Expert elicitation on the relative importance of possible SARS-CoV-2 transmission routes and the effectiveness of mitigations

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Objectives

To help people make decisions about the most effective mitigation measures against SARS-CoV-2 transmission in different scenarios, the likelihoods of transmission by different routes need to be quantified to some degree (however uncertain). These likelihoods need to be communicated in an appropriate way to illustrate the relative importance of different routes in different scenarios, the likely effectiveness of different mitigation measures along those routes, and the level of uncertainty in those estimates. In this study, a pragmatic expert elicitation was undertaken to supply the underlying quantitative values to produce such a communication tool.

Participants

Twenty-seven individual experts from five countries and many scientific disciplines provided estimates.

Outcome measures

Estimates of transmission parameters, assessments of the quality of the evidence, references to relevant literature, rationales for their estimates and sources of uncertainty.

Results and conclusion

The participants’ responses showed that there is still considerable disagreement among experts about the relative importance of different transmission pathways and the effectiveness of different mitigation measures due to a lack of empirical evidence. Despite these disagreements, when pooled, the majority views on each parameter formed an internally consistent set of estimates (for example, that transmission was more likely indoors than outdoors, and at closer range), which formed the basis of a visualisation to help individuals and organisations understand the factors that influence transmission and the potential benefits of different mitigation measures.

Related collections

Most cited references 140

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1

Neeltje van Doremalen, Trenton Bushmaker, Dylan H Morris … (2021)

To the Editor: A novel human coronavirus that is now named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (formerly called HCoV-19) emerged in Wuhan, China, in late 2019 and is now causing a pandemic. 1 We analyzed the aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 and compared it with SARS-CoV-1, the most closely related human coronavirus. 2 We evaluated the stability of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1 in aerosols and on various surfaces and estimated their decay rates using a Bayesian regression model (see the Methods section in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this letter at NEJM.org). SARS-CoV-2 nCoV-WA1-2020 (MN985325.1) and SARS-CoV-1 Tor2 (AY274119.3) were the strains used. Aerosols (<5 μm) containing SARS-CoV-2 (105.25 50% tissue-culture infectious dose [TCID50] per milliliter) or SARS-CoV-1 (106.75-7.00 TCID50 per milliliter) were generated with the use of a three-jet Collison nebulizer and fed into a Goldberg drum to create an aerosolized environment. The inoculum resulted in cycle-threshold values between 20 and 22, similar to those observed in samples obtained from the upper and lower respiratory tract in humans. Our data consisted of 10 experimental conditions involving two viruses (SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1) in five environmental conditions (aerosols, plastic, stainless steel, copper, and cardboard). All experimental measurements are reported as means across three replicates. SARS-CoV-2 remained viable in aerosols throughout the duration of our experiment (3 hours), with a reduction in infectious titer from 103.5 to 102.7 TCID50 per liter of air. This reduction was similar to that observed with SARS-CoV-1, from 104.3 to 103.5 TCID50 per milliliter (Figure 1A). SARS-CoV-2 was more stable on plastic and stainless steel than on copper and cardboard, and viable virus was detected up to 72 hours after application to these surfaces (Figure 1A), although the virus titer was greatly reduced (from 103.7 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter of medium after 72 hours on plastic and from 103.7 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter after 48 hours on stainless steel). The stability kinetics of SARS-CoV-1 were similar (from 103.4 to 100.7 TCID50 per milliliter after 72 hours on plastic and from 103.6 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter after 48 hours on stainless steel). On copper, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 4 hours and no viable SARS-CoV-1 was measured after 8 hours. On cardboard, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 24 hours and no viable SARS-CoV-1 was measured after 8 hours (Figure 1A). Both viruses had an exponential decay in virus titer across all experimental conditions, as indicated by a linear decrease in the log10TCID50 per liter of air or milliliter of medium over time (Figure 1B). The half-lives of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1 were similar in aerosols, with median estimates of approximately 1.1 to 1.2 hours and 95% credible intervals of 0.64 to 2.64 for SARS-CoV-2 and 0.78 to 2.43 for SARS-CoV-1 (Figure 1C, and Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix). The half-lives of the two viruses were also similar on copper. On cardboard, the half-life of SARS-CoV-2 was longer than that of SARS-CoV-1. The longest viability of both viruses was on stainless steel and plastic; the estimated median half-life of SARS-CoV-2 was approximately 5.6 hours on stainless steel and 6.8 hours on plastic (Figure 1C). Estimated differences in the half-lives of the two viruses were small except for those on cardboard (Figure 1C). Individual replicate data were noticeably “noisier” (i.e., there was more variation in the experiment, resulting in a larger standard error) for cardboard than for other surfaces (Fig. S1 through S5), so we advise caution in interpreting this result. We found that the stability of SARS-CoV-2 was similar to that of SARS-CoV-1 under the experimental circumstances tested. This indicates that differences in the epidemiologic characteristics of these viruses probably arise from other factors, including high viral loads in the upper respiratory tract and the potential for persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 to shed and transmit the virus while asymptomatic. 3,4 Our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is plausible, since the virus can remain viable and infectious in aerosols for hours and on surfaces up to days (depending on the inoculum shed). These findings echo those with SARS-CoV-1, in which these forms of transmission were associated with nosocomial spread and super-spreading events, 5 and they provide information for pandemic mitigation efforts.

0 comments Cited 4099 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Derek K. Chu, Elie A. Akl, Stephanie Duda … (2020)

Summary Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings. Methods We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047. Findings Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; p interaction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; p interaction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. Interpretation The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance. Funding World Health Organization.

0 comments Cited 1759 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.

A Tversky, D Kahneman (1974)

This article described three heuristics that are employed in making judgements under uncertainty: (i) representativeness, which is usually employed when people are asked to judge the probability that an object or event A belongs to class or process B; (ii) availability of instances or scenarios, which is often employed when people are asked to assess the frequency of a class or the plausibility of a particular development; and (iii) adjustment from an anchor, which is usually employed in numerical prediction when a relevant value is available. These heuristics are highly economical and usually effective, but they lead to systematic and predictable errors. A better understanding of these heuristics and of the biases to which they lead could improve judgements and decisions in situations of uncertainty.

0 comments Cited 1605 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMJ Open

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMJ Open

Journal ID (hwp): bmjopen

Journal ID (publisher-id): bmjopen

Title: BMJ Open

Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )

ISSN (Electronic): 2044-6055

Publication date Collection: 2021

Publication date (Electronic): 1 December 2021

Publication date PMC-release: 1 December 2021

Volume: 11

Issue: 12

Electronic Location Identifier: e050869

Affiliations

[1 ] departmentWinton Centre for Risk & Evidence Communication , University of Cambridge , Cambridge, UK

[2 ] Defence Science and Technology Laboratory , Salisbury, UK

[3 ] departmentSchool of Civil Engineering , University of Leeds , Leeds, UK

[4 ] departmentCentre for Climate Repair at Cambridge , University of Cambridge , Cambridge, UK

[5 ] Royal Academy of Engineering , London, UK

[6 ] Health and Safety Executive , Buxton, UK

[7 ] University of Bath , Bath, UK

Author notes

[Correspondence to ] Dr Alexandra LJ Freeman; alex.freeman@ 123456maths.cam.ac.uk

ALJF and SP are joint first authors.

Author information

Alexandra LJ Freeman http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4115-161X

Simon Parker http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9451-3987

Catherine Noakes http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3084-7467

Shaun Fitzgerald http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2178-496X

David Spiegelhalter http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9350-6745

Harry Rutter http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9322-0656

Article

Publisher ID: bmjopen-2021-050869

DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050869

PMC ID: 8637346

PubMed ID: 34853105

SO-VID: 3ee9fcdf-e855-4bbe-8c91-57e18b1a4878

License:

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

History

Date received : 12 August 2021

Date accepted : 26 October 2021

Funding

Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000869, Health and Safety Executive;

Award ID: PROTECT, the National Core Study on COVID-19 trans

Custom metadata

special-feature unlocked

special-feature press-release

ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine

Keywords: covid-19,public health,infection control

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine

Keywords: covid-19, public health, infection control

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 5

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 11,194

See all reference authors

- Version 1

Expert elicitation on the relative importance of possible SARS-CoV-2 transmission routes and the effectiveness of mitigations

Read this article at

Abstract

Objectives

Participants

Outcome measures

Results and conclusion

Related collections

Novel Coronavirus Disease COVID-19

Most cited references 140

Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1

Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.

Author and article information

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Author information

Article

History

Funding

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 194

Cited by 5

Most referenced authors 11,194