Long-term outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 variants and other respiratory infections: evidence from the Virus Watch prospective cohort in England.

This study compared the likelihood of long-term sequelae following infection with SARS-CoV-2 variants, other acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and non-infected individuals. Participants (n=5,630) were drawn from Virus Watch, a prospective community cohort investigating SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology in England. Using logistic regression, we compared predicted probabilities of developing long-term symptoms (>2 months) during different variant dominance periods according to infection status (SARS-CoV-2, other ARI, or no infection), adjusting for confounding by demographic and clinical factors and vaccination status. SARS-CoV-2 infection during early variant periods up to Omicron BA.1 was associated with greater probability of long-term sequalae (adjusted predicted probability (PP) range 0.27, 95% CI = 0.22-0.33 to 0.34, 95% CI = 0.25-0.43) compared with later Omicron sub-variants (PP range 0.11, 95% CI 0.08-0.15 to 0.14, 95% CI 0.10-0.18). While differences between SARS-CoV-2 and other ARIs (PP range 0.08, 95% CI 0.04-0.11 to 0.23, 95% CI 0.18-0.28) varied by period, all post-infection estimates substantially exceeded those for non-infected participants (PP range 0.01, 95% CI 0.00, 0.02 to 0.03, 95% CI 0.01-0.06). Variant was an important predictor of SARS-CoV-2 post-infection sequalae, with recent Omicron sub-variants demonstrating similar probabilities to other contemporaneous ARIs. Further aetiological investigation including between-pathogen comparison is recommended.

Bayesian reconstruction of household transmissions to infer the serial interval of COVID-19 by variants of concern: analysis from a prospective community cohort study (Virus Watch).

BACKGROUND: The serial interval is a key epidemiological measure that quantifies the time between an infector's and an infectee's onset of symptoms. This measure helps investigate epidemiological links between cases, and is an important parameter in transmission models used to estimate transmissibility and inform control strategies. The emergence of multiple variants of concern (VOC) during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has led to uncertainties about potential changes in the serial interval of COVID-19. We estimated the household serial interval of multiple VOC using data collected by the Virus Watch study. This online, prospective, community cohort study followed-up entire households in England and Wales since mid-June 2020. METHODS: This analysis included 5842 symptomatic individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection among 2579 households from Sept 1, 2020, to Aug 10, 2022. SARS-CoV-2 variant designation was based upon national surveillance data of variant prevalence by date and geographical region. We used a Bayesian framework to infer who infected whom by exploring all transmission trees compatible with the observed dates of symptoms, given assumptions on the incubation period and generation time distributions using the R package outbreaker2. FINDINGS: We characterised the serial interval of COVID-19 by VOC. The mean serial interval was shortest for omicron BA5 (2·02 days; 95% credible interval [CrI] 1·26-2·84) and longest for alpha (3·37 days; 2·52-4·04). The mean serial interval before alpha (wild-type) was 2·29 days (95% CrI 1·39-2·94), 3·11 days (2·28-3·90) for delta, 2·72 days (2·01-3·47) for omicron BA1, and 2·67 days (1·90-3·46) for omicron BA2. We estimated that 17% (95% CrI 5-26) of serial interval values are negative across all variants. INTERPRETATION: Most methods estimating the reproduction number from incidence time series do not allow for a negative serial interval by construction. Further research is needed to extend these methods and assess biases introduced by not accounting for negative serial intervals. To our knowledge, this study is the first to use a Bayesian framework to estimate the serial interval of all major SARS-CoV-2 VOC from thousands of confirmed household cases. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and Wellcome Trust.

Inequalities in access to paid sick leave among workers in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: It is poorly understood which workers lack access to sick pay in England and Wales. This evidence gap has been of particular interest in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic given the relationship between presenteeism and infectious disease transmission. METHOD: This cross-sectional analysis (n = 8874) was nested within a large community cohort study based across England and Wales (Virus Watch). An online survey in February 2021 asked participants in work if they had access to paid sick leave. We used logistic regression to examine sociodemographic factors associated with lacking access to sick pay. RESULTS: Only 66% (n = 5864) of participants reported access to sick pay. South Asian workers (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.83) and those from Other minority ethnic backgrounds (OR 2.93, 95% CI 1.54-5.59) were more likely to lack access to sick pay compared to White British workers. Older workers (OR range 1.72 [1.53-1.93]-5.26 [4.42-6.26]), workers in low-income households (OR 2.53, 95% CI 2.15-2.98) and those in transport, trade, and service occupations (OR range 2.03 [1.58-2.61]-5.29 [3.67-7.72]) were also more likely to lack access to sick pay compared respectively to workers aged 25-44, those in high income households and managerial occupations. DISCUSSION: Unwarranted age and ethnic inequalities in sick pay access are suggestive of labour market discrimination. Occupational differences are also cause for concern. Policymakers should consider expanding access to sick pay to mitigate transmission of Covid-19 and other endemic respiratory infections in the community, and in the context of pandemic preparation.

Relative contribution of essential and non-essential activities to SARS-CoV-2 transmission following the lifting of public health restrictions in England and Wales.

PURPOSE: We aimed to understand which non-household activities increased infection odds and contributed greatest to SARS-CoV-2 infections following the lifting of public health restrictions in England and Wales. PROCEDURES: We undertook multivariable logistic regressions assessing the contribution to infections of activities reported by adult Virus Watch Community Cohort Study participants. We calculated adjusted weighted population attributable fractions (aPAF) estimating which activity contributed greatest to infections. FINDINGS: Among 11 413 participants (493 infections), infection was associated with: leaving home for work (aOR 1.35 (1.11-1.64), aPAF 17%), public transport (aOR 1.27 (1.04-1.57), aPAF 12%), shopping once (aOR 1.83 (1.36-2.45)) vs. more than three times a week, indoor leisure (aOR 1.24 (1.02-1.51), aPAF 10%) and indoor hospitality (aOR 1.21 (0.98-1.48), aPAF 7%). We found no association for outdoor hospitality (1.14 (0.94-1.39), aPAF 5%) or outdoor leisure (1.14 (0.82-1.59), aPAF 1%). CONCLUSION: Essential activities (work and public transport) carried the greatest risk and were the dominant contributors to infections. Non-essential indoor activities (hospitality and leisure) increased risk but contributed less. Outdoor activities carried no statistical risk and contributed to fewer infections. As countries aim to 'live with COVID', mitigating transmission in essential and indoor venues becomes increasingly relevant.

Occupation, work-related contact and SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid serological status: findings from the Virus Watch prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection varies across occupations; however, investigation into factors underlying differential risk is limited. We aimed to estimate the total effect of occupation on SARS-CoV-2 serological status, whether this is mediated by workplace close contact, and how exposure to poorly ventilated workplaces varied across occupations. METHODS: We used data from a subcohort (n=3775) of adults in the UK-based Virus Watch cohort study who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid antibodies (indicating natural infection). We used logistic decomposition to investigate the relationship between occupation, contact and seropositivity, and logistic regression to investigate exposure to poorly ventilated workplaces. RESULTS: Seropositivity was 17.1% among workers with daily close contact vs 10.0% for those with no work-related close contact. Compared with other professional occupations, healthcare, indoor trade/process/plant, leisure/personal service, and transport/mobile machine workers had elevated adjusted total odds of seropositivity (1.80 (1.03 to 3.14) - 2.46 (1.82 to 3.33)). Work-related contact accounted for a variable part of increased odds across occupations (1.04 (1.01 to 1.08) - 1.23 (1.09 to 1.40)). Occupations with raised odds of infection after accounting for work-related contact also had greater exposure to poorly ventilated workplaces. CONCLUSIONS: Work-related close contact appears to contribute to occupational variation in seropositivity. Reducing contact in workplaces is an important COVID-19 control measure.

An investigation into the factor structure of the Cognitive Therapy Scale - Revised (CTS-R) in a CBT training sample.

BACKGROUND: Effective monitoring of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) competence depends on psychometrically robust assessment methods. While the UK Cognitive Therapy Scale - Revised (CTS-R; Blackburn et al., 2001) has become a widely used competence measure in CBT training, practice and research, its underlying factor structure has never been investigated. AIMS: This study aimed to present the first investigation into the factor structure of the CTS-R based on a large sample of postgraduate CBT trainee recordings. METHOD: Trainees (n = 382) provided 746 mid-treatment audio recordings for depression (n = 373) and anxiety (n = 373) cases scored on the CTS-R by expert markers. Tapes were split into two equal samples counterbalanced by diagnosis and with one tape per trainee. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted. The suggested factor structure and a widely used theoretical two-factor model were tested with confirmatory factor analysis. Measurement invariance was assessed by diagnostic group (depression versus anxiety). RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis suggested a single-factor solution (98.68% explained variance), which was supported by confirmatory factor analysis. All 12 CTS-R items were found to contribute to this single factor. The univariate model demonstrated full metric invariance and partial scalar invariance by diagnosis, with one item (item 10 - Conceptual Integration) demonstrating scalar non-invariance. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that the CTS-R is a robust homogenous measure and do not support division into the widely used theoretical generic versus CBT-specific competency subscales. Investigation into the CTS-R factor structure in other populations is warranted.

Assessing panic disorder-specific competencies: evaluation of the Cognitive Therapy Competence Scale for panic disorder.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based treatment for panic disorder consists of disorder-specific cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) protocols. However, most measures of CBT competence are generic and there is a clear need for disorder-specific assessment measures. AIMS: To fill this gap, we evaluated the psychometric properties of the Cognitive Therapy Competence Scale (CTCP) for panic disorder. METHOD: CBT trainees (n = 60) submitted audio recordings of CBT for panic disorder that were scored on a generic competence measure, the Cognitive Therapy Scale - Revised (CTS-R), and the CTCP by markers with experience in CBT practice and evaluation. Trainees also provided pre- to post-treatment clinical outcomes on disorder-specific patient report measures for cases corresponding to their therapy recordings. RESULTS: The CTCP exhibited strong internal consistency (α = .79-.91) and inter-rater reliability (ICC = .70-.88). The measure demonstrated convergent validity with the CTS-R (r = .40-.54), although investigation into competence classification indicated that the CTCP may be more sensitive at detecting competence for panic disorder-specific CBT skills. Notably, the CTCP demonstrated the first indication of a relationship between therapist competence and clinical outcome for panic disorder (r = .29-.35); no relationship was found for the CTS-R. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide initial support for the reliability and validity of the CTCP for assessing therapist competence in CBT for panic disorder and support the use of anxiety disorder-specific competence measures. Further investigation into the psychometric properties of the measure in other therapist cohorts and its relationship with clinical outcomes is recommended.

Multi-professional IAPT CBT training: clinical competence and patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: There is international interest in the training of psychological therapists to deliver evidence-based treatment for common mental health problems. The UK Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme, one of the largest training initiatives, relies on competent therapists to successfully deliver cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) and promote good patient outcome. AIMS: To evaluate an IAPT CBT training course by assessing if trainees' clinical skills improve during training and reach competency standards, and to report patient outcome for submitted training cases. To investigate a possible relationship between trainee competence and patient outcome. To explore professional differences during training. METHOD: CBT trainee (n = 252) competence was assessed via audio recordings of therapy sessions at the beginning, middle and end of training. Patient pre- to post-treatment outcomes were extracted from submitted training cases (n = 1927). Differences in professional background were examined across competence, academic final grade and tutorial support. RESULTS: CBT trainees attained competence by the end of the course with 77% (anxiety recordings) and 72% (depression recordings) improving reliably. Training cases reported pre- to post-treatment effect sizes of 1.08-2.26 across disorders. CBT competence predicted a small variance in clinical outcome for depression cases. Differences in professional background emerged, with clinical psychologists demonstrating greater competence and higher academic grades. Trainees without a core professional background required more additional support to achieve competence. CONCLUSIONS: Part of a new CBT therapist workforce was successfully trained to deliver relatively brief treatment effectively. Trainees without a core profession can be successfully trained to competence, but may need additional support. This has implications for workforce training.

COVID-19 vaccination coverage for half a million non-EU migrants and refugees in England.

Despite evidence suggesting that some migrants are at risk of under-immunization and have experienced severe health inequities during the pandemic, data are limited on migrants' COVID-19 vaccine coverage globally. Here we linked data from non-European Union migrants and resettled refugees to the national COVID-19 vaccination dataset in England. We estimated patterns in second and third dose delays and overdue doses between 12 December 2020 and 20 April 2022 by age, visa type and ethnicity. Of the 465,470 linked records, 91.8% (427,073/465,470) of migrants received a second dose and 51.3% (238,721/465,470) received a third. Refugees had the highest risk of delayed second (adjusted odds ratio 1.66; 95% confidence interval 1.55-1.79) and third dose (1.55; 1.43-1.69). Black migrants were twice as likely to have a second dose delayed (2.37; 2.23-2.54) than white migrants, but this trend reversed for the third dose. Older migrants (>65 years) were four times less likely to have received their second or third dose compared with the general population in England aged >65 or older. Policymakers, researchers and practitioners should work to understand and address personal and structural barriers to vaccination for diverse migrant populations.

Eyeglasses and risk of COVID-19 transmission-analysis of the Virus Watch Community Cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The importance of SARS-CoV-2 transmission via the eyes is unknown, with previous studies mainly focusing on protective eyewear in healthcare settings. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that wearing eyeglasses is associated with a lower risk of COVID-19. METHODS: Participants from the Virus Watch prospective community cohort study responded to a questionnaire on the use of eyeglasses and contact lenses. Infection was confirmed through data linkage, self-reported positive results, and, for a subgroup, monthly capillary antibody testing. Multivariable logistic regression models, controlling for age, sex, income, and occupation, were used to identify the odds of infection depending on frequency and purpose of eyeglasses or contact lenses use. RESULTS: A total of 19,166 participants responded to the questionnaire, with 13,681 (71.3%, CI 70.7-72.0) reporting they wore eyeglasses. Multivariable logistic regression model showed a 15% lower odds of infection for those who reported using eyeglasses always for general use (odds ratio [OR] 0.85, 95% 0.77-0.95, P = 0.002) compared to those who never wore eyeglasses. The protective effect was reduced for those who said wearing eyeglasses interfered with mask-wearing and was absent for contact lens wearers. CONCLUSIONS: People who wear eyeglasses have a moderate reduction in risk of COVID-19 infection, highlighting that eye protection may make a valuable contribution to the reduction of transmission in community and healthcare settings.

The incidence of COVID-19-related hospitalisation in migrants in the UK: Findings from the Virus Watch prospective community cohort study.

Background: Migrants in the United Kingdom (UK) may be at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure; however, little is known about their risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisation during waves 1-3 of the pandemic. Methods: We analysed secondary care data linked to Virus Watch study data for adults and estimated COVID-19-related hospitalisation incidence rates by migration status. To estimate the total effect of migration status on COVID-19 hospitalisation rates, we ran mixed-effect Poisson regression for wave 1 (01/03/2020-31/08/2020; wildtype), and mixed-effect negative binomial regressions for waves 2 (01/09/2020-31/05/2021; Alpha) and 3 (01/06/2020-31/11/2021; Delta). Results of all models were then meta-analysed. Results: Of 30,276 adults in the analyses, 26,492 (87.5 %) were UK-born and 3,784 (12.5 %) were migrants. COVID-19-related hospitalisation incidence rates for UK-born and migrant individuals across waves 1-3 were 2.7 [95 % CI 2.2-3.2], and 4.6 [3.1-6.7] per 1,000 person-years, respectively. Pooled incidence rate ratios across waves suggested increased rate of COVID-19-related hospitalisation in migrants compared to UK-born individuals in unadjusted 1.68 [1.08-2.60] and adjusted analyses 1.35 [0.71-2.60]. Conclusion: Our findings suggest migration populations in the UK have excess risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisations and underscore the need for more equitable interventions particularly aimed at COVID-19 vaccination uptake among migrants.

Between-occupation differences in work-related COVID-19 mitigation strategies over time: Analysis of the Virus Watch Cohort in England and Wales.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 mitigations have had a profound impact on workplaces, however, multisectoral comparisons of how work-related mitigations were applied are limited. This study aimed to investigate (i) occupational differences in the usage of key work-related mitigations over time and (ii) workers' perceptions of these mitigations. METHODS: Employed/self-employed Virus Watch study participants (N=6279) responded to a mitigation-related online survey covering the periods of December 2020-February 2022. Logistic regression was used to investigate occupation- and time-related differences in the usage of work-related mitigation methods. Participants' perceptions of mitigation methods were investigated descriptively using proportions. RESULTS: Usage of work-related mitigation methods differed between occupations and over time, likely reflecting variation in job roles, workplace environments, legislation and guidance. Healthcare workers had the highest predicted probabilities for several mitigations, including reporting frequent hand hygiene [predicted probability across all survey periods 0.61 (95% CI 0.56-0.66)] and always wearing face coverings [predicted probability range 0.71 (95% CI 0.66-0.75) - 0.80 (95% CI 0.76-0.84) across survey periods]. There were significant cross-occupational trends towards reduced mitigations during periods of less stringent national restrictions. The majority of participants across occupations (55-88%) agreed that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile even after the relaxation of national restrictions; agreement was lower for physical distancing (39-44%). CONCLUSIONS: While usage of work-related mitigations appeared to vary alongside stringency of national restrictions, agreement that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile remained substantial. Further investigation into the factors underlying between-occupational differences could assist pandemic planning and prevention of workplace COVID-19 transmission.

Exploring the relationship between job characteristics and infection: Application of a COVID-19 job exposure matrix to SARS-CoV-2 infection data in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess whether workplace exposures as estimated via a COVID-19 job exposure matrix (JEM) are associated with SARS-CoV-2 in the UK. METHODS: Data on 244 470 participants were available from the Office for National Statistics Coronavirus Infection Survey (CIS) and 16 801 participants from the Virus Watch Cohort, restricted to workers aged 20-64 years. Analysis used logistic regression models with SARS-CoV-2 as the dependent variable for eight individual JEM domains (number of workers, nature of contacts, contact via surfaces, indoor or outdoor location, ability to social distance, use of face covering, job insecurity, and migrant workers) with adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, index of multiple deprivation (IMD), region, household size, urban versus rural area, and health conditions. Analyses were repeated for three time periods (i) February 2020 (Virus Watch)/April 2020 (CIS) to May 2021), (ii) June 2021 to November 2021, and (iii) December 2021 to January 2022. RESULTS: Overall, higher risk classifications for the first six domains tended to be associated with an increased risk of infection, with little evidence of a relationship for domains relating to proportion of workers with job insecurity or migrant workers. By time there was a clear exposure-response relationship for these domains in the first period only. Results were largely consistent across the two UK cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: An exposure-response relationship exists in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic for number of contacts, nature of contacts, contacts via surfaces, indoor or outdoor location, ability to social distance and use of face coverings. These associations appear to have diminished over time.

Symptom profiles of community cases infected by influenza, RSV, rhinovirus, seasonal coronavirus, and SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern.

Respiratory viruses that were suppressed through previous lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic have recently started to co-circulate with SARS-CoV-2. Understanding the clinical characteristics and symptomatology of different respiratory viral infections can help address the challenges related to the identification of cases and the understanding of SARS-CoV-2 variants' evolutionary patterns. Flu Watch (2006-2011) and Virus Watch (2020-2022) are household community cohort studies monitoring the epidemiology of influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, rhinovirus, seasonal coronavirus, and SARS-CoV-2, in England and Wales. This study describes and compares the proportion of symptoms reported during illnesses infected by common respiratory viruses. The SARS-CoV-2 symptom profile increasingly resembles that of other respiratory viruses as new strains emerge. Increased cough, sore throat, runny nose, and sneezing are associated with the emergence of the Omicron strains. As SARS-CoV-2 becomes endemic, monitoring the evolution of its symptomatology associated with new variants will be critical for clinical surveillance.

A case-crossover study of the effect of vaccination on SARS-CoV-2 transmission relevant behaviours during a period of national lockdown in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Studies of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness show increases in COVID-19 cases within 14 days of a first dose, potentially reflecting post-vaccination behaviour changes associated with SARS-CoV-2 transmission before vaccine protection. However, direct evidence for a relationship between vaccination and behaviour is lacking. We aimed to examine the association between vaccination status and self-reported non-household contacts and non-essential activities during a national lockdown in England and Wales. METHODS: Participants (n = 1154) who had received the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine reported non-household contacts and non-essential activities from February to March 2021 in monthly surveys during a national lockdown in England and Wales. We used a case-crossover study design and conditional logistic regression to examine the association between vaccination status (pre-vaccination vs 14 days post-vaccination) and self-reported contacts and activities within individuals. Stratified subgroup analyses examined potential effect heterogeneity by sociodemographic characteristics such as sex, household income or age group. RESULTS: 457/1154 (39.60 %) participants reported non-household contacts post-vaccination compared with 371/1154 (32.15 %) participants pre-vaccination. 100/1154 (8.67 %) participants reported use of non-essential shops or services post-vaccination compared with 74/1154 (6.41 %) participants pre-vaccination. Post-vaccination status was associated with increased odds of reporting non-household contacts (OR 1.65, 95 % CI 1.31-2.06, p < 0.001) and use of non-essential shops or services (OR 1.50, 95 % CI 1.03-2.17, p = 0.032). This effect varied between men and women and different age groups. CONCLUSION: Participants had higher odds of reporting non-household contacts and use of non-essential shops or services within 14 days of their first COVID-19 vaccine compared to pre-vaccination. Public health emphasis on maintaining protective behaviours during this post-vaccination time period when individuals have yet to develop full protection from vaccination could reduce risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Deprivation, essential and non-essential activities and SARS-CoV-2 infection following the lifting of national public health restrictions in England and Wales.

Background: Individuals living in deprived areas in England and Wales undertook essential activities more frequently and experienced higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection than less deprived communities during periods of restrictions aimed at controlling the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant. We aimed to understand whether these deprivation-related differences changed once restrictions were lifted. Methods: Among 11,231 adult Virus Watch Community Cohort Study participants multivariable logistic regressions were used to estimate the relationships between deprivation and self-reported activities and deprivation and infection (self-reported lateral flow or PCR tests and linkage to National Testing data and Second Generation Surveillance System (SGSS)) between August - December 2021, following the lifting of national public health restrictions. Results: Those living in areas of greatest deprivation were more likely to undertake essential activities (leaving home for work (aOR 1.56 (1.33 - 1.83)), using public transport (aOR 1.33 (1.13 - 1.57)) but less likely to undertake non-essential activities (indoor hospitality (aOR 0.82 (0.70 - 0.96)), outdoor hospitality (aOR 0.56 (0.48 - 0.66)), indoor leisure (aOR 0.63 (0.54 - 0.74)), outdoor leisure (aOR 0.64 (0.46 - 0.88)), or visit a hairdresser (aOR 0.72 (0.61 - 0.85))). No statistical association was observed between deprivation and infection (P=0.5745), with those living in areas of greatest deprivation no more likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 (aOR 1.25 (0.87 - 1.79). Conclusion: The lack of association between deprivation and infection is likely due to the increased engagement in non-essential activities among the least deprived balancing the increased work-related exposure among the most deprived. The differences in activities highlight stark disparities in an individuals' ability to choose how to limit infection exposure.

Individuals living in deprived areas of England and Wales left home to go to work and used public transport more frequently than people living in less deprived areas of the country when under tight lockdown restrictions. They were also more likely to develop SARS-CoV-2 infection. Understanding whether these differences changed once restrictions were lifted is important to understand whether deprivation-related discrepancies in infection risk changed throughout the pandemic. We found that, after the removal of lockdown restrictions, people living in areas of the greatest deprivation continued to leave home for work or use public transport more frequently than those not living in areas of deprivation but they were less likely to visit either indoor or outdoor hospitality or leisure venues such as cafes, restaurants, bars, cinemas, theatres or visit a hairdresser or beautician than people living in areas with little deprivation. They were no longer more likely than those living in areas with little deprivation to become infected with SARS-CoV-2. This is likely because people living in areas with little deprivation were visiting hospitality and leisure venues more frequently than during lockdown and were increasing their exposure to infection in these settings, balancing out the increased infection risk posed through work and public transport to those living in deprived areas. The fact that people living in areas of deprivation were most likely exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection through essential activities like work and public transport use while people living in areas with little deprivation were most likely exposed to infection through non-essential activities such as visiting a restaurant, pub, cinema or theatre, highlights stark disparities in an individuals' ability to choose how to limit infection exposure based on their deprivation status.

Differential Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Occupation: Evidence from the Virus Watch prospective cohort study in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Workers across different occupations vary in their risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the direct contribution of occupation to this relationship is unclear. This study aimed to investigate how infection risk differed across occupational groups in England and Wales up to April 2022, after adjustment for potential confounding and stratification by pandemic phase. METHODS: Data from 15,190 employed/self-employed participants in the Virus Watch prospective cohort study were used to generate risk ratios for virologically- or serologically-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection using robust Poisson regression, adjusting for socio-demographic and health-related factors and non-work public activities. We calculated attributable fractions (AF) amongst the exposed for belonging to each occupational group based on adjusted risk ratios (aRR). RESULTS: Increased risk was seen in nurses (aRR = 1.44, 1.25-1.65; AF = 30%, 20-39%), doctors (aRR = 1.33, 1.08-1.65; AF = 25%, 7-39%), carers (1.45, 1.19-1.76; AF = 31%, 16-43%), primary school teachers (aRR = 1.67, 1.42- 1.96; AF = 40%, 30-49%), secondary school teachers (aRR = 1.48, 1.26-1.72; AF = 32%, 21-42%), and teaching support occupations (aRR = 1.42, 1.23-1.64; AF = 29%, 18-39%) compared to office-based professional occupations. Differential risk was apparent in the earlier phases (Feb 2020-May 2021) and attenuated later (June-October 2021) for most groups, although teachers and teaching support workers demonstrated persistently elevated risk across waves. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection risk vary over time and are robust to adjustment for socio-demographic, health-related, and non-workplace activity-related potential confounders. Direct investigation into workplace factors underlying elevated risk and how these change over time is needed to inform occupational health interventions.

Tracking Changes in Mobility Before and After the First SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Using Global Positioning System Data in England and Wales (Virus Watch): Prospective Observational Community Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that individuals may change adherence to public health policies aimed at reducing the contact, transmission, and spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus after they receive their first SARS-CoV-2 vaccination when they are not fully vaccinated. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to estimate changes in median daily travel distance of our cohort from their registered addresses before and after receiving a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. METHODS: Participants were recruited into Virus Watch starting in June 2020. Weekly surveys were sent out to participants, and vaccination status was collected from January 2021 onward. Between September 2020 and February 2021, we invited 13,120 adult Virus Watch participants to contribute toward our tracker subcohort, which uses the GPS via a smartphone app to collect data on movement. We used segmented linear regression to estimate the median daily travel distance before and after the first self-reported SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose. RESULTS: We analyzed the daily travel distance of 249 vaccinated adults. From 157 days prior to vaccination until the day before vaccination, the median daily travel distance was 9.05 (IQR 8.06-10.09) km. From the day of vaccination to 105 days after vaccination, the median daily travel distance was 10.08 (IQR 8.60-12.42) km. From 157 days prior to vaccination until the vaccination date, there was a daily median decrease in mobility of 40.09 m (95% CI -50.08 to -31.10; P<.001). After vaccination, there was a median daily increase in movement of 60.60 m (95% CI 20.90-100; P<.001). Restricting the analysis to the third national lockdown (January 4, 2021, to April 5, 2021), we found a median daily movement increase of 18.30 m (95% CI -19.20 to 55.80; P=.57) in the 30 days prior to vaccination and a median daily movement increase of 9.36 m (95% CI 38.6-149.00; P=.69) in the 30 days after vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the feasibility of collecting high-volume geolocation data as part of research projects and the utility of these data for understanding public health issues. Our various analyses produced results that ranged from no change in movement after vaccination (during the third national lock down) to an increase in movement after vaccination (considering all periods, up to 105 days after vaccination), suggesting that, among Virus Watch participants, any changes in movement distances after vaccination are small. Our findings may be attributable to public health measures in place at the time such as movement restrictions and home working that applied to the Virus Watch cohort participants during the study period.

Bayesian reconstruction of SARS-CoV-2 transmissions highlights substantial proportion of negative serial intervals.

BACKGROUND: The serial interval is a key epidemiological measure that quantifies the time between the onset of symptoms in an infector-infectee pair. It indicates how quickly new generations of cases appear, thus informing on the speed of an epidemic. Estimating the serial interval requires to identify pairs of infectors and infectees. Yet, most studies fail to assess the direction of transmission between cases and assume that the order of infections - and thus transmissions - strictly follows the order of symptom onsets, thereby imposing serial intervals to be positive. Because of the long and highly variable incubation period of SARS-CoV-2, this may not always be true (i.e an infectee may show symptoms before their infector) and negative serial intervals may occur. This study aims to estimate the serial interval of different SARS-CoV-2 variants whilst accounting for negative serial intervals. METHODS: This analysis included 5 842 symptomatic individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst 2 579 households from September 2020 to August 2022 across England & Wales. We used a Bayesian framework to infer who infected whom by exploring all transmission trees compatible with the observed dates of symptoms, based on a wide range of incubation period and generation time distributions compatible with estimates reported in the literature. Serial intervals were derived from the reconstructed transmission pairs, stratified by variants. RESULTS: We estimated that 22% (95% credible interval (CrI) 8-32%) of serial interval values are negative across all VOC. The mean serial interval was shortest for Omicron BA5 (2.02 days, 1.26-2.84) and longest for Alpha (3.37 days, 2.52-4.04). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the large proportion of negative serial intervals across SARS-CoV-2 variants. Because the serial interval is widely used to estimate transmissibility and forecast cases, these results may have critical implications for epidemic control.