IMPORTANCEThe dynamics of coronavirus disease 2019 transmissibility are yet to be fully understood. Better understanding of the transmission dynamics is important for the development and evaluation of effective control policies.OBJECTIVE To delineate the transmission dynamics of COVID-19 and evaluate the transmission risk at different exposure window periods before and after symptom onset. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis prospective case-ascertained study in Taiwan included laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 and their contacts. The study period was from January 15 to March 18, 2020. All close contacts were quarantined at home for 14 days after their last exposure to the index case. During the quarantine period, any relevant symptoms (fever, cough, or other respiratory symptoms) of contacts triggered a COVID-19 test. The final follow-up date was April 2, 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESSecondary clinical attack rate (considering symptomatic cases only) for different exposure time windows of the index cases and for different exposure settings (such as household, family, and health care). RESULTSWe enrolled 100 confirmed patients, with a median age of 44 years (range, 11-88 years), including 44 men and 56 women. Among their 2761 close contacts, there were 22 paired index-secondary cases. The overall secondary clinical attack rate was 0.7% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.0%). The attack rate was higher among the 1818 contacts whose exposure to index cases started within 5 days of symptom onset (1.0% [95% CI, 0.6%-1.6%]) compared with those who were exposed later (0 cases from 852 contacts; 95% CI, 0%-0.4%). The 299 contacts with exclusive presymptomatic exposures were also at risk (attack rate, 0.7% [95% CI, 0.2%-2.4%]). The attack rate was higher among household (4.6% [95% CI, 2.3%-9.3%]) and nonhousehold (5.3% [95% CI, 2.1%-12.8%]) family contacts than that in health care or other settings. The attack rates were higher among those aged 40 to 59 years (1.1% [95% CI, 0.6%-2.1%]) and those aged 60 years and older (0.9% [95% CI, 0.3%-2.6%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this study, high transmissibility of COVID-19 before and immediately after symptom onset suggests that finding and isolating symptomatic patients alone may not suffice to contain the epidemic, and more generalized measures may be required, such as social distancing.

The timing of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is a critical factor to understand the epidemic trajectory and the impact of isolation, contact tracing and other non- pharmaceutical interventions on the spread of COVID-19 epidemics. We examined the distribution of transmission events with respect to exposure and onset of symptoms. We show that for symptomatic individuals, the timing of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is more strongly linked to the onset of clinical symptoms of COVID-19 than to the time since infection. We found that it was approximately centered and symmetric around the onset of symptoms, with three quarters of events occurring in the window from 2-3 days before to 2-3 days after. However, we caution against overinterpretation of the right tail of the distribution, due to its dependence on behavioural factors and interventions. We also found that the pre-symptomatic infectious period extended further back in time for individuals with longer incubation periods. This strongly suggests that information about when a case was infected should be collected where possible, in order to assess how far into the past their contacts should be traced. Overall, the fraction of transmission from strictly pre-symptomatic infections was high (41%; 95%CI 31-50%), which limits the efficacy of symptom-based interventions, and the large fraction of transmissions (35%; 95%CI 26-45%) that occur on the same day or the day after onset of symptoms underlines the critical importance of individuals distancing themselves from others as soon as they notice any symptoms, even if they are mild. Rapid or at-home testing and contextual risk information would greatly facilitate efficient early isolation.

BackgroundThe dynamics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmissibility after symptom onset remains unknown. MethodsWe conducted a prospective case-ascertained study on laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases and their contacts. Secondary clinical attack rate (considering symptomatic cases only) was analyzed for different exposure windows after symptom onset of index cases and for different exposure settings. ResultsThirty-two confirmed patients were enrolled and 12 paired data (index-secondary cases) were identified among the 1,043 contacts. The secondary clinical attack rate was 0.9% (95% CI 0.5-1.7%). The attack rate was higher among those whose exposure to index cases started within five days of symptom onset (2.4%, 95% CI 1.1-4.5%) than those who were exposed later (zero case from 605 close contacts, 95% CI 0-0.61%). The attack rate was also higher among household contacts (13.6%, 95% CI 4.7-29.5%) and nonhousehold family contacts (8.5%, 95% CI 2.4-20.3%) than that in healthcare or other settings. The higher secondary clinical attack rate for contacts near symptom onset remained when the analysis was restricted to household and family contacts. There was a trend of increasing attack rate with the age of contacts (p for trend < 0.001). ConclusionsHigh transmissibility of COVID-19 near symptom onset suggests that finding and isolating symptomatic patients alone may not suffice to contain the epidemic, and more generalized social distancing measures are required. Rapid reduction of transmissibility over time implies that prolonged hospitalization of mild cases might not be necessary in large epidemics.

No abstract

IMPORTANCE Taiwan is one of the few countries with initial success in COVID-19 control without strict lockdown or school closure. The reasons remain to be fully elucidated.OBJECTIVE To compare and evaluate the effectiveness of case-based (including contact tracing and quarantine) and population-based (including social distancing and facial masking) interventions for COVID-19 in Taiwan. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis comparative effectiveness study used a stochastic branching process model using COVID-19 epidemic data from Taiwan, an island nation of 23.6 million people, with no locally acquired cases of COVID-19 reported for 253 days between April and December 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESEffective reproduction number of COVID-19 cases (the number of secondary cases generated by 1 primary case) and the probability of outbreak extinction (0 new cases within 20 generations). For model development and calibration, an estimation of the incubation period (interval from exposure to symptom onset), serial interval (time between symptom onset in an infector-infectee pair), and the statistical distribution of the number of any subsequent infections generated by 1 primary case was calculated. RESULTSThis study analyzed data from 158 confirmed COVID-19 cases (median age, 45 years; interquartile range, 25-55 years; 84 men [53%]). An estimated 55% (95% credible interval [CrI], 41%-68%) of transmission events occurred during the presymptomatic stage. In our estimated analysis, case detection, contact tracing, and 14-day quarantine of close contacts (regardless of symptoms) was estimated to decrease the reproduction number from the counterfactual value of 2.50 to 1.53 (95% CrI, 1.50-1.57), which would not be sufficient for epidemic control, which requires a value of less than 1. In our estimated analysis, voluntary population-based interventions, if used alone, were estimated to have reduced the reproduction number to 1.30 (95% CrI, 1.03-1.58). Combined case-based and population-based interventions were estimated to reduce the reproduction number to below unity (0.85; 95% CrI, 0.78-0.89). Results were similar for additional analyses with influenza data and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this comparative effectiveness research study, the combination of case-based and population-based interventions (with wide adherence) may explain the success of COVID-19 control in Taiwan in 2020. Either category of interventions alone would have been insufficient, even in a country with an effective public health system and comprehensive contact tracing program. Mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic requires the collaborative effort of public health professionals and the general public.