Tracking COVID-19 in England and Wales: Insights from Virus Watch - a prospective community cohort study
Fong, W. L. E.; Nguyen, V. G.; Beale, S.; Byrne, T. E.; Geismar, C.; Fragaszy, E.; Kovar, J.; Navaratnam, A. M. D.; Yavlinsky, A.; Abubakar, I.; Hayward, A. C.; Aldridge, R. W.
Show abstract
BackgroundVirus Watch is a prospective community cohort study of COVID-19 of 28{square},527 households in England and Wales designed to estimate the incidence of PCR-confirmed COVID-19 in those with respiratory presentations and examine symptom profiles and transmission of COVID-19 in relation to population movement and behaviour. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) COVID-19 infection survey (CIS) was the largest regular survey of COVID-19 infections and antibodies in the UK and included 227,797 households. In this analysis, we aimed to compare incidence rate estimates from the two studies to understand differences in estimates from the two study designs. MethodsWe used the Virus Watch prospective community cohort study to estimate the overall SARS-CoV-2 incidence rate and incidence rate by age in England and Wales from June 2020 to February 2023. Virus Watch data consisted of self-reported laboratory COVID-19 test results and linkage to the Second Generation Surveillance System, the UK national database for COVID-19 testing. We compared our findings with modelled incidence rates from ONS CIS using 3-day rolling Pearsons correlation to measure synchrony. Results58,628 participants were recruited into the Virus Watch study between June 2020 and March 2022, of whom 52,526 (90%) were reported to be living in England and 1,532 (2.6%) in Wales. COVID-19 incidence rates were initially similar across age groups until the Delta wave when rates increased at different magnitudes. During the Omicron BA.1, the 0-14 age group had the highest incidence rates, which shifted to the 25-44 age group with Omicron BA.2, 4, and 5 dominance. We found strong synchrony between Virus Watch and ONS CIS COVID-19 incidence estimates for England and Wales, both with and without the incorporation of linked national testing data into the Virus Watch study. In particular, the magnitude and trend of Virus Watch- and ONS-estimated rates for England were generally consistent, although Virus Watch-estimated peaks of infection during the Omicron BA.1 and 2 waves were found to be lower than estimates from the ONS. ConclusionOur findings suggest that the Virus Watch research approach is a low-cost and effective method for on-going surveillance of COVID-19 regardless of the availability of national testing in the UK. Similar approaches can also be utilised by low-resource settings to provide accurate incidence rate estimates to better monitor and respond to COVID-19 as well as other acute respiratory diseases in the future.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Risk factors, symptom reporting, healthcare-seeking behaviour and adherence to public health guidance: protocol for Virus Watch, a prospective community cohort study 96%
- First and second SARS-CoV-2 waves in inner London: A comparison of admission characteristics and the impact of the B.1.1.7 variant 94%
- The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gastrointestinal infection trends in England, February – July 2020 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Limits of lockdown: characterising essential contacts during strict physical distancing 94%
- Impact of baseline cases of cough and fever on UK COVID-19 diagnostic testing rates: estimates from the Bug Watch community cohort study 93%
- Rates of serious clinical outcomes in survivors of hospitalisation with COVID-19: a descriptive cohort study within the OpenSAFELY platform 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Protective effect of a first SARS-CoV-2 infection from reinfection: a matched retrospective cohort study using PCR testing data in England 95%
- The spatio-temporal distribution of COVID-19 infection in England between January and June 2020 94%
- Public health interventions successfully mitigated multiple incursions of SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in the Australian Capital Territory 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Breakpoint modelling of temporal associations between non-pharmaceutical interventions and the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 in the Republic of Ireland 94%
- COVID-19 pandemic in Saint Petersburg, Russia: combining surveillance and population-based serological study data in May, 2020–April, 2021 93%
- The COVID HOME study research protocol: Prospective cohort study of non-hospitalised COVID-19 patients 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Recording of 'COVID-19 vaccine declined' among vaccination priority groups: a cohort study on 57.9 million NHS patients' primary care records in situ using OpenSAFELY 93%
- Contact behaviour before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands: evidence from contact surveys in 2016-2017 and 2020-2023 92%
- Extending influenza surveillance to detect non-influenza respiratory viruses of public health relevance: analysis of surveillance data, 2015-2019, Belgium 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.