IMPORTANCEThe dynamics of coronavirus disease 2019 transmissibility are yet to be fully understood. Better understanding of the transmission dynamics is important for the development and evaluation of effective control policies.OBJECTIVE To delineate the transmission dynamics of COVID-19 and evaluate the transmission risk at different exposure window periods before and after symptom onset. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis prospective case-ascertained study in Taiwan included laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 and their contacts. The study period was from January 15 to March 18, 2020. All close contacts were quarantined at home for 14 days after their last exposure to the index case. During the quarantine period, any relevant symptoms (fever, cough, or other respiratory symptoms) of contacts triggered a COVID-19 test. The final follow-up date was April 2, 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESSecondary clinical attack rate (considering symptomatic cases only) for different exposure time windows of the index cases and for different exposure settings (such as household, family, and health care). RESULTSWe enrolled 100 confirmed patients, with a median age of 44 years (range, 11-88 years), including 44 men and 56 women. Among their 2761 close contacts, there were 22 paired index-secondary cases. The overall secondary clinical attack rate was 0.7% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.0%). The attack rate was higher among the 1818 contacts whose exposure to index cases started within 5 days of symptom onset (1.0% [95% CI, 0.6%-1.6%]) compared with those who were exposed later (0 cases from 852 contacts; 95% CI, 0%-0.4%). The 299 contacts with exclusive presymptomatic exposures were also at risk (attack rate, 0.7% [95% CI, 0.2%-2.4%]). The attack rate was higher among household (4.6% [95% CI, 2.3%-9.3%]) and nonhousehold (5.3% [95% CI, 2.1%-12.8%]) family contacts than that in health care or other settings. The attack rates were higher among those aged 40 to 59 years (1.1% [95% CI, 0.6%-2.1%]) and those aged 60 years and older (0.9% [95% CI, 0.3%-2.6%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this study, high transmissibility of COVID-19 before and immediately after symptom onset suggests that finding and isolating symptomatic patients alone may not suffice to contain the epidemic, and more generalized measures may be required, such as social distancing.

A variety of serovars of the food-borne pathogen Vibrio parahaemolyticus normally cause infection. Since 1996, the O3:K6 strains of this pathogen have caused pandemics in many Asian countries, including Taiwan. For a better understanding of these pandemic strains, the recently isolated clinical O3:K6 strains from India, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan were examined in terms of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) typing and other biological characteristics. After PFGE and cluster analysis, all the O3:K6 strains were grouped into two unrelated groups. The recently isolated O3:K6 strains were all in one group, consisting of eight closely related patterns, with I1(81%) and I5(13%) being the most frequent patterns. Pattern I1 was the major one for strains from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. All recently isolated O3:K6 strains carried the thermostable direct hemolysin (tdh) gene. No significant difference was observed between recently isolated O3:K6 strains and either non-O3:K6 reference strains or old O3:K6 strains isolated before 1996 with respect to antibiotic susceptibility, the level of thermostable direct hemolysin, and the susceptibility to environmental stresses. Results in this study confirmed that the recently isolated O3:K6 strains of V. parahaemolyticus are genetically close to each other, while the other biological traits examined were usually strain dependent, and no unique trait was found in the recently isolated O3:K6 strains.

Our study revealed a possible link between ambient air pollution and risk of active tuberculosis. Since people from developing countries continue to be exposed to high levels of ambient air pollution and to experience high rates of tuberculosis, the impact of worsening air pollution on global tuberculosis control warrants further investigation.

Influenza A virus is well known for its capability for genetic changes either through antigen drift or antigen shift. Antigen shift is derived from reassortment of gene segments between viruses, and may result in an antigenically novel virus that is capable of causing a worldwide pandemic. As we trace backwards through the history of influenza pandemics, a repeating pattern can be observed, namely, a limited wave in the first year followed by global spread in the following year. In the 20th century alone, there were three overwhelming pandemics, in 1918, 1957 and 1968, caused by H1N1 (Spanish flu), H2N2 (Asian flu) and H3N2 (Hong Kong flu), respectively. In 1957 and 1968, excess mortality was noted in infants, the elderly and persons with chronic diseases, similar to what occurred during interpandemic periods. In 1918, there was one distinct peak of excess death in young adults aged between 20 and 40 years old; leukopenia and hemorrhage were prominent features. Acute pulmonary edema and hemorrhagic pneumonia contributed to rapidly lethal outcome in young adults. Autopsies disclosed multiple-organ involvement, including pericarditis, myocarditis, hepatitis and splenomegaly. These findings are, in part, consistent with clinical manifestations of human infection with avian influenza A H5N1 virus, in which reactive hemophagocytic syndrome was a characteristic pathologic finding that accounted for pancytopenia, abnormal liver function and multiple organ failure. All the elements of an impending pandemic are in place. Unless effective measures are implemented, we will likely observe a pandemic in the coming seasons. Host immune response plays a crucial role in disease caused by newly emerged influenza virus, such as the 1918 pandemic strain and the recent avian H5N1 strain. Sustained activation of lymphocytes and macrophages after infection results in massive cytokine response, thus leading to severe systemic inflammation. Further investigations into how the virus interacts with the host's immune system will be helpful in guiding future therapeutic strategies in facing influenza pandemics.

BackgroundThe dynamics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmissibility after symptom onset remains unknown. MethodsWe conducted a prospective case-ascertained study on laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases and their contacts. Secondary clinical attack rate (considering symptomatic cases only) was analyzed for different exposure windows after symptom onset of index cases and for different exposure settings. ResultsThirty-two confirmed patients were enrolled and 12 paired data (index-secondary cases) were identified among the 1,043 contacts. The secondary clinical attack rate was 0.9% (95% CI 0.5-1.7%). The attack rate was higher among those whose exposure to index cases started within five days of symptom onset (2.4%, 95% CI 1.1-4.5%) than those who were exposed later (zero case from 605 close contacts, 95% CI 0-0.61%). The attack rate was also higher among household contacts (13.6%, 95% CI 4.7-29.5%) and nonhousehold family contacts (8.5%, 95% CI 2.4-20.3%) than that in healthcare or other settings. The higher secondary clinical attack rate for contacts near symptom onset remained when the analysis was restricted to household and family contacts. There was a trend of increasing attack rate with the age of contacts (p for trend < 0.001). ConclusionsHigh transmissibility of COVID-19 near symptom onset suggests that finding and isolating symptomatic patients alone may not suffice to contain the epidemic, and more generalized social distancing measures are required. Rapid reduction of transmissibility over time implies that prolonged hospitalization of mild cases might not be necessary in large epidemics.