Background The declaration of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on 30 January 2020 required rapid implementation of early investigations to inform appropriate national and global public health actions. Methods The suite of existing pandemic preparedness generic epidemiological early investigation protocols was rapidly adapted for COVID‐19, branded the ‘UNITY studies’ and promoted globally for the implementation of standardized and quality studies. Ten protocols were developed investigating household (HH) transmission, the first few cases (FFX), population seroprevalence (SEROPREV), health facilities transmission (n = 2), vaccine effectiveness (n = 2), pregnancy outcomes and transmission, school transmission, and surface contamination. Implementation was supported by WHO and its partners globally, with emphasis to support building surveillance and research capacities in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMIC). Results WHO generic protocols were rapidly developed and published on the WHO website, 5/10 protocols within the first 3 months of the response. As of 30 June 2021, 172 investigations were implemented by 97 countries, of which 62 (64%) were LMIC. The majority of countries implemented population seroprevalence (71 countries) and first few cases/household transmission (37 countries) studies. Conclusion The widespread adoption of UNITY protocols across all WHO regions indicates that they addressed subnational and national needs to support local public health decision‐making to prevent and control the pandemic.

No abstract

Modelling COVID-19 influenced policy at all stages of the outbreak. Greater synthesis of epidemiological models and economic models is needed to assist policy makers. Models must be adapted to context, both in terms of disease behaviour and different interventions in different countries.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led a number of countries to introduce restrictive ‘lockdown’ policies on their citizens in order to control infection spread. Immunity passports have been proposed as a way of easing the harms of such policies, and could be used in conjunction with other strategies for infection control. These passports would permit those who test positive for COVID-19 antibodies to return to some of their normal behaviours, such as travelling more freely and returning to work. The introduction of immunity passports raises a number of practical and ethical challenges. In this paper, we seek to review the challenges relating to various practical considerations, fairness issues, the risk to social cooperation and the impact on people’s civil liberties. We make tentative recommendations for the ethical introduction of immunity passports.

Summary A barrier to hepatitis C treatment for people who inject drugs (PWID) is needing to attend multiple appointments for diagnosis. Point‐of‐care hepatitis C tests provide results within 20 to 105 minutes and can be offered opportunistically in nonclinical settings such as needle syringe programmes. In this nested qualitative study, we explored the acceptability of point‐of‐care testing for PWID. PWID attending participating needle syringe programmes were screened using the OraQuick HCV antibody mouth swab (result in 20 minutes); those with a reactive result then underwent venepuncture for a point‐of‐care RNA test: the Xpert HCV Viral Load (result in 105 minutes). Convenience sampling was used to select participants for a semi‐structured interview. A hybrid thematic analysis was performed, guided by Sekhon's “Theoretical Framework of Acceptability.” Nineteen participants were interviewed. Three core themes emerged: "people and place," "method of specimen collection," and "rapidity of result return." It was highly acceptable to be offered testing at the needle syringeprogrammes by nurses and community health workers, who were described as competent and nonjudgemental. Most participants reported that even if a finger‐stick point‐of‐care RNA test were an option in the future, they would prefer venepuncture, as the sample could be used for pre‐treatment workup and bundled testing. Waiting 20 minutes to receive the antibody test result was acceptable, whereas the 105 minutes required for the RNA result was unacceptable. Offering point‐of‐care hepatitis C testing at needle syringe programmes is acceptable to PWID, however tests that avoid venepuncture are not necessarily the most attractive to PWID.