Enhanced contact investigations for nine early travel-related cases of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States

Burke, Rachel M; Balter, Sharon; Barnes, Emily; Barry, Vaughn; Bartlett, Karri; Beer, Karlyn D.; Benowitz, Isaac; Biggs, Holly M.; Bruce, Hollianne; Bryant-Genevier, Jonathan; Cates, Jordan; Chatham‐Stephens, Kevin; Chea, Nora; Chiou, Howard; Christiansen, Demian; Chu, Victoria; Clark, Shauna; Cody, Sara H.; Cohen, M. S.; Conners, Erin E.; Dasari, Vishal; Dawson, Patrick; DeSalvo, Traci; Donahue, Matthew; Dratch, Alissa; Duca, Lindsey M.; Duchin, Jeffrey S.; Dyal, Jonathan; Feldstein, Leora R.; Fenstersheib, Marty; Fischer, Marc; Fisher, Rebecca; Foo, Chelsea; Freeman-Ponder, Brandi; Fry, Alicia M.; Gant, Jessica; Gautom, Romesh; Ghinai, Isaac; Gounder, Prabhu; Grigg, Cheri; Gunzenhauser, Jeffrey D.; Hall, Aron J.; Han, George; Haupt, Thomas; Holshue, Michelle; Hunter, Jennifer C.; Ibrahim, Mireille B.; Jacobs, Max W.; Jarashow, M. Claire; Joshi, Kiran; Kamali, Talar; Kawakami, Vance; Kim, Moon J.; Kirking, Hannah L.; Kita-Yarbro, Amanda; Klos, Rachel; Kobayashi, Miwako; Kocharian, Anna; Lang, Misty; Layden, Jennifer E.; Leidman, Eva; Lindquist, Scott; Lindstrom, Stephen; Link‐Gelles, Ruth; Marlow, Mariel; Mattison, Claire P.; McClung, Nancy; McPherson, Tristan D; Mello, Lynn; Midgley, Claire M; Novosad, Shannon; Patel, Megan T.; Pettrone, Kristen; Pillai, Satish K.; Pray, Ian W.; Reese, Heather; Rhodes, Heather; Robinson, Susan; Rolfes, Melissa A.; Routh, Janell; Rubin, Rachel; Rudman, Sarah L.; Russell, Denny; Scott, Sarah E.; Shetty, Varun; Smith-Jeffcoat, Sarah E.; Soda, Elizabeth; Spitters, Christopher; Stierman, Bryan; Sunenshine, Rebecca; Terashita, Dawn; Traub, Elizabeth; Vahey, Grace M.; Verani, Jennifer R.; Wallace, Megan; Westercamp, Matthew; Wortham, Jonathan M.; Xie, Amy; Yousaf, Anna R; Zahn, Matthew

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0238342

Cited by 25 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The spatial decay of the transmission function is such that

becomes negligible past a few meters, except for the worst-case model describing uncovered sneezes ( Bourouiba et al, 2014 ). The typical time for infection in the event of a close (

) face-to-face contact lies between 5 min (an extremely pessimistic estimate) and 30 min (except for sneezes), consistently with the epidemiological literature on SARS-CoV-2, outbreak reports and exposure case studies ( SAGE (UK), 2020 , European CDC, 2020 , France, 2020 , Burke et al, 2020a , Heinzerling et al, 2020 , Chu et al, 2020 , Yang et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 73%

“…The resulting models are representative of a disease that may be transmitted to multiple individuals within an hour in unfavorable cases ( Shen et al, 2020 , Li et al, 2020c ), but generally requires close and prolonged contacts for transmission: Even in households, reported attack rates lie in the range 5%-30% ( Bar-On et al, 2020 ), often around 15% ( Park et al, 2020a , Park et al, 2020b , Burke et al, 2020b ); moreover, casual episodic contacts at work or in the community, even face to face, do not necessarily trigger an outbreak ( Park et al, 2020a , Burke et al, 2020a ). More quantitatively, the spatial decay described by the fairly optimistic models agrees well with the decay of the concentration of droplets emitted by a coughing subject ( Li et al, 2020b ) (see Fig.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Model-based assessment of the risks of viral transmission in non-confined crowds

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work assesses the risks of Covid-19 spread in diverse daily-life situations involving crowds of maskless pedestrians, mostly outdoors. More concretely, we develop a method to infer the global number of new infections from patchy observations, by coupling ad hoc spatial models for disease transmission via respiratory droplets to detailed field-data about pedestrian trajectories and head orientations. This allows us to rank the investigated situations by the infection risks that they present; importantly, the obtained hierarchy of risks is very largely conserved across transmission models: Street cafés present the largest average rate of new infections caused by an attendant, followed by busy outdoor markets, and then metro and train stations, whereas the risks incurred while walking on fairly busy streets are comparatively quite low. While our models only approximate the actual transmission risks, their converging predictions lend credence to these findings. In situations with a moving crowd, density is the main factor influencing the estimated infection rate. Finally, our study explores the efficiency of street and venue redesigns in mitigating the viral spread: While the benefits of enforcing one-way foot traffic in (wide) walkways are unclear, changing the geometry of queues substantially affects disease transmission risks.

show abstract

“…The spatial decay of the transmission function is such that

becomes negligible past a few meters, except for the worst-case model describing uncovered sneezes ( Bourouiba et al, 2014 ). The typical time for infection in the event of a close (

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model-based assessment of the risks of viral transmission in non-confined crowds

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two studies report on a total of three outbreaks related to religious gatherings or churches [ 65 , 68 ]. One study investigated evidence for transmission in a clinic waiting room [ 67 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study investigating transmission in clinic waiting rooms followed up 95 people who spent time in clinic waiting rooms with affected individuals in USA. No cases were detected [ 67 ]. The quality of this observational evidence on transmission in social/community settings was very poor and there was considerable heterogeneity of contexts and variability in the results.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Which factors influence the extent of indoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2? A rapid evidence review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This rapid evidence review identifies and integrates evidence from epidemiology, microbiology and fluid dynamics on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in indoor environments. Methods Searches were conducted in May 2020 in PubMed, medRxiv, arXiv, Scopus, WHO COVID-19 database, Compendex & Inspec. We included studies reporting data on any indoor setting except schools, any indoor activities and any potential means of transmission. Articles were screened by a single reviewer, with rejections assessed by a second reviewer. We used Joanna Briggs Institute and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tools for evaluating epidemiological studies and developed bespoke tools for the evaluation of study types not covered by these instruments. Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted by a single reviewer. We conducted a meta-analysis of secondary attack rates in household transmission. Otherwise, data were synthesised narratively. Results We identified 1573 unique articles. After screening and quality assessment, fifty-eight articles were retained for analysis. Experimental evidence from fluid mechanics and microbiological studies demonstrates that aerosolised transmission is theoretically possible; however, we found no conclusive epidemiological evidence of this occurring. The evidence suggests that ventilation systems have the potential to decrease virus transmission near the source through dilution but to increase transmission further away from the source through dispersal. We found no evidence for faecal-oral transmission. Laboratory studies suggest that the virus survives for longer on smooth surfaces and at lower temperatures. Environmental sampling studies have recovered small amounts of viral RNA from a wide range of frequently touched objects and surfaces; however, epidemiological studies are inconclusive on the extent of fomite transmission. We found many examples of transmission in settings characterised by close and prolonged indoor contact. We estimate a pooled secondary attack rate within households of 11% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 9, 13). There were insufficient data to evaluate the transmission risks associated with specific activities. Workplace challenges related to poverty warrant further investigation as potential risk factors for workplace transmission. Fluid mechanics evidence on the physical properties of droplets generated by coughing, speaking and breathing reinforce the importance of maintaining 2 m social distance to reduce droplet transmission. Conclusions This review provides a snap-shot of evidence on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in indoor environments from the early months of the pandemic. The overall quality of the evidence was low. As the quality and quantity of available evidence grows, it will be possible to reach firmer conclusions on the risk factors for and mechanisms of indoor transmission.

show abstract

“…In healthcare contexts "close contact" is often defined to be within six feet for several minutes with at least one of the parties not wearing a mask(Baker, et al 2020, Heinzerling, et al 2020 Burke et al (2020). have a healthcare sample of close contacts with a mix of PPE dispositions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Backward Art of Slowing the Spread? Congregation Efficiencies during COVID-19

Mulligan¹

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

provided time series data on infections among healthcare workers. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.

show abstract

Enhanced contact investigations for nine early travel-related cases of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States

Abstract: , et al. (2020) Enhanced contact investigations for nine early travel-related cases of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States. PLoS ONE 15(9): e0238342.

Cited by 25 publications

References 31 publications

Model-based assessment of the risks of viral transmission in non-confined crowds

Model-based assessment of the risks of viral transmission in non-confined crowds

Which factors influence the extent of indoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2? A rapid evidence review

The Backward Art of Slowing the Spread? Congregation Efficiencies during COVID-19

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About