We collected information on demographic characteristics, exposure history, and illness timelines of laboratory-confirmed cases of NCIP that had been reported by January 22, 2020. We described characteristics of the cases and estimated the key epidemiologic time-delay distributions. In the early period of exponential growth, we estimated the epidemic doubling time and the basic reproductive number. RESULTSAmong the first 425 patients with confirmed NCIP, the median age was 59 years and 56% were male. The majority of cases (55%) with onset before January 1, 2020, were linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, as compared with 8.6% of the subsequent cases. The mean incubation period was 5.2 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1 to 7.0), with the 95th percentile of the distribution at 12.5 days. In its early stages, the epidemic doubled in size every 7.4 days. With a mean serial interval of 7.5 days (95% CI, 5.3 to 19), the basic reproductive number was estimated to be 2.2 (95% CI, 1.4 to 3.9). CONCLUSIONSOn the basis of this information, there is evidence that human-to-human transmission has occurred among close contacts since the middle of December 2019. Considerable efforts to reduce transmission will be required to control outbreaks if similar dynamics apply elsewhere. Measures to prevent or reduce transmission should be implemented in populations at risk. (Funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China and others.) a bs tr ac t Early Transmission Dynamics

Background Since Dec 31, 2019, the Chinese city of Wuhan has reported an outbreak of atypical pneumonia caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Cases have been exported to other Chinese cities, as well as internationally, threatening to trigger a global outbreak. Here, we provide an estimate of the size of the epidemic in Wuhan on the basis of the number of cases exported from Wuhan to cities outside mainland China and forecast the extent of the domestic and global public health risks of epidemics, accounting for social and non-pharmaceutical prevention interventions.Methods We used data from Dec 31, 2019, to Jan 28, 2020, on the number of cases exported from Wuhan internationally (known days of symptom onset from Dec 25, 2019, to Jan 19, 2020) to infer the number of infections in Wuhan from Dec 1, 2019, to Jan 25, 2020. Cases exported domestically were then estimated. We forecasted the national and global spread of 2019-nCoV, accounting for the effect of the metropolitan-wide quarantine of Wuhan and surrounding cities, which began Jan 23-24, 2020. We used data on monthly flight bookings from the Official Aviation Guide and data on human mobility across more than 300 prefecture-level cities in mainland China from the Tencent database. Data on confirmed cases were obtained from the reports published by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Serial interval estimates were based on previous studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV). A susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered metapopulation model was used to simulate the epidemics across all major cities in China. The basic reproductive number was estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods and presented using the resulting posterior mean and 95% credibile interval (CrI). FindingsIn our baseline scenario, we estimated that the basic reproductive number for 2019-nCoV was 2·68 (95% CrI 2·47-2·86) and that 75 815 individuals (95% CrI 37 304-130 330) have been infected in Wuhan as of Jan 25, 2020. The epidemic doubling time was 6·4 days (95% CrI 5·8-7·1). We estimated that in the baseline scenario, Chongqing, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen had imported 461 (95% CrI 227-805), 113 (57-193), 98 (49-168), 111 (56-191), and 80 (40-139) infections from Wuhan, respectively. If the transmissibility of 2019-nCoV were similar everywhere domestically and over time, we inferred that epidemics are already growing exponentially in multiple major cities of China with a lag time behind the Wuhan outbreak of about 1-2 weeks.Interpretation Given that 2019-nCoV is no longer contained within Wuhan, other major Chinese cities are probably sustaining localised outbreaks. Large cities overseas with close transport links to China could also become outbreak epicentres, unless substantial public health interventions at both the population and personal levels are implemented immediately. Independent self-sustaining outbreaks in major cities globally could become inevitable because of substantial exportation of presymptomatic case...

As of 29 February 2020 there were 79,394 confirmed cases and 2,838 deaths from COVID-19 in mainland China. Of these, 48,557 cases and 2,169 deaths occurred in the epicenter, Wuhan. A key public health priority during the emergence of a novel pathogen is estimating clinical severity, which requires properly adjusting for the case ascertainment rate and the delay between symptoms onset and death. Using public and published information, we estimate that the overall symptomatic case fatality risk (the probability of dying after developing symptoms) of COVID-19 in Wuhan was 1.4% (0.9-2.1%), which is substantially lower than both the corresponding crude or naïve confirmed case fatality risk (2,169/48,557 = 4.5%) and the approximator 1 of deaths/ deaths + recoveries (2,169/2,169 + 17,572 = 11%) as of 29 February 2020. Compared to those aged 30-59 years, those aged below 30 and above 59 years were 0.6 (0.3-1.1) and 5.1 (4.2-6.1) times more likely to die after developing symptoms. The risk of symptomatic infection increased with age (for example, at ~4% per year among adults aged 30-60 years).On 9 January 2020, the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 was officially identified as the cause of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China. One of the most critical clinical and public health questions during the emergence of a completely novel pathogen, especially one that could cause a global pandemic, pertains to the spectrum of illness presentation or severity profile. For the patient and clinician, this affects triage and diagnostic decision-making, especially in settings without ready access to laboratory testing or when surge capacity has been exceeded. It also influences therapeutic choice and prognostic expectations. For managers of health services, it is important for rapid forward planning in terms of procurement of supplies, readiness of human resources to staff beds at different intensities of care and generally ensuring the sustainability of the health system through the peak and duration of the epidemic.At the population level, determining the shape and size of the 'clinical iceberg' 2,3 , both above and below the observed threshold (in turn determined by symptomatology, care-seeking behavior and clinical access), is key to understanding the transmission dynamics and interpreting epidemic trajectories. Specifically, delineating the proportion of infections that are clinically unobserved under different circumstances is critical to refining model parameterization. In turn, estimates of both the observed and unobserved infections are essential for informing the development and evaluation of public health strategies, which need to be traded off against economic, social and personal freedom costs. For example, drastic social distancing and mobility restrictions, such as school closures and travel advisories/bans, should only be considered if an accurate estimation

Purpose: The notorious COVID 19 pandemic has caused rapid and drastic changes in cancer care all over the world in 2020. This online survey aims to assess the extent to which the pandemic has affected cancer care in gynecological oncology amongst members of Association of Gynecological Oncologists of India (AGOI), a registered professional society, founded in 1991. Methods: We developed and administered a cross-sectional, flash survey to members of The Association of Gynecological Oncologists of India (AGOI) in the first week of April 2020. Data were analyzed using Microsoft Office Excel 2016. Results were expressed as percentages of total responses excluding blank or unattended response. Overall theme-specific responses were expressed as a spectrum of finding and related inferences were drawn. Results: Among approached practitioners, 90 responded to the survey, more than 80 % were practicing consultants and more than 50 % from academic institutions. Results of the survey showed that the ongoing pandemic had severely affected gynecological oncology practice and care amongst all responders. There were modifications in diagnostic pathways, interventions and follow ups across all organ sites. There was near unanimous opinion on use of general safety measures to combat the virus and to use complete PPEs in high risk situation. There was mixed responses to alternative educational activities especially using electronic technology and distant learning methods. There was an optimism among responders with regards to the current situation normalizing in 3 to 6 months. Conclusion: This study documents the pandemic affected scenario of gynecological cancer care and perceptions of Gynecological Oncologists in India. Significant effect on all aspects of cancer care were observed. Technological learning methods both for patient care and educational activities were being adopted by many responders.

Two new SARS-CoV-2 lineages with the N501Y mutation in the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein spread rapidly in the United Kingdom. We estimated that the earlier 501Y lineage without amino acid deletion Δ69/Δ70, circulating mainly between early September and mid-November, was 10% (6–13%) more transmissible than the 501N lineage, and the 501Y lineage with amino acid deletion Δ69/Δ70, circulating since late September, was 75% (70–80%) more transmissible than the 501N lineage.