RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 The impact of early public health interventions on SARS-CoV-2 transmission and evolution
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.11.18.20233767
DO 10.1101/2020.11.18.20233767
A1 Duchene, Sebastian
A1 Featherstone, Leo
A1 de Blasio, Birgitte Freiesleben
A1 Holmes, Edward C.
A1 Bohlin, Jon
A1 Pettersson, John H.-O.
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/06/2020.11.18.20233767.abstract
AB Background Many countries have attempted to mitigate and control COVID-19 through the implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions, particularly with the aim of reducing population movement and contact. However, it remains unclear how the different control strategies impacted the local phylodynamics of the causative SARS-CoV-2 virus.Aim To assess the duration of chains of virus transmission within individual countries and the extent to which countries export viruses to their geographic neighbours.Methods To address core questions in genomic epidemiology and public health we analysed complete SARS-CoV-2 genomes to infer the relative frequencies of virus importation and exportation, as well as virus transmission dynamics, within countries of northern Europe. To this end, we examined virus evolution and phylodynamics in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden during the first year of the pandemic.Results The Nordic countries differed markedly in the invasiveness of control strategies implemented. In particular, Sweden did not initially employ any strict population movement limitations and experienced markedly different transmission chain dynamics, which were more numerous and tended to have more cases, a set of features that increased with time during the first eight months of 2020.Conclusion Together with Denmark, Sweden was also characterised as a net exporter of SARS-CoV-2. Hence, Sweden effectively constituted an epidemiological and evolutionary ‘refugia’ that enabled the virus to maintain active transmission and spread to other geographic localities. In sum, our analysis reveals the utility of genomic surveillance where active transmission chain monitoring is a key metric.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementJHOP is funded by the Swedish research council FORMAS (grant no: 2015-710) and VR (grant no: 2020-02593). ECH is funded by an ARC Australian Laureate Fellowship (FL170100022). SD and LF are funded by an ARC Discovery Early Career Award awarded to SD (DE190100805).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Only open access sequence data via the GISAID platform had been used in this study.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAccession numbers to the sequence data used in the study (full data available at the GISAID platform) are available in supplementary table 2.