This study evaluates the association between the AZD1222, BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273 vaccines and subsequent thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic events between 3 Nordic countries.

Aim: To compare hospital admissions across common respiratory tract infections (RTI) in 2017-21, and project possible hospital admissions for the RTIs among children aged 0–12 months and 1-5 years in 2022 and 2023.Methods: In 644 885 children aged 0–12 months and 1–5 years, we plotted the observed monthly number of RTI admissions [upper- and lower RTI, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and COVID-19] from January 1st, 2017 until October 31st, 2021. We also plotted the number of RTI admissions with a need for respiratory support. We used the observed data to project four different scenarios of RTI admissions for the rest of 2021 until 2023, with different impacts on hospital wards: (1) “Business as usual,” (2) “Continuous lockdown,” (3) “Children's immunity debt,” and (4) “Maternal and child immunity debt.”Results: By October 31st, 2021, the number of simultaneous RTI admissions had exceeded the numbers usually observed at the typical season peak in January, i.e., ~900. Based on our observed data and assuming that children and their mothers (who transfer antibodies to the very youngest) have not been exposed to RTI over the last one and a half years, our scenarios suggest that hospitals should be prepared to handle two to three times as many RTI admissions, and two to three times as many RTI admissions requiring respiratory support among 0–5-year-olds as normal, from November 2021 to April 2022.Conclusion: Scenarios with immunity debt suggest that pediatric hospital wards and policy makers should plan for extended capacity.

ObjectiveTo assess the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in schools in Norway mainly kept open during the covid-19 pandemic in the academic year 2020-21.DesignPopulation wide, register based cohort study.SettingPrimary and lower secondary schools in Norway open during the academic year 2020-21, with strict infection prevention and control measures in place, such as organisation of students into smaller cohorts. Contact tracing, quarantine, and isolation were also implemented, and testing of students and staff identified as close contacts.ParticipantsAll students and educational staff in primary and lower secondary schools in Norway, from August 2020 to June 2021.Main outcome measuresOverall attack rate of SARS-CoV-2 transmission (AR14) was defined as the number of individuals (among students, staff, or both) in the school with covid-19, detected within 14 days of the index case, divided by the number of students and staff members in the school. AR14 to students (attack rates from all index cases to students only) and AR14 to school staff (attack rates from all index cases to staff members only) were also calculated. These measures for student and school staff index cases were also calculated separately to explore variation in AR14 based on the characteristics of the index case.ResultsFrom August 2020 to June 2021, 4078 index cases were identified; 3220 (79%) students and 858 (21%) school staff. In most (2230 (55%)) schools with an index case, no subsequent individuals with covid-19 were found within 14 days; in 631 (16%) schools, only one more individual with covid-19 within 14 days was found. Overall, AR14 was 0.33% (95% confidence interval 0.32% to 0.33%). When restricting index cases and subsequent individuals with covid-19 to students born in the same year, AR14 to students (0.56-0.78%) was slightly higher.ConclusionsRegarding the number of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 among students and staff, these results suggest that schools were not an important setting for transmission of the virus in Norway during the covid-19 pandemic in the academic year 2020-21.

Background Schools and preschools have largely remained open in Norway throughout the pandemic, with flexible mitigation measures in place. This contrasts with many other high-income countries that closed schools for long periods of time. Here we describe cases and outbreaks of COVID-19 in schools and preschools during the academic year 2020/2021, to evaluate the strategy of keeping these open with infection prevention control measures in place. Methods In this descriptive study, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health initiated systematic surveillance for COVID-19 cases and outbreaks in schools and preschools in October 2020. Data was compiled from the national outbreak alert system VESUV, municipality websites, and media scanning combined with the national emergency preparedness register Beredt C-19. An outbreak was defined as ≥ 2 cases among pupils or staff within 14 days at the same educational setting. Settings were categorized as preschool (1–5-years), primary school (6–12-years), lower secondary school (13–15-years) and upper secondary school (16–18- years). We reported the incidence rate among preschool and school-aged pupils and gave a descriptive overview of outbreaks and included cases per educational setting. Results During the whole academic year, a total of 1203 outbreaks in preschools and school settings were identified, out of a total of 8311 preschools and schools nationwide. The incidence of COVID-19 in preschool- and school-aged children and the rates of outbreaks in these settings largely followed the community trend. Most of the outbreaks occurred in primary schools (40%) and preschools (25%). Outbreaks across all settings were mostly small (median 3 cases, range 2 to 72), however, 40 outbreaks (3% of total) included 20 or more cases. The larger outbreaks were predominantly seen in primary schools (43%). Conclusions We observed few large outbreaks in open schools and preschools in Norway during the academic year of 2020/2021, also when the Alpha variant was predominant. This illustrates that it is possible to keep schools and preschools open even during periods of high community transmission of COVID-19. Adherence to targeted IPC measures adaptable to the local situation has been essential to keep educational settings open, and thus reduce the total burden on children and adolescents.

Background Serious measures, including mass vaccination, have been taken to ensure sufficient hospital capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to high hospitalization risk in the oldest age groups, most countries prioritized elderly for vaccines. The aim of this study is to broaden the understanding of how vaccination in younger age groups relieved the strain on hospitals during the pandemic. Methods To determine the impact of vaccination on hospitalization, we relied on individual level data on health care use and vaccination from the Norwegian Emergency Preparedness Register Beredt C19. Using a pre-post design, we estimated the increase in hospitalization days from before to after confirmed COVID-19 for individuals aged 18-64 who were fully vaccinated (N=2 419) or unvaccinated (N=55 168) with comparison groups of vaccinated (N=4 818) and unvaccinated (N= 97 126) individuals without COVID-19. To evaluate whether vaccination itself contributed to a strain in hospitals, we use a similar design to study hospitalization rates before and after vaccination by comparing individuals vaccinated with the first dose (N=67 687) to unvaccinated individuals (N=130 769). These estimates were incorporated into a simulation of hospitalization days with different vaccine scenarios to show how the estimated results might have mattered for the hospitals and their capacity. Results Hospitalization days increased by 0.96 percentage point each day during the first week and 1.57 percentage points during the second week after testing positive for COVID-19 for unvaccinated individuals. The corresponding increase was 0.46 and 0.32 for vaccinated individuals, i.e., a substantial difference. The increase was significantly higher for those aged 45-64 than for those aged 18-25. We find no increase in hospitalization days due to vaccination. Simulation results show that vaccination reduced hospitalization days by 25 percent, mainly driven by age 45-64. Conclusion Our findings indicate that vaccination of individuals aged 18-64 did alleviate pressure on hospitals. Whereas there was a substantial relieve from vaccinating the 45-64 age group, there was no such contribution from vaccinating the 18-25 age group. Our study highlights how simulation models can be useful when evaluating alternative vaccine strategies.