RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Impact of voluntary risk-mitigation behaviour on transmission of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant in England
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.01.26.22269540
DO 10.1101/2022.01.26.22269540
A1 Ellen Brooks-Pollock
A1 Kate Northstone
A1 Lorenzo Pellis
A1 Francesca Scarabel
A1 Amy Thomas
A1 Emily Nixon
A1 David A. Matthews
A1 Vicky Bowyer
A1 Maria Paz Garcia
A1 Claire J. Steves
A1 Nicholas J. Timpson
A1 Leon Danon
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/02/16/2022.01.26.22269540.abstract
AB Background The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 infection poses substantial challenges to public health. In England, “plan B” mitigation measures were introduced in December 2021 including increased home working and face coverings in shops, but stopped short of restrictions on social contacts. The impact of voluntary risk mitigation behaviours on future SARS-CoV-2 burden is unknown.Methods We developed a rapid online survey of risk mitigation behaviours during the winter 2021 festive period and deployed in two longitudinal cohort studies in the UK (Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) and TwinsUK/Covid Symptom Study (CSS) Biobank) in December 2021. Using an individual-based, probabilistic model of COVID-19 transmission between social contacts with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant parameters and realistic vaccine coverage in England, we describe the potential impact of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron wave in England in terms of the effective reproduction number and cumulative infections, hospital admissions and deaths. Using survey results, we estimated in real-time the impact of voluntary risk mitigation behaviours on the Omicron wave in England, if implemented for the entire epidemic wave.Results Over 95% of survey respondents (NALSPAC=2,686 and NTwins=6,155) reported some risk mitigation behaviours, with vaccination and using home testing kits reported most frequently. Less than half of those respondents reported that their behaviour was due to “plan B”. We estimate that without risk mitigation behaviours, the Omicron variant is consistent with an effective reproduction number between 2.5 and 3.5. Due to the reduced vaccine effectiveness against infection with the Omicron variant, our modelled estimates suggest that between 55% and 60% of the English population could be infected during the current wave, translating into between 15,000 and 46,000 cumulative deaths, depending on assumptions about vaccine effectiveness. We estimate that voluntary risk reduction measures could reduce the effective reproduction number to between 1.8 and 2.2 and reduce the cumulative number of deaths by up to 24%.Conclusions We conclude that voluntary measures substantially reduce the projected impact of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant, but that voluntary measures alone would be unlikely to completely control transmission.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementEBP, ACT, EN, LD, FS and LP are funded via the JUNIPER Consortium (MRC grant no. MR/V038613/1). EBP and LD are funded by MRC grant no. MC/PC/19067. LD is funded by EPSRC grant nos EP/V051555/1 and EP/N510129/1. EBP is partly supported by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Behavioural Science and Evaluation. LP is funded by the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society (grant 202562/Z/16/Z) and supported by the Alan Turing Institute for Data Science and Artificial Intelligence. AT is funded by the Wellcome Trust (217509/Z/19/Z) and MRC (MR/V028545/1). The UK Medical Research Council and Wellcome (Grant ref: 217065/Z/19/Z) and the University of Bristol provide core support for ALSPAC. This publication is the work of the authors who will serve as guarantors for the contents of this paper. TwinsUK is funded by the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, Versus Arthritis, European Union Horizon 2020, Chronic Disease Research Foundation (CDRF), Zoe Global Ltd and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)-funded BioResource, Clinical Research Facility and Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King's College London. The CSS Biobank is supported by the Chronic Disease Research Foundation (CDRF).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval for the study was given by the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) Ethics and Law Committee on 25 November 2021. Participation was voluntary and only anonymised data were collected. The survey was sent out to TwinsUK participants under existing TwinsUK ethics (REC reference: EC04/015) and TwinsUK BioBank ethics (REC reference: 19/NW/0187), granted by the North West - Liverpool Central NHS Research Ethics Committee (England) (https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/application-summaries/research-summaries/twinsuk-biobank/). The survey was sent out to COVID Symptom Study (CSS) Biobank participants under existing CSS Biobank ethics (REC reference: 20/YH/0298), which was granted by the Yorkshire & The Humber - Leeds East NHS Research Ethics Committee (England) (https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/application-summaries/research-summaries/covid-symptom-study-biobank-covid-19/).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAggregate data are available with this paper. Access to anonymous individual-level data can be applied for in line with the ALSPAC data access policy at http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac and/or the TwinsUK website https://twinsuk.ac.uk/resources-for-researchers/access-our-data/.Aggregate data are available with this paper. Access to anonymous individual-level data can be applied for in line with the ALSPAC data access policy at http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac and/or the TwinsUK website https://twinsuk.ac.uk/resources-for-researchers/access-our-data/.