Living Evidence - COVID-19 transmission
Living evidence tables provide high level summaries of key studies and evidence on a particular topic, and links to sources. They are reviewed regularly and updated as new evidence and information is published.
The flowchart depicts factors that influence the transmission of and immunological response to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
It starts with a question: are effective physical barriers in place? If yes, there is no infection. If no, and there is exposure to SARS-CoV-2, a range of factors affect risk of infection and developing disease. What is the viral dose or time that a person is exposed to virus? What is the mode of transmission – is it through contact, droplets, aerosols or fomites?
A key question is whether there is effective innate immunity or circulating antibodies? If the answer to that question is yes, then there is no infection. If the answer is no, the virus is able to bind to host cells via the ACE2 receptor and enter.
The next question is whether there is an effective cell mediated immune response – do host cytotoxic T-cells and natural killer cells act to remove the infected cells? If yes, then the infection was only transient with no symptoms and the host would not have been infective? If no, then the virus replicates in the host cells and the host becomes infective – able to spread the virus. The extent of spread is shaped by the viral load, shedding, symptoms, and the secondary attack rate. Viral load also affects disease severity in the host.
The next question is whether the host recovers – mounting an effective humoral response with antibody production. If yes, then the host will be immune to the infecting strain, but may be affected by post-acute COVID-19 syndrome. If no, then the host dies.
Transmission concepts and current knowledge
|Topic||Definition||Current understanding for SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19|
Mode of transmission
The route or method of transfer by which infectious microorganisms (viruses, bacteria, parasites, etc) move or are carried from one place to another to reach a new host.
A preprint study report that airborne infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 decreases over the first 20 minutes following aerosolisation to the 10% of the initial value, with the majority of SARS-CoV-2 inactivated within 10 minutes.
No evidence of definite ocular transmission.
(See also secondary attack rate)
Patterns of disease spread associated with a particular context or situation
Studies usually compare secondary attack rates in different settings.
Information relating to transmissibility of specific variants of concern compared with wild type is provided in the Living Evidence table - SARS-CoV-2 variants.
The World Health Organization states that based on current limited evidence, Omicron variant appears to have a growth advantage over Delta variant. It is uncertain whether this is related to immune invasion, intrinsic increased transmissibility or a combination.
A systematic review showed households have the highest transmission rates, with a pooled secondary attack rate of 21.1%. It was significantly higher where the duration of household exposure exceeded 5 days.
Estimates of secondary attack rate for asymptomatic index cases were approximately a seventh, and for pre-symptomatic two thirds of those for symptomatic index cases. The review found some evidence for reduced transmission potential both from and to individuals under 20 years of age in the household context, which is more limited when examining all settings.
Outdoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2 low compared to indoor settings.
Minimal infectious dose (MID)
Smallest amount of a pathogen that is required to establish an infection
There is limited evidence that the minimum infective dose of COVID-19 in humans, is higher than 100 particles (no direct experimental data in humans).
Approval for a ‘challenge trial’, which will infect healthy volunteers in the UK was announced 17 February 2021.*
The relationship between the infecting dose (the quantity of viable virus) and disease severity
Some observations support a dose response, but this is not established.
Observational studies of three clusters of individuals exposed to diverse inoculum, developed divergent clinical forms of disease. In clusters where physical distancing and wearing masks were not followed, a larger proportion of individuals developed severe disease.
The amount of measurable virus inside an individual (often measured in a standard volume of plasma, or blood)
A systematic review reported viral load (RNA) in upper respiratory tract samples peaks around symptom onset or a few days thereafter, and becomes undetectable about two weeks after symptom onset. There is evidence of prolonged virus detection in stool samples, with unclear clinical significance.
Multiple studies found a positive association with viral load and age. An analysis of 25,381 SARS-CoV-2 positive cases found children and adolescents had lower first-positive viral load than adults aged 20-65, and that time from onset of shedding to peak viral load (8.1 log10) and cell culture isolation probability (0.75) is 4.3 days.
An analysis of 728 SARS-Cov-2 positive children found symptomatic children and younger children (under that age of 5) had a higher viral load than asymptomatic children.
A longitudinal study found higher nasal receptor binding domain and spike protein-specific antibody levels were associated with lower viral load.
An analysis of viral load emitted by COVID-19 patients found that fine aerosols (≤5μm) generated during talking and singing contain more viral load than coarse aerosols (>5μm) and talking and singing emit significantly more detectable RNA in fine aerosols than breathing,^
Viral load and severity
Mixed evidence - some studies found viral load to be similar in asymptomatic and symptomatic cases. Other studies suggest an association between viral load and severity / mortality. In one study, multivariable analysis found viral load on admission was not independently associated with ICU admission or death.
A study using nasopharyngeal swabs showed for each additional unit of viral RNA detected (log10 per mL), there was a 7% increase in the risk of mortality.
Viral load and infectivity
At least five studies have described the correlation between decreased viral loads and reduced infectivity.
Modelling studies suggest the threshold viral load for a 50% probability of transmission is approximately 10 7.5 viral RNA copies/mL and that infected persons are likely to be above this threshold for only about 1 day.
A subset (8.78%) of 25,381 SARS-CoV-2 positive cases were highly infectious with viral loads of at least 9.0 log10 RNA copies per swab, compared to an average of 6.39 log10 for all cases.
A study in Switzerland found cluster size is positively associated with the presence of individuals with a high viral load in significant clusters (that had a higher relative risk of infection within the cluster than compared to regions outside the cluster).
Viral load and vaccines
Single dose of Comirnaty (Pfizer) vaccine was associated with a significantly lower nasopharyngeal viral load (-2.4 mean log10) than without vaccine (p=0.004) in nursing home residents.
Viral load was substantially reduced for infections occurring 12–37 days after the first dose of the Comirnaty (Pfizer) vaccine.
Studies found that if infected with the delta variant, fully vaccinated people (breakthrough infections) have a similar peak viral load but a faster viral clearance compared to unvaccinated people. The effect of Comirnaty (Pfizer) vaccine on reducing breakthrough infection viral loads was found to be restored after a booster dose.
The expulsion and release of viable virus progeny following successful reproduction during a host-cell infection. It can refer to viral release from one infected cell; from one part of the body to another; and from an infected host into the environment.
During COVID-19, shedding has also been used to refer to the release of non-viable viral genetic material or particles into the environment
A systematic review, published in January 2021 reported mean SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding duration was 17·0 days (maximum shedding duration 83 days) in upper respiratory tract, 14·6 days (maximum 59 days) in lower respiratory tract, 17·2 days (maximum 126 days) in stool, and 16·6 days (maximum 60 days) in serum samples. Pooled mean SARS-CoV-2 shedding duration was positively associated with age. A systematic review published in March 2021 reported similar findings.
The likelihood of detecting replication-competent virus after 10 days following symptom onset is very low in COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate disease. For people with severe disease, the majority do not shed infectious virus beyond 10 days (88%, 95% after 15 days). Several case studies report prolonged infectious viral shedding in immunocompromised patients, ranging from 70 days to four months post symptom onset.
Data are mixed about the dynamics of viral shedding in those with persistently asymptomatic infection. One study which analysed serial nasopharyngeal samples of people in quarantine showed asymptomatic cases had faster viral clearance than symptomatic cases while another found asymptomatic cases had longer duration of shedding. Studies use PCR, rather than culturing methods so may be overstating shedding of live virus.
The time between exposure to the virus and symptom onset,
The median incubation period for COVID-19 is 4.9 – 7 days, with a range of 1 – 14 days. Most people who are infected will develop symptoms within 14 days of infection. A systematic review reported that the weighted pooled mean incubation period is 6.5 (95% CI: 5.9, 7.1).
Refers to the period before symptoms appear among infected individuals
Multiple studies have shown that people infect others before becoming ill. However, estimates of the proportion of secondary cases acquired from presymptomatic persons vary:
Without signs or symptoms of disease
How many COVID-19 cases are asymptomatic?
The extent of truly asymptomatic infection in the community remains unknown.
One systematic review estimated that the proportion of truly asymptomatic cases ranges from 4% to 41%, with a pooled estimate of 17% (14%–20%).
A second systematic review concluded that at least one third of infections are asymptomatic. Of 14 studies with longitudinal data, nearly three quarters of positive cases who had no symptoms at the time of testing remained asymptomatic. The highest-quality evidence comes from nationwide, representative serosurveys of England (n= 365 104) and Spain (n= 61 075), which suggest that at least one third of SARS-CoV-2 infections are asymptomatic.
A third systematic review and meta-analysis which analysed 350 papers found that 36.9% of COVID-19 infections were truly asymptomatic. The percentage of asymptomatic infections decreased with the increase of age.
A systematic review and meta-analysis estimated the proportion of children considered asymptomatic or in a severe or critical state. It found the proportion of asymptomatic infection in children was 21.1%.
A systematic review and meta-analysis including 29,776,306 individuals undergoing testing found that the pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections was 0.25% among the tested population and 40.50% among the population with confirmed COVID-19.
A report by National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS), Australia found that during Delta variant outbreak in NSW, 98% children infected had asymptomatic or mild infection.
Are asymptomatic cases infectious?
Transmission can occur from persistently asymptomatic persons, although they seem to be less likely to transmit. The secondary attack rate of symptomatic index cases was higher than asymptomatic cases (RR: 3.23; 95% CI: 1.46, 7.14).
Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 patients have short-lived antibody responses (around 69 days), much shorter than that of recovered (211 days) or persistent (257 days) COVID-19 patients. The rates of non-responders (seronegative) were higher among asymptomatic infections than symptomatic infections.
A study of 69 children and adolescents with asymptomatic or mild symptomatic infection found robust antibody response at the time acute infection, and 2 and 4 months after the acute infection.
|Reinfection||A person was infected once, recovered, and then later became infected again.|
A systematic review and meta-analysis estimate that re-infection, recurrence and hospital readmission among recovered COVID-19 patients was 3 ,133 and 75 per 1000 patients, respectively.
In a national cohort study from Qatar involving 353,326 COVID-19-positive individuals without a vaccination record, reinfections had 90% lower odds of resulting in hospitalization or death than primary infections.
The capacity to spread disease by transmitting a pathogen to others.
Persons who have SARS-CoV-2 with or without symptoms can transmit.
Transmission can occur from persistently asymptomatic persons, although they are less likely to transmit (due to lower viral load, and the absence of expectoration/ coughing, etc). One study found that for both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, viral titers normally peak within 3 days of the first positive test.
Among symptomatic patients, a report of 3410 close contacts of 391 index case patients in China found that the secondary attack rate increased with the severity of the index case and that the specific symptoms of fever and expectoration were associated with a higher risk of secondary infections. In another study from China, transmission potential was greatest in the first 2 days before and 3 days after onset of symptoms in the index patient.
A study which analysed 77 infector-infectee pairs (and assumed an incubation period of 5.2 days) inferred that transmissibility peaks around 2 days before and 1 day after symptom onset. The same study found that infectiousness declined rapidly within a week of symptom onset.
The period of infectiousness is much shorter than the duration of detectable RNA particle shedding.
The pattern and rate of spread from infectious to susceptible hosts.
The virus has heterogeneous transmission dynamics.
Most persons do not transmit virus, whereas some cause many secondary cases in transmission clusters called “superspreading events.”
A systematic review on setting specific transmission rates estimated secondary attack rates for asymptomatic index cases were approximately a seventh, and for pre-symptomatic two thirds of those for symptomatic index cases.
Vaccination and transmission
An analysis of data from 194,362 household members of 144,525 healthcare workers in Scotland found that vaccination of healthcare workers is associated with a decrease in documented cases of COVID-19 among members of their households (hazard ratio: 0.7)
Household transmission was approximately 40 to 50% lower in households of index patients who had been vaccinated 21 days or more before testing positive.
Vaccination reduces the risk of Delta variant infection, however, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough cases can still transmit the virus to fully vaccinated contacts.
A review study found that there is emerging evidence of moderate transmission prevention provided by Comirnaty (Pfizer) and Vaxzevria (Oxford/AstraZeneca) vaccines. Data for other vaccines are scant.
Secondary attack rate
A measure of the frequency of new cases among the contacts of known patients
A meta-analysis of 54 studies with 77 758 participants, the estimated overall household secondary attack rate was 16.6%. Secondary attack rates were higher in households from symptomatic index cases than asymptomatic index cases, to adult contacts than to child contacts, to spouses than to other family contacts, and in households with 1 contact than households with 3 or more contacts.
Analysis of the Household Transmission Evaluation Dataset (HOSTED) in UK found that household transmission was most common among adult cases and contacts of similar age. Children had less likelihood of being a secondary case. Households with multiple occupancy (three or more adults), in which cases could isolate effectively, had lower rates of household transmission.
A seroprevalence study found secondary attack rate from child index cases was significantly lower compared to adult index cases.
Another systematic review estimated the household secondary attack rate to be 18.1% (95% CI: 15.7%, 20.6%).
An observational study from Canada of 26 888 index household cases reported secondary attack rates from variants of concern and found substantially higher transmissibility associated with Alpha, Beta, and Gamma variants of concern.^
In other settings
In healthcare settings, the secondary attack rate was 0.7% (95% CI: 0.4%, 1.0%).
There are a limited number of studies in other settings, and therefore no pooled analyses. However high secondary attack rates (suggesting high risk setting) were observed in a meeting (84.6%), a chalet (73.3%), and at choirs (70.4%, 53.3%). In other settings, relatively high SARs were reported in eating (38.8%, 28.6%) and traveling (80.8%, 46.6%) with a case, as well as a study evaluating a religious event (14.8%).
A rapid evidence review estimates that the secondary attack rates at daycares and schools were 2.54 cases per index case (95% CI: 0.76, 5.31) and 0.5% of close contacts positive (95% CI=0.1, 1.6) from child index cases only.
SARs were much lower in encounters with relatives (3.5% to 6.6%), social contacts (0.9% to 2.2%), and at workplace or school (0% to 5.3%).
A report by National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS), Australia found that the secondary attack rate from primary cases in educational settings was 4.7% and the highest transmission rate occurred in early childhood education and care services between staff members (16.9%). The secondary attack rate from a child or an adult primary case to a child close contact in education settings was 1.6% and 7.0%, respectively.
A systematic review and meta-analysis found endotracheal intubation (odds ratio, 6.69, 95% CI, 3.81-11.72; p < 0.001), noninvasive ventilation (odds ratio, 3.65; 95% CI, 1.86-7.19; p < 0.001), and administration of nebulized medications (odds ratio, 10.03; 95% CI, 1.98-50.69; p = 0.005) to increase the odds of healthcare workers contracting SARS‑CoV-1 or SARS‑CoV‑2.
An initial PubMed search for Systematic reviews was conducted on the 17 February 2021. Supplementary topic specific searches were undertaken when evidence in systematic reviews was not sufficient and individual studies were included, but these do not represent a complete list of studies. Grey literature including publications from key organisation's such as the World Health Organisation were also included. Living evidence tables are monitored and updated regularly. To monitor the evidence, a PubMed search has been set up to receive automatic alerts daily, the Critical Intelligence Unit daily evidence digest database is searched daily, and grey literature is monitored through targeted searches.
Living evidence tables include some links to low quality sources and an assessment of the original source has not been undertaken. Sources are monitored daily but due to rapidly emerging information, tables may not always reflect the most current evidence. The tables are not peer reviewed, and inclusion does not imply official recommendation nor endorsement of NSW Health.
Last updated on 19 Jan 2021