalence among fully vaccinated HCW was observed for (i) infections detected due to exposure, with asymptomatic presentation (VE(i)=65.1%, 95%CI 45-79%), (ii) the presumed infectious (Ct<30) subset of these (VE(ii)=69.6%, 95%CI 43-84%) (iii) never-symptomatic infections (VE(iii)=72.3%, 95%CI 48-86%), and (iv) the presumed infectious (Ct<30) subset (VE(iv)=83.0%, 95%CI 51-94%). Incidence of (v) symptomatic and (vi) symptomatic-infectious cases was significantly lower among fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated individuals (VE(v)= 89.7%, 95%CI 84-94%, VE(vi)=88.1%, 95%CI 80-95%). The mean Ct-value was significantly higher in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated (27.3±1.2 vs. 22.2±1.0, p<0.001) and the proportion of positive SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests was also significantly lower among vaccinated vs. unvaccinated PCR-positive HCW (80% vs. 31%, p<0.001). Lower infectivity was correlated with higher IgG concentrations (R=0.36, p=0.01). Interpretation These results suggest that BNT162b2 is moderately to highly effective in reducing infectivity, via preventing infection and through reducing viral shedding. Funding Sheba Medical Center, Israel

IMPORTANCE Nursing homes and other long-term care facilities have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Strategies are urgently needed to reduce transmission in these high-risk populations. OBJECTIVE To evaluate COVID-19 transmission in nursing homes associated with contact-targeted interventions and testing. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This decision analytical modeling study developed an agent-based susceptible-exposed-infectious (asymptomatic/symptomatic)-recovered model between July and September 2020 to examine SARS-CoV-2 transmission in nursing homes.Residents and staff of a simulated nursing home with 100 residents and 100 staff split among 3 shifts were modeled individually; residents were split into 2 cohorts based on COVID-19 diagnosis. Data were analyzed from September to October 2020. EXPOSURES In the resident cohorting intervention, residents who had recovered from COVID-19 were moved back from the COVID-19 (ie, infected with SARS-CoV-2) cohort to the non-COVID-19 (ie, susceptible and uninfected with SARS-CoV-2) cohort. In the immunity-based staffing intervention, staff who had recovered from COVID-19 were assumed to have protective immunity and were assigned to work in the non-COVID-19 cohort, while susceptible staff worked in the COVID-19 cohort and were assumed to have high levels of protection from personal protective equipment. These interventions aimed to reduce the fraction of people's contacts that were presumed susceptible (and therefore potentially infected) and replaced them with recovered (immune) contacts. A secondary aim of was to evaluate cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections associated with 2 types of screening tests (ie, rapid antigen testing and polymerase chain reaction [PCR] testing) conducted with varying frequency. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Estimated cumulative incidence proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infection after 3 months.RESULTS Among the simulated cohort of 100 residents and 100 staff members, frequency and type of testing were associated with smaller outbreaks than the cohorting and staffing interventions. The testing strategy associated with the greatest estimated reduction in infections was daily antigen testing, which reduced the mean cumulative incidence proportion by 49% in absence of contacttargeted interventions. Under all screening testing strategies, the resident cohorting intervention and the immunity-based staffing intervention were associated with reducing the final estimated size of the outbreak among residents, with the immunity-based staffing intervention reducing it more (eg, by 19% in the absence of testing) than the resident cohorting intervention (eg, by 8% in the absence of testing). The estimated reduction in transmission associated with these interventions among staff varied by testing strategy and community prevalence. (continued) Key Points Question What are the associations of cohorting, staffing, and testing interventions with COVID-19 transmission in nursing homes? Findings In this decision analytical modeling study ...

Individual quarantine and active monitoring of contacts are core disease control strategies, particularly for emerging infectious diseases such as Coronavirus Disease 2019 . To estimate the comparative efficacy of these interventions to control COVID-19, we fit a stochastic branching model, comparing two sets of reported parameters for the dynamics of the disease. Our results suggest that individual quarantine may contain an outbreak of COVID-19 with a short serial interval (4.8 days) only in settings with high intervention performance where at least three-quarters of infected contacts are individually quarantined. However, in settings where this performance is unrealistically high and the outbreak of COVID-19 continues to grow, so too will the burden of the number of contacts traced for active monitoring or quarantine. In such circumstances where resources are prioritized for scalable interventions such as social distancing, we show active monitoring or individual quarantine of high-risk contacts can contribute synergistically to social distancing. To the extent that interventions based on contact tracing can be implemented, therefore, they can help mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Our model highlights the urgent need for more data on the serial interval and the extent of presymptomatic transmission in order to make data-driven policy decisions regarding the cost-benefit comparisons of individual quarantine vs. active monitoring of contacts.