Abstract
Background One hundred days after SARS-CoV-2 was first reported in Vietnam on January 23rd, 270 cases have been confirmed, with no deaths. We describe the control measures used by the Government and their relationship with imported and domestically-acquired case numbers, with the aim of identifying the measures associated with successful SARS-CoV-2 control.
Methods Clinical and demographic data on the first 270 SARS-CoV-2 infected cases and the timing and nature of Government control measures, including numbers of tests and quarantined individuals, were captured by Vietnam’s National Steering Committee for COVID-19 response. Apple and Google mobility data provided proxies for population movement. Serial intervals were calculated from 33 infector-infectee pairs and used to estimate the proportion of pre-symptomatic transmission events and time-varying reproduction numbers.
Findings After the first confirmed case on January 23rd, the Vietnamese Government initiated mass communications measures, case-contact tracing, mandatory 14-day quarantine, school and university closures, and progressive flight restrictions. A national lockdown was implemented between April 1st and 22nd. Around 200 000 people were quarantined and 266 122 RT-PCR tests conducted. Population mobility decreased progressively before lockdown. 60% (163/270) of cases were imported; 43% (89/208) of resolved infections remained asymptomatic for the duration of infection. 21 developed severe disease, with no deaths. The serial interval was 3.24 days, and 27.5% (95% confidence interval, 15.7%-40.0%) of transmissions occurred pre-symptomatically. Limited transmission amounted to a maximum reproduction number of 1.15 (95% confidence interval, 0.37-2.36). No community transmission has been detected since April 15th.
Interpretation Vietnam has controlled SARS-CoV-2 spread through the early introduction of mass communication, meticulous contact-tracing with strict quarantine, and international travel restrictions. The value of these interventions is supported by the high proportion of asymptomatic and imported cases, and evidence for substantial pre-symptomatic transmission.
Funding The Vietnam Ministry of Health and Wellcome Trust, UK.
Evidence before this study Vietnam was one of the first countries outside of China to detect imported and human-to-human transmitted SARS-CoV-2 within its borders. Yet, as of May 1st, a total of only 270 cases have been confirmed, no deaths have occurred, and no community transmission has been detected since April 15th despite intensive screening, tracing and testing. We did a PubMed database search to identify studies investigating COVID-19 response in Vietnam using the terms “Vietnam”, “COVID-19”, and “SARS-CoV-2”. All relevant articles were evaluated. Studies describe cases of COVID-19 and their management, aspects of the government response from newspapers and online government sources, but there are no previous reports using national data to describe and investigate the national epidemic and the impact of control measures cases over time.
Added value of this study We used data from the National Steering Committee for COVID-19 response to give a comprehensive account of the first 100 days of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Vietnam, including case numbers and their symptomatology, the estimated reproductive number by week, and their relation to the multiple control measures instituted by the Vietnam Government over time. We show two distinctive features of Vietnam’s response. First, the Government took rapid actions to restrict international flights, closed schools and universities, and instituted meticulous case-contact tracing and quarantining from late January, well before these measures were advised by WHO. Second, they placed mass communication, education, and the identification, serial testing, and 14-day quarantine of all direct contacts of cases, regardless of symptom development, at the heart of the response. The value of strict contact-tracing and quarantine is supported by the high proportion of asymptomatic cases (43%) and imported cases (60%), and evidence for substantial pre-symptomatic transmission.
Implications of all the available evidence Vietnam has had remarkable success in controlling the emergence of SARS-CoV-2. Our report provides a complete picture of the control of SARS-CoV-2 in Vietnam, with lessons for other Governments seeking to extend national SARS-CoV-2 control or prevent future epidemics. Our findings shows the importance of acting early, before the virus becomes established in the community, and before the case numbers overwhelm systems of case-contact tracing and mass quarantine. They also demonstrate the value of effective mass communication in rapidly educating the public in infection prevention measures and providing real-time information on the state of the epidemic.
Introduction
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in Wuhan city, Hubei Province, China, in late 20191. On January 30th, the WHO declared the outbreak a ‘Public Health Emergency of International Concern’, and on March 11th a global pandemic. By May 1st 2020, the virus had infected more than 3 million people and killed over 200 000. The numbers of cases and deaths continue to rise in many countries worldwide and the virus now represents the greatest acute infectious threat to humankind since the influenza pandemic of 1918.
SARS-CoV-2 is antigenically different from known human and zoonotic coronaviruses and there is no known pre-existing population immunity2. It is highly transmissible through respiratory secretions expelled from an infected person, with a basic reproduction number (R0) estimated between 2 and 3 in the absence of control measures3-6. Many infections are asymptomatic7, while others lead to symptoms of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) of varying severity5. Analyses of serial intervals suggest that contagiousness can occur both before and after the onset of symptoms as well as in those who never develop symptoms8. The subsequent exponential rise in infections has threatened to overwhelm even the world’s best developed health systems and cause major loss of life. Methods to control the virus and reduce the impact of COVID-19 have thus become a global priority.
The preparedness, timing, and nature of the response to SARS-CoV-2 have varied substantially between countries. Many affected countries have resorted to extreme social distancing measures through so-called ‘lockdowns’, where populations isolate themselves within their homes, reducing all but essential contact with others. As first observed in Hubei Province in China, and subsequently in other countries, these measures slow transmission and reduce disease incidence, but at significant social and economic cost9-11. However, ‘lockdowns’ represent a combination of potentially independent interventions (for example, closing schools and universities, suspending public transport, banning public gatherings, closing non-essential businesses), the effects of which in isolation are uncertain. Determining their relative contributions to SARS-CoV-2 control is critical to understanding how they might be safely and incrementally lifted, or partially reinstated. Such information may be acquired from studying the measures employed by countries that have so far controlled the virus.
Vietnam is a low-middle income country that shares borders with China, The Lao People’s Democratic Republic, and Cambodia. It is the 15th most populous country on earth, with 97.3 million people, and it was one of the first countries affected by SARS-CoV-2, recording its first case on January 23rd 2020. Yet, as of May 1st, 270 cases have been confirmed, with no deaths12. In this report we describe the first 100 days of SARS-CoV-2 control in Vietnam, including the timing and types of interventions and their impacts on imported and domestically-transmitted case numbers. Our aim was to identify the measures most closely associated with successful SARS-CoV-2 control.
Methods
Clinical, epidemiological and policy data were provided by Vietnam’s National Steering Committee for COVID-19 response. Data from 270 SARS-CoV-2-confirmed cases to May 1st 2020 included their age, gender, nationality, dates of symptom onset (if any), entry to the country and quarantine (if any), hospital admission and discharge, and the results of all RT-PCR tests. Imported cases were distinguished from those acquired domestically, with information on quarantine at or after entry to the country. Imported cases were denoted G0; and among domestically-acquired infections, those acquired directly from G0 cases were denoted as G1, others were denoted G2+.
Intervention data consisted of daily time-series of the numbers in quarantine and RT-PCR tests performed. Daily reports from the Ministry of Health and Vietnam’s National Steering Committee for COVID-19 response listed key milestones in national SARS-CoV-2 control measures. Apple mobility data13 and Google community mobility data14 provided proxies of population movements, with additional information provided in the Supplementary Appendix.
Serial intervals were calculated from infector-infectee pairs and fitted to a normal distribution by maximum likelihood8. The estimated distribution parameters (mean and standard deviation, together with their confidence intervals and variance-covariance matrix) were used to estimate the proportion of pre-symptomatic transmissions and three time-varying reproduction numbers15: between G0 and G1 (step 1), between G1 and G2+ (step 2), and between G0, G1, and G2+ combined (step 1 and 2 combined). Further details are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.
We used a logistic regression to investigate the link between the proportion of asymptomatic infections and age, gender, nationality (Vietnamese versus non-Vietnamese), and imported versus domestically-acquired infection. We used a gamma regression to investigate the link between the duration of hospitalisation and the same variables listed above, plus symptomatic versus asymptomatic. To correct for potential confounding effects between the explanatory variables, we used Type-II likelihood ratio tests16. All analyses were done with R 4.0.017 using the packages EpiEstim18 2.2-1 and fitdistrplus19 1.0-14. Further details of the analysis are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.
Results
Epidemic description and control measures
On January 10th, before the first case was confirmed in Vietnam, the Vietnam Government reinforced temperature and health status screening at border gates for passengers arriving from Wuhan, tracing and quarantining of suspected cases and their contacts, monitoring of suspected cases of respiratory infections in hospitals and the community, and initiated mass communication to the public on preventive measures (including hand washing, contact avoidance and mask wearing).
The epidemic timeline for Vietnam, including the numbers quarantined and hospitalised, tests performed, cases confirmed, population movements, and the timing and nature of major Government-led control measures are summarised in Figure 1. The control measures are also summarised in Table 1 and in greater detail in Table S1. To date, two waves of transmission have occurred: the first began on January 23rd and resulted in 16 cases (9 imported, 7 acquired in-country), and the second on March 6th, leading to 254 cases (154 imported, 100 acquired in-country).
The first confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection presented in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City during the lunar New Year holiday (23-29th January). Cases were travellers from Wuhan city or their contacts, and were identified by the public health laboratory network using improvised molecular diagnostics, including agnostic sequencing, prior to implementation of the WHO-approved assays20. Amongst the cases were the first confirmed human-to-human transmissions outside of China21.
Entry of airline passengers into Vietnam from Wuhan city and elsewhere in China was monitored and progressively limited (Table 1), and cases and their contacts were quarantined for 14 days in Government facilities to prevent onward transmission. Schools and universities remained closed after the lunar New Year holiday, with staggered re-opening from May 4th (closures lasted ~3 months). The National Steering Committee for COVID-19 response was established in late January, composed of 24 members from 23 ministries charged with coordinating the epidemic response. A hotline was set-up by the Ministry of Health on January 27th, a nationwide SMS push notification system was put in place through all mobile phone providers on February 3rd, and a mobile phone app for contact tracing and symptom reporting was launched on February 8th.
In early February, following the repatriation of a number of Vietnamese nationals from Wuhan city, a cluster of community transmitted infections was detected in two communes in Vinh Phuc province, bordering Hanoi, including a 3-month old infant22,23. On February 13th, these communes were quarantined for three weeks, with no additional cases detected in the country until March 6th and the start of the second wave of infections in Hanoi.
This second wave began on March 6th following diagnosis of the index case, who had arrived in Hanoi on March 2nd from London after visiting Italy and the UK. Following the identification of this case, all passengers and crew who had been on the flight from London with the index case were quarantined in Government facilities for 14 days, as were all individuals in direct contact with the index or any subsequent cases. The immediate neighbourhood of the index case was sealed off, with active surveillance conducted to detect any new cases. These surveillance measures revealed SARS-CoV-2 infection in 12 others on the flight and 2 close contacts of the infected traveller after entering Vietnam.
Further cases occurred in the following two weeks, mostly in foreign and returning Vietnamese travellers from Europe and the USA, including multiple acquisitions in a Ho Chi Minh City bar on March 14th (19 cases), a cluster among nursing (17 cases) and catering (28 cases) staff in a large Hanoi hospital, and a community cluster in Me Linh district (13 cases), in the north of Hanoi. Systematic layered testing and quarantine requirements were put in place for cases (F0) and their direct (F1) and indirect (F2-4) contacts. Cases were isolated in assigned hospitals until tested negative at least twice by RT-PCR. F1 and F2 contacts were quarantined for at least 14 days in dedicated facilities (health centres, hotels, military camps) with negative tests required before release. F3 and F4 contacts were asked to self-quarantine for 14 days. Until May 1st, around 70 000 have been quarantined in Government facilities and around 140,000 at home or in hotels. 266 122 RT-PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 tests were performed, with a ratio of around 1 positive person: 1 000 tests conducted.
After further measures to prevent entry of infected international travellers (Table 1), a nationwide lockdown was enforced on April 1st, including closure of all shops except gas stations, food stores, and pharmacies; suspension of public transport, including all taxis; and mandatory mask wearing in all public spaces. Mobility data show that population movement decreased substantially after the start of the second infection wave in early March, reaching a nadir in early April at the start of the lockdown (Figure 1). Movements increased slowly during the last week of the lockdown and more rapidly once the lockdown was partially lifted on April 23nd. On April 15th, the last case of wave two was identified; subsequent cases (n = 2) have been detected between April 15th and May 1st (time of writing) among international travellers quarantined on arrival.
Characteristics of the cases
Sixty percent (163/270) of cases were imported (Figure 2); 110 were quarantined and diagnosed on entry, whereas 53 entered prior to the implementation of systematic quarantine measures and were identified in the community. Vietnamese nationals represented 134/163 (82.2%) of the imported cases and 89/107 (83.2%) of those acquired in-country. The median age of imported and domestically-acquired cases was 27 years (interquartile range (IQR) 21-42) and 41 years (IQR 28-49), and 81/163 (50.0%) and 69/107 (64.5%) of these were female, respectively.
By May 1st, 208 patients were discharged and 62 remained hospitalised for treatment or isolation. Forty-three percent (89/208) of discharged cases never developed symptoms, and this was not significantly associated with age, gender, nationality, or origin of infection (imported or domestically-acquired). Symptoms developed after entry to the country in 73.9% (68/92) and in a Government quarantine facility in 33.9% (38/150) (Figure 3). The median age of symptomatic and asymptomatic cases was 30 (IQR 24-49) and 31 (IQR 23-45), respectively (Figure 3). Among the 150 with symptoms, 21 (14.0%) developed severe disease, of whom five required mechanical ventilation and two received extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation. No fatalities were recorded. The duration of hospitalisation was significantly shorter (p<0.0001) for asymptomatic (17 days, IQR 13-22) than for symptomatic cases (19 days, IQR 16-25). While gender, nationality, and origin of infection did not have any significant effect, the duration of hospitalisation of symptomatic cases increased with age (Figure 3).
Epidemiological parameters over time
From 33 infector-infectee pairs, the mean serial interval was estimated to be 3.24 days (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.38-5.10 days) with a standard deviation of the distribution of 5.46 days (95% CI, 4.14-6.78 days). An estimated 27.5% (95% CI, 15.7%-40-0%) of the distribution was below zero, suggesting these transmissions occurred prior to the onset of symptoms in the infector. From the (non-quarantined) imported cases (G0) and onward infected cases (G1 and G2+), we calculated the effective reproductive number R by date (Figure 1). Limited transmission amounted to a maximum R of 1.15 (95% CI, 0.37-2.36). R rarely exceeded 1 and a decrease of R is seen as more mitigating measures were implemented from the end of March before the nationwide lockdown. When analysing R from G0 to G1 (step 1) and from G1 to G2+ (step 2) separately, we found that R was drastically decreased for step 1 simultaneously with suspension of all international travel (March 18th), while for step 2 transmission continues with R slightly above 1 despite intense contact tracing and quarantine. Only during the nationwide lockdown R was reduced to less than 1 (Figure 1).
Discussion
On January 23rd 2020, Vietnam was one of the first countries to report SARS-CoV-2 infection and the first to report human-to-human transmission outside of China21. Yet 100 days later, it confirmed just 270 cases despite extensive testing, with no community transmission since April 15th. In the three weeks prior to May 1st, there were only two imported cases and no reported cases elsewhere in the country. The nature, timing, and success of the control measures introduced may have relevance to other countries seeking to control SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
Vietnam has experience in responding to emerging infectious diseases. In the last 20 years, it has confronted outbreaks of SARS24, avian and pandemic influenza25,26, hand-foot-and-mouth disease27, measles28, and dengue29. Its outbreak responses are coordinated by the Ministry of Health, a permanent national Public Health Emergency Operations Centre at the National Institute for Hygiene and Epidemiology, and through a network of provincial Centres for Disease Control and lower level preventive medicine centres30.
Two waves of SARS-CoV-2 infections have occurred over the last 100 days in Vietnam, with community transmission actively interrupted by rapid isolation and identification of primary and secondary cases and their contacts. To date, around 200 000 people have spent at least 14 days in quarantine. Amongst those quarantined, many were second degree contacts (F2); to our knowledge, no other country has implemented quarantine in this manner. 266 122 RT-PCR tests have been performed, primarily in those quarantined, giving the highest global ratio of tests conducted per positive person (~1000:1).
The majority of cases (60%) in Vietnam were imported among those arriving from COVID-19 affected countries; first from China and then from countries in Europe and the USA. Early introduction of airport screening, followed by quarantine of all arrivals and the eventual suspension of nearly all international flights prevented further introductions, allowing greater focus on the detection and prevention of domestic transmission. Consistent and pervasive Government communication of disease risk and prevention strategies from February 3rd may have contributed to declines in population movement prior to the nationwide lockdown, particularly in March, when all mobile phone users received 10 SMS push notifications from the Ministry of Health in addition to information provided through other media; these early reductions in population movement may have contributed to lowering the reproduction number. The majority of imported cases were less than 30 years old (many were university students returning from studies abroad), and most of those that acquired the infection domestically were under 40 years, which may explain the low numbers with severe disease and absence of deaths.
The high proportion of cases that developed symptoms after isolation (73.9%) or never developed symptoms (43%) highlights one of the major challenges of controlling SARS-CoV-2 and the strengths of Vietnam’s approach. Suspected cases were identified and quarantined based on their epidemiological risk of infection (recent contact with a confirmed case or travel to a COVID-19 affected country), rather than on exhibiting symptoms. Without the implementation of strong control measures and meticulous contact-tracing, it is likely such cases would have silently transmitted the virus and undermined other control efforts.
The strength of our report is that it provides a complete picture based on national data of case numbers, their clinical and demographic characteristics, and the testing performed and various interventions made by the Government over time. Further, the use of systematic quarantine measures allowed clear distinction between imported and domestically-acquired cases, thus allowing for estimation of the efficiency of various interventions. The limitations are that the data are descriptive, contain relatively small numbers of confirmed cases, and only include the first 100 days of an epidemic that is likely to continue for many months. It is therefore impossible to conclude definitively which of these control measures have resulted in the current control of SARS-CoV-2 in Vietnam and whether they will continue to work in the future.
There are, however, two distinctive features of Vietnam’s response. First, the Government acted quickly, educating and engaging the public, placing restrictions on international flights, closing schools and universities, and instituting exhaustive case-contact tracing from late January, well before these measures were advised by WHO. Second, they placed the identification, serial testing, and minimum 14-day isolation of all direct contacts of cases, regardless of symptom development, at the heart of the response. Our findings suggest the latter measure was likely to be especially effective given nearly half of those infected did not develop symptoms.
In summary, Vietnam has controlled SARS-CoV-2 spread by acting early, maintaining clear and consistent public communications, introducing meticulous contact-tracing and quarantine, and implementing progressive international travel restrictions. The value of these interventions in controlling the infection is supported by the high proportion of asymptomatic cases and imported cases, and evidence for substantial pre-symptomatic transmission.
Epilogue
At the time of submission (May 17th 2020), lockdown measures have been progressively lifted and schools, universities and non-essential shops have been re-opened. Karaoke bars and places for mass gatherings remain closed. An additional 42 cases have been confirmed on arrival among repatriated Vietnamese nationals, and they have subsequently been isolated. No community transmission has been detected and no deaths have been recorded among the 312 cases, 52 of whom remain hospitalised / in isolation.
Data Availability
Data available upon request
Contributors
PQT, MAR, GT, HRvD, and MC conceived and designed the study, and wrote the manuscript. DHL, DQT, TDQ, and PCD provided the data for this study. TAT, HLQ, NAHT, TMP, VC, NDN, and NCK prepared the data. PQT, MAR, and MC performed the analyses. LNQ, DDA, and TND provided expertise on the study. All authors revised and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Declaration of interests
All authors declare no competing interests.
OUCRU COVID-19 Research Group Members
Mary Chambers, Marc Choisy, Jeremy Day, Dong Huu Khanh Trinh, Dong Thi Hoai Tam, Joseph Donovan, Du Hong Duc, Ronald B Geskus, Ho Quang Chanh, Ho Van Hien, Huong Dang Thao, Huynh le Anh Huy, Huynh Ngan Ha, Huynh Trung Trieu, Huynh Xuan Yen, Evelyne Kestelyn, Thomas Kesteman, Lam Anh Nguyet, Lam Minh Yen, Katrina Lawson, Le Kim Thanh, Le Nguyen Truc Nhu, Le Thanh Hoang Nhat, Le Thi Hoang Lan, Le Van Tan, Sonia Odette Lewycka, Nguyen Bao Tran, Nguyen Minh Nguyet, Nguyen Than Ha Quyen, Nguyen Thanh Ngoc, Nguyen Thi Han Ny, Nguyen Thi Hong Thuong, Nguyen Thi Huyen Trang, Nguyen Thi Kim Tuyen, Nguyen Thi Ngoc Diep, Nguyen Thi Phuong Dung, Nguyen Thi Tam, Nguyen Thi Thu Hong, Nguyen Thu Trang, Nguyen Van Vinh Chau, Nguyen Xuan Truong, Ninh Thi Thanh Van, Phan Nguyen Quoc Khanh, Phung Khanh Lam, Phung Le Kim Yen, Phung Tran Huy Nhat, Maia Rabaa, Thuong Nguyen Thuy Thuong, Guy Thwaites, Louise Thwaites, Tran My Phuc, Tran Tan Thanh, Tran Thi Bich Ngoc, Tran Tinh Hien, H Rogier van Doorn, Jennifer Van Nuil, Vinh Chau, Vu Thi Ngoc Bich, Vu Thi Ty Hang, Sophie Yacoub.
1 Data
1.1 Apple Maps Mobility Trends Reports
These data have been made available (https://www.apple.com/covid19/mobility) temporarily only, for the specific purpose of helping fighting against COVID-191. Reports are published daily and reflect requests for directions in Apple Maps. This data is generated by counting the number of requests made to Apple Maps for directions, when moving by car or on foot. Data that is sent from users’ devices to the Maps service is associated with random, rotating identifiers so Apple doesn’t have a profile of the user’s movements and searches. The data show a relative volume of directions requests in Vietnam compared to a baseline volume on January 13th, 2020. Day are defined midnight-to-midnight, UTC-8. Relative volume varies from week to week, consistent with normal, seasonal usage of Apple Maps (e.g. the lunar New Year holiday). Day of week effects (week-end versus week days) are thus important to normalize when reading these data. Data that is sent from users’ devices to the Maps service is associated with random, rotating identifiers so Apple doesn’t have a profile of individual movements and searches. Apple Maps has no demographic information about our users, so we can’t make any statements about the representativeness of usage against the overall population.
1.2 Google Community Mobility Reports
These data have been made available (https://www.google.com/covid19/mobility) temporarily only, for the specific purpose of helping fighting against COVID-192. These reports aim to provide insights into what has changed in response to policies aimed at combating COVID-19. The reports chart movement trends over time, across different categories of places such as retail and recreation (restaurants, cafes, shopping centers, theme parks, museums, libraries, and movie theaters), groceries and pharmacies (grocery markets, food warehouses, farmers markets, specialty food shops, drug stores, and pharmacies), parks (local parks, national parks, public beaches, marinas, dog parks, plazas, and public gardens), transit stations (public transport hubs such as subway, bus, and train stations), workplaces, and residential. No personally identifiable information, such as an individual’s location, contacts or movement, is made available at any point. Insights in these reports are created with aggregated, anonymized sets of data from users who have turned on the Location History setting, which is off by default. Artificial noise is also added in order to prevent the identification of any individual person. The baseline is the median value, for the corresponding day of the week, during the 5-week period Jan 3rd - Feb 6th, 2020.
2 Methods
2.1 Serial intervals
A normal distribution was fitting by maximum likelihood to the values of serial intervals. The parameters (mean and standard deviation) estimates and their variance-covariance matrix were fed into a multinormal distribution in order to generate 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations of the serial interval distribution. We used these 10 000 simulated distributions to generate (i) the 95% confidence interval of the distribution of the serial intervals and (ii) the estimate, and its 95% confidence interval, of the proportion of distribution of the serial intervals that is below zero.
2.2 R packages used in the analysis
All analyses were performe in R 4.0.03 with the following packages:
fitdistrplus v. 1.0-144 for fitting the normal distribution to serial intervals.
mvtnorm v. 1.1-05 for the multinormal distribution used in the Monte Carlo simulations.
car v. 3.0-76 for the Type-II analyses of deviance in order to correct for potential confounding effects.
incidence v. 1.7.17 to generate weekly incidence data from line listing. These weekly incidence data are then used to estimate weekly reproduction numbers.
EpiEstim v. 2.2-18 to estimate the reproduction numbers by week.
3. Results
An extended version of Table 1 is shown in Table S1.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the Ministry of Health of Vietnam and the National Steering Committee for COVID-19 response for making data available for this study, and Dr. Bui Vu Duy, the director of the Rapid Response Information Team of the National Steering Committee for COVID-19 Response, for his support. MR, GT, HRvD and MC and the OUCRU COVID-19 research group are supported by the Wellcome Trust.