Responding to an outbreak of a novel coronavirus [agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)] in December 2019, China banned travel to and from Wuhan city on 23 January 2020 and implemented a national emergency response. We investigated the spread and control of COVID-19 using a data set that included case reports, human movement, and public health interventions. The Wuhan shutdown was associated with the delayed arrival of COVID-19 in other cities by 2.91 days. Cities that implemented control measures preemptively reported fewer cases on average (13.0) in the first week of their outbreaks compared with cities that started control later (20.6). Suspending intracity public transport, closing entertainment venues, and banning public gatherings were associated with reductions in case incidence. The national emergency response appears to have delayed the growth and limited the size of the COVID-19 epidemic in China, averting hundreds of thousands of cases by 19 February (day 50).

No abstract

Background A novel coronavirus of zoonotic origin (2019-nCoV) has recently been identified in patients with acute respiratory disease. This virus is genetically similar to SARS coronavirus and bat SARS-like coronaviruses. The outbreak was initially detected in Wuhan, a major city of China, but has subsequently been detected in other provinces of China. Travel-associated cases have also been reported in a few other countries. Outbreaks in health care workers indicate human-to-human transmission. Molecular tests for rapid detection of this virus are urgently needed for early identification of infected patients. Methods We developed two 1-step quantitative real-time reverse-transcription PCR assays to detect two different regions (ORF1b and N) of the viral genome. The primer and probe sets were designed to react with this novel coronavirus and its closely related viruses, such as SARS coronavirus. These assays were evaluated using a panel of positive and negative controls. In addition, respiratory specimens from two 2019-nCoV-infected patients were tested. Results Using RNA extracted from cells infected by SARS coronavirus as a positive control, these assays were shown to have a dynamic range of at least seven orders of magnitude (2x10−4-2000 TCID50/reaction). Using DNA plasmids as positive standards, the detection limits of these assays were found to be below 10 copies per reaction. All negative control samples were negative in the assays. Samples from two 2019-nCoV-infected patients were positive in the tests. Conclusions The established assays can achieve a rapid detection of 2019n-CoV in human samples, thereby allowing early identification of patients.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks.Setting14 secondary-level/tertiary-level hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam.Participants1607 hospital HCWs aged ≥18 years working full-time in selected high-risk wards.InterventionHospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks.Main outcome measureClinical respiratory illness (CRI), influenza-like illness (ILI) and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection.ResultsThe rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.ConclusionsThis study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.Trial registration numberAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12610000887077.

IntroductionTransmission of COVID-19 within families and close contacts accounts for the majority of epidemic growth. Community mask wearing, hand washing and social distancing are thought to be effective but there is little evidence to inform or support community members on COVID-19 risk reduction within families.MethodsA retrospective cohort study of 335 people in 124 families and with at least one laboratory confirmed COVID-19 case was conducted from 28 February to 27 March 2020, in Beijing, China. The outcome of interest was secondary transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within the family. Characteristics and practices of primary cases, of well family contacts and household hygiene practices were analysed as predictors of secondary transmission.ResultsThe secondary attack rate in families was 23.0% (77/335). Face mask use by the primary case and family contacts before the primary case developed symptoms was 79% effective in reducing transmission (OR=0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.79). Daily use of chlorine or ethanol based disinfectant in households was 77% effective (OR=0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.84). Wearing a mask after illness onset of the primary case was not significantly protective. The risk of household transmission was 18 times higher with frequent daily close contact with the primary case (OR=18.26, 95% CI 3.93 to 84.79), and four times higher if the primary case had diarrhoea (OR=4.10, 95% CI 1.08 to 15.60). Household crowding was not significant.ConclusionThe study confirms the highest risk of transmission prior to symptom onset, and provides the first evidence of the effectiveness of mask use, disinfection and social distancing in preventing COVID-19. We also found evidence of faecal transmission. This can inform guidelines for community prevention in settings of intense COVID-19 epidemics.