Objectives: To compare serological evidence of prior severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection with linked coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) case notification data in Victoria, Australia, and to determine in vitro SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation activity based on prior infection and vaccination history. Design, setting, participants: Four cross-sectional serological surveys were conducted between 30 June and 31 October 2022 (a period of Omicron BA.4/BA.5 dominance) using 1,974 residual serum samples obtained from the Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory. Serological results were linked to COVID-19 case notification and vaccination data. Surrogate virus neutralisation testing was performed to obtain in vitro inhibition estimates by anti-nucleocapsid serostatus and COVID-19 vaccination history. Main outcome measures: Adjusted anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid seropositivity by sex, age and region of residence; adjusted proportion of cases notified by anti-nucleocapsid serostatus, age and number of COVID-19 vaccination doses received; adjusted percentage in vitro inhibition against wildtype and Omicron BA.4/BA.5 SARS-CoV-2 variants by anti-nucleocapsid serostatus and COVID-19 vaccination history. Results: The prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibodies was inversely proportional to age. In October 2022, prevalence was 84% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 75–93%) among 18–29-year-olds, compared to 39% (95% CI: 27–52%) among ≥ 80-year-olds. In most age groups, approximately 40% of COVID-19 cases appear to have been notified via existing surveillance mechanisms. Case notification was highest among individuals older than 80 years and people who had received COVID-19 vaccine booster doses. In vitro neutralisation of Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sub-variants was highest for individuals with evidence of both prior infection and booster vaccination. Conclusions: Under-notification of SARS-CoV-2 infections in the Victorian population is not uniform across age and vaccination strata. Seroprevalence data that give insights into case notification behaviour provide additional context for the interpretation of existing COVID-19 surveillance information.

This article explores the significant challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia since 2020 and reflects on important lessons for preparedness and response to future emergent infectious diseases or pandemics. It highlights the importance of One Health as a framework for pandemic preparedness; near-real time surveillance data to inform responses; and the critical place of equity considerations in planning, preparedness, response and recovery. The role of crisis communication and engagement is explored, noting the significant place of local engagement, informed by local epidemiological data and local communication needs and priorities of diverse communities.

mRNA-lipid nanoparticle (LNP) medicinal products can be considered a platform technology because the development process is similar for different diseases and conditions, with similar noncoding mRNA sequences and lipid nanoparticles and essentially unchanged manufacturing and analytical methods often utilised for different products. It is critical not to lose the momentum built using the platform approach during the development, regulatory approval and rollout of vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 and its variants. This review proposes a set of modifications to existing regulatory requirements for mRNA products, based on a platform perspective for quality, manufacturing, preclinical, and clinical data. For the first time, we address development and potential regulatory requirements when the mRNA sequences and LNP composition vary in different products as well. In addition, we propose considerations for self-amplifying mRNA, individualised oncology mRNA products, and mRNA therapeutics. Providing a predictable development pathway for academic and commercial groups so that they can know in detail what product characterisation and data are required to develop a dossier for regulatory submission has many potential benefits. These include: reduced development and regulatory costs; faster consumer/patient access and more agile development of products in the face of pandemics; and for rare diseases where alternatives may not exist or to increase survival and the quality of life in cancer patients. Therefore, achieving consensus around platform approaches is both urgent and important. This approach with mRNA can be a template for similar platform frameworks for other therapeutics and vaccines to enable more efficient development and regulatory review.

Background Policy responses to COVID-19 in Victoria, Australia over 2020–2021 have been supported by evidence generated through mathematical modelling. This study describes the design, key findings, and process for policy translation of a series of modelling studies conducted for the Victorian Department of Health COVID-19 response team during this period. Methods An agent-based model, Covasim, was used to simulate the impact of policy interventions on COVID-19 outbreaks and epidemic waves. The model was continually adapted to enable scenario analysis of settings or policies being considered at the time (e.g. elimination of community transmission versus disease control). Model scenarios were co-designed with government, to fill evidence gaps prior to key decisions. Results Understanding outbreak risk following incursions was critical to eliminating community COVID-19 transmission. Analyses showed risk depended on whether the first detected case was the index case, a primary contact of the index case, or a ‘mystery case’. There were benefits of early lockdown on first case detection and gradual easing of restrictions to minimise resurgence risk from undetected cases. As vaccination coverage increased and the focus shifted to controlling rather than eliminating community transmission, understanding health system demand was critical. Analyses showed that vaccines alone could not protect health systems and need to be complemented with other public health measures. Conclusions Model evidence offered the greatest value when decisions needed to be made pre-emptively, or for questions that could not be answered with empiric data and data analysis alone. Co-designing scenarios with policy-makers ensured relevance and increased policy translation.

Background We describe COVID-19 first and second vaccine uptake across Local Government Areas (LGAs) in Victoria using southeast metropolitan Melbourne catchment as a case study. We explore key policy and implementation strategies that contributed to equitable uptake. Methods Population level data within the South East Public Health Unit (SEPHU) was used to compare trends in COVID-19 vaccination first and second dose uptake for each of the 11 LGAs in year 2021. Changes in vaccination uptake over the year were reviewed against social and public health measures used during the COVID-19 pandemic in Victoria and strategies in the SEPHU vaccination program. Findings By September 2021, 57% of the eligible population in the least disadvantaged LGA, Bayside, had received their second dose vaccination compared to 32% in the most disadvantaged LGA, Greater Dandenong. By end of 2021, the gap had narrowed with 95% in Bayside and 92% in Greater Dandenong having received their second dose. The increase in vaccination uptake for both LGAs was bimodal. Government policies on vaccine eligibility and the opening of mass vaccination sites preceded the first peak in vaccination uptake. Strong community engagement, addressing misinformation, providing culturally appropriate vaccination services and mass outbreaks preceded the second peak in vaccination uptake. Interpretation Vaccine equity across culturally and economically diverse populations can be achieved through a combination of robust, targeted community engagement, mass deployment of appropriate workforce, vaccination services tailored to cultural needs and sensitivities and accessibility to mass vaccination sites on a backdrop of state-wide policies that incentivise vaccination. Health 2023;39: Published September https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.lanwpc.2023. 100900

Background Oral Antiviral (OAV) COVID-19 treatments are widely used, but evidence for their effectiveness against the Omicron variant in higher risk, vaccinated individuals is limited.Methods Retrospective study of two vaccinated cohorts of COVID-19 cases aged >= 70 years diagnosed during a BA.4/5 Omicron wave in Victoria, Australia. Cases received either nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or molnupiravir as their only treatment. Data linkage and logistic regression modelling was used to evaluate the association between treatment and death and hospitalisation and compared with no treatment.Findings Of 38,933 individuals in the mortality study population, 13.5% (n = 5250) received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, 51.3% (n = 19,962) received molnupiravir and 35.2% (n = 13,721) were untreated. Treatment was associated with a 57% (OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.36-0.51) reduction in the odds of death, 73% (OR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.17-0.40) for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 55% (OR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.38-0.54) for molnupiravir. Treatment was associated with a 31% (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.55-0.86) reduction in the odds of hospitalisation, 40% (OR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.43-0.83) for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 29% (OR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.87) for molnupiravir. Cases treated within 1 day of diagnosis had a 61% reduction in the odds of death (OR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.33-0.46) compared with 33% reduction for a delay of 4 or more days (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.44-0.97).Interpretation Treatment with both nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or molnupiravir was associated with a reduction in death and hospitalisation in vaccinated >= 70 years individuals during the Omicron era. Timely, equitable treatment with OAVs is an important tool in the fight against COVID-19. Copyright Crown Copyright (c) 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

OBJECTIVES:To assess associations between SARS-CoV-2 infection and the incidence of hospitalisation with selected respiratory and non-respiratory conditions in a largely SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-naïve population . DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS:Self-control case series; analysis of population-wide surveillance and administrative data for all laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases notified to the Victorian Department of Health (onset, 23 January 2020 - 31 May 2021; ie, prior to widespread vaccination rollout) and linked hospital admissions data (admission dates to 30 September 2021). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Hospitalisation of people with acute COVID-19; incidence rate ratios (IRRs) comparing incidence of hospitalisations with defined conditions (including cardiac, cerebrovascular, venous thrombo-embolic, coagulative, and renal disorders) from three days before to within 89 days of onset of COVID-19 with incidence during baseline period (60-365 days prior to COVID-19 onset). RESULTS:A total of 20 594 COVID-19 cases were notified; 2992 people (14.5%) were hospitalised with COVID-19. The incidence of hospitalisation within 89 days of onset of COVID-19 was higher than during the baseline period for several conditions, including myocarditis and pericarditis (IRR, 14.8; 95% CI, 3.2-68.3), thrombocytopenia (IRR, 7.4; 95% CI, 4.4-12.5), pulmonary embolism (IRR, 6.4; 95% CI, 3.6-11.4), acute myocardial infarction (IRR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.6-5.8), and cerebral infarction (IRR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4-3.9). CONCLUSION:SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with higher incidence of hospitalisation with several respiratory and non-respiratory conditions. Our findings reinforce the value of COVID-19 mitigation measures such as vaccination, and awareness of these associations should assist the clinical management of people with histories of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 infection can induce significant pathologies including neurological, cardiac and vascular disease events. We assessed strength of association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and several key respiratory and non-respiratory complications in Victoria, Australia. Methods: Record linkage was used to assemble all laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases notified 1 January 2020–31 May 2021 with corresponding hospitalisation episodes to 30 September 2021. Hospitalisation rates and reasons for hospitalisation among cases was assessed using a cohort study design. A self-controlled case series was used to assess strength of association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and several outcomes in the first 90 days following COVID-19 illness onset. Incident rate ratios (IRR) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated comparing risk in the post-exposure period with a baseline period prior to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Findings: There were 20,594 COVID-19 cases, with 2,992 (14·53%) related hospitalisation s. In the 90-days following COVID-19 illness onset, elevated risks were observed for myocarditis and pericarditis (IRR: 14·76, 95% confidence interval 3·19–68·30); thrombocytopenia (IRR: 7·38, 4·36–12·50), pulmonary embolism (IRR: 6·37; 3·55–11·43), acute myocardial infarction (IRR: 3·89, 2·59–5·84) and cerebral infarction and non-ischemic stroke (IRR: 2·31, 1·37–3·90). Interpretation: There is a strong association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and risk of several complications highlighting the value of COVID-19 pandemic mitigation measures such as vaccination. Improved awareness of these risks may support early diagnosis and management of patients with a past history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and contribute to a greater understanding of the public health burden of COVID-19. Funding Information: No funding was provided for this study. Declaration of Interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. Ethics Approval Statement: Study approvals were obtained from the Victorian Government Department of Health Research Ethics Committee (reference: LNR/76271/DHHS-2021-272262(v2)) and from each data custodian responsible for each informational asset used. The study was also registered with the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (reference: 30071).

Background A key feature of the global public health response to contain and slow the spread of COVID-19 has been community-based quarantine and self-isolation. As part of The Optimise Study, this research sought to understand the factors that influence people’s ability to undertake home-based quarantine and isolation to contain the spread of COVID-19. Methods Semi-structured qualitative phone interviews ( n = 25) were conducted by telephone with people who participated in community-based quarantine in Australia before 31 March 2020. The Capability Opportunity Motivation Behaviour model was used to conduct a thematic analysis. Results Participants required clear, accessible and trusted information to guide them in home-based quarantine and isolation. A sense of social responsibility and belief in the efficacy of the restrictions to reduce viral transmission aided their motivation. Access to essential needs, supportive living environments, and emotional support were required to adhere to restrictions, but few were prepared. Conclusions Findings demonstrate that in addition to having the capability and motivation to adhere to restrictions, it is vital that people are also encouraged to prepare for the challenge to ensure access to physical, social and emotional support. Findings also illustrate the importance of engaging communities in planning and preparedness for quarantine and self-isolation public health responses.

Background A cornerstone of Australia's ability to control COVID-19 has been effective border control with an extensive supervised quarantine programme. However, a rapid recrudescence of COVID-19 was observed in the state of Victoria in June, 2020. We aim to describe the genomic findings that located the source of this second wave and show the role of genomic epidemiology in the successful elimination of COVID-19 for a second time in Australia. Methods In this observational, genomic epidemiological study, we did genomic sequencing of all laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 diagnosed in Victoria, Australia between Jan 25, 2020, and Jan 31, 2021. We did phylogenetic analyses, genomic cluster discovery, and integrated results with epidemiological data (detailed information on demographics, risk factors, and exposure) collected via interview by the Victorian Government Department of Health. Genomic transmission networks were used to group multiple genomic clusters when epidemiological and genomic data suggested they arose from a single importation event and diversified within Victoria. To identify transmission of emergent lineages between Victoria and other states or territories in Australia, all publicly available SARS-CoV-2 sequences uploaded before Feb 11, 2021, were obtained from the national sequence sharing programme AusTrakka, and epidemiological data were obtained from the submitting laboratories. We did phylodynamic analyses to estimate the growth rate, doubling time, and number of days from the first local infection to the collection of the first sequenced genome for the dominant local cluster, and compared our growth estimates to previously published estimates from a similar growth phase of lineage B.1.1.7 (also known as the Alpha variant) in the UK. Findings Between Jan 25, 2020, and Jan 31, 2021, there were 20 451 laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Victoria, Australia, of which 15 431 were submitted for sequencing, and 11 711 met all quality control metrics and were included in our analysis. We identified 595 genomic clusters, with a median of five cases per cluster (IQR 2-11). Overall, samples from 11 503 (98.2%) of 11 711 cases clustered with another sample in Victoria, either within a genomic cluster or transmission network. Genomic analysis revealed that 10 426 cases, including 10 416 (98.4%) of 10 584 locally acquired cases, diagnosed during the second wave (between June and October, 2020) were derived from a single incursion from hotel quarantine, with the outbreak lineage (transmission network G, lineage D.2) rapidly detected in other Australian states and territories. Phylodynamic analyses indicated that the epidemic growth rate of the outbreak lineage in Victoria during the initial growth phase (samples collected between June 4 and July 9, 2020; 47.4 putative transmission events, per branch, per year [1/years; 95% credible interval 26.0-85.0]), was similar to that of other reported variants, such as B.1.1.7 in the UK (mean approximately 71.5 1/years). Strict interventions were implemented, and the outbreak lineage has not been detected in Australia since Oct 29, 2020. Subsequent cases represented independent international or interstate introductions, with limited local spread. Interpretation Our study highlights how rapid escalation of clonal outbreaks can occur from a single incursion. However, strict quarantine measures and decisive public health responses to emergent cases are effective, even with high epidemic growth rates. Real-time genomic surveillance can alter the way in which public health agencies view and respond to COVID-19 outbreaks. Copyright (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic shows variable dynamics in WHO Regions, with lowest disease burden in the Western-Pacific Region. While China has been able to rapidly eliminate transmission of SARS-CoV-2, Germany - as well as most of Europe and the Americas - is struggling with high numbers of cases and deaths. Objective: We analyse COVID-19 epidemiology and control strategies in China and in Germany, two countries which have chosen profoundly different approaches to deal with the epidemic. Methods: In this narrative review, we searched the literature from 1 December 2019, to 4 December 2020. Results: China and several neighbours (e.g. Australia, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Thailand) have achieved COVID-19 elimination or sustained low case numbers. This can be attributed to: (1) experience with previous coronavirus outbreaks; (2) classification of SARS-CoV-2 in the highest risk category and consequent early employment of aggressive control measures; (3) mandatory isolation of cases and contacts in institutions; (4) broad employment of modern contact tracking technology; (5) travel restrictions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 re-importation; (6) cohesive communities with varying levels of social control. Conclusions: Early implementation of intense and sustained control measures is key to achieving a near normal social and economic life.

Countries worldwide are experiencing a second wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is proving to be difficult to control. We describe the combination of physical distancing, mandatory mask wearing, movement restrictions, and enhanced test, trace, and isolation efforts that can be used to successfully suppress community transmission to zero.

Background. Multiresistant organisms (MROs) pose a critical threat to public health. Population-based programs for control of MROs such as carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) have emerged and evaluation is needed. We assessed the feasibility and impact of a statewide CPE surveillance and response program deployed across Victoria, Australia (population 6.5 million). Methods. A prospective multimodal intervention including active screening, carrier isolation, centralized case investigation, and comparative pathogen genomics was implemented. We analyzed trends in CPE incidence and clinical presentation, risk factors, and local transmission over the program's first 3 years (2016-2018). Results. CPE case ascertainment increased over the study period to 1.42 cases/100 000 population, linked to increased screening without a concomitant rise in active clinical infections (0.45-0.60 infections/100 000 population, P = .640). KPC-2 infection decreased from 0.29 infections/100 000 population prior to intervention to 0.03 infections/100 000 population in 2018 (P = .003). Comprehensive case investigation identified instances of overseas community acquisition. Median time between isolate referral and genomic and epidemiological assessment for local transmission was 11 days (IQR, 9-14). Prospective surveillance identified numerous small transmission networks (median, 2; range, 1-19 cases), predominantly IMP and KPC, with median pairwise distance of 8 (IQR, 4-13) single nucleotide polymorphisms; low diversity between clusters of the same sequence type suggested genomic cluster definitions alone are insufficient for targeted response. Conclusions. We demonstrate the value of centralized CPE control programs to increase case ascertainment, resolve risk factors, and identify local transmission through prospective genomic and epidemiological surveillance; methodologies are transferable to low-prevalence settings and MROs globally.

Background: Victoria experienced the greatest burden of COVID-19 in Australia in 2020. This report describes key epidemiological characteristics and corresponding control measures between 17 January 2020 and 26 March 2021. Methods: COVID-19 notifications made to the State Government Department of Health were used in this analysis. Epidemiological features are described over 4 phases, including enhancements to testing, contact tracing and public health interventions. Demographic and clinical features of cases are described. Findings: Victoria recorded 20,483 cases of COVID-19, of which 1073 (5.2%) were acquired overseas and 19,360 (95%) were locally acquired. The initial epidemic (Phase I) was well-contained through public health interventions and was followed by relaxation of restrictions and low-level community transmission (Phase II). However, an outbreak in a hotel used to quarantine returned travellers led to wide-scale community transmission accounting for a majority (91%) of cases (Phase III). Outbreaks occurred in vulnerable settings including aged care and hospitals, contributing to high hospitalisation (12%) and case fatality rates (3.7%). Aggressive restrictions ultimately led to local elimination, and subsequent outbreaks have been swiftly managed with improved processes (Phase IV). The demographic composition of cases evolved across phases from an older, wealthier population to a less advantaged younger population, with many from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Interpretation: Over time, adaptations to the public health response have strengthened capacity to respond to new cases and outbreaks in a more effective manner. The Victorian experience underscores the importance of authentic engagement with diverse communities and balancing restrictions with livelihoods. (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Importance The COVID-19 pandemic is the greatest global test of health leadership of our generation. There is an urgent need to provide guidance for leaders at all levels during the unprecedented preresolution recovery stage. Objective To create an evidence- and expertise-informed framework of leadership imperatives to serve as a resource to guide health and public health leaders during the postemergency stage of the pandemic. Evidence Review A literature search in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase revealed 10 910 articles published between 2000 and 2021 that included the terms leadership and variations of emergency, crisis, disaster, pandemic, COVID-19, or public health. Using the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence reporting guideline for consensus statement development, this assessment adopted a 6-round modified Delphi approach involving 32 expert coauthors from 17 countries who participated in creating and validating a framework outlining essential leadership imperatives. Findings The 10 imperatives in the framework are: (1) acknowledge staff and celebrate successes; (2) provide support for staff well-being; (3) develop a clear understanding of the current local and global context, along with informed projections; (4) prepare for future emergencies (personnel, resources, protocols, contingency plans, coalitions, and training); (5) reassess priorities explicitly and regularly and provide purpose, meaning, and direction; (6) maximize team, organizational, and system performance and discuss enhancements; (7) manage the backlog of paused services and consider improvements while avoiding burnout and moral distress; (8) sustain learning, innovations, and collaborations, and imagine future possibilities; (9) provide regular communication and engender trust; and (10) in consultation with public health and fellow leaders, provide safety information and recommendations to government, other organizations, staff, and the community to improve equitable and integrated care and emergency preparedness systemwide. Conclusions and Relevance Leaders who most effectively implement these imperatives are ideally positioned to address urgent needs and inequalities in health systems and to cocreate with their organizations a future that best serves stakeholders and communities.

During 2020, Victoria was the Australian state hardest hit by COVID-19, but was successful in controlling its second wave through aggressive policy interventions. We calibrated a detailed compartmental model of Victoria’s second wave to multiple geographically-structured epidemic time-series indicators. We achieved a good fit overall and for individual health services through a combination of time-varying processes, including case detection, population mobility, school closures, physical distancing and face covering usage. Estimates of the risk of death in those aged ≥75 and of hospitalisation were higher than international estimates, reflecting concentration of cases in high-risk settings. We estimated significant effects for each of the calibrated time-varying processes, with estimates for the individual-level effect of physical distancing of 37.4% (95%CrI 7.2−56.4%) and of face coverings of 45.9% (95%CrI 32.9−55.6%). That the multi-faceted interventions led to the dramatic reversal in the epidemic trajectory is supported by our results, with face coverings likely particularly important.

In 2022, Australia will enter its third year with COVID19, the coronavirus disease caused by infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARSCoV2). If 2020 was characterised by the fight for “COVIDzero”, and 2021 by the drive to vaccinate Australia, 2022 and beyond could be the start of the interpandemic period: if all goes well, community vaccination levels will be high enough that the occasional COVID19 outbreak will not require lockdowns or other strict public health measures.

OBJECTIVE:To determine the proportion of healthcare workers (HCWs) in smaller Victorian public healthcare facilities with documented evidence of measles immunity.METHODS:A cross-sectional survey, developed by the Victorian Healthcare Associated Surveillance System Coordinating Centre, was completed by all eligible facilities. HCWs were reported as having evidence or no evidence of measles immunity. Those without evidence of immunity were sub-classified as incomplete, declined or unknown status.RESULTS:Seventy-five facilities reported measles immunity status of 17,522 employed HCWs. Of these, 11,751 (67.1%) had documented evidence of immunity. The proportion with evidence of immunity was lowest (45.6%) in facilities with ≤50 HCWs. The majority of HCWs without evidence of immunity (88.2%) had 'unknown' status. Declination or incomplete status comprised very low overall proportions (0.3% and 3.6%, respectively).CONCLUSIONS:Reported evidence of HCW measles immunity was moderate in surveyed facilities, with a large proportion having unknown status. HCW immunisation programs in some facilities require refinement to appropriately support public health responses to measles cases and prevention of occupational acquisition of measles. Implications for public health: Non-immune HCWs are at increased risk for acquiring and transmitting measles. Timely access to accurate HCW immunisation records is required to ensure that public health responses are effective.

Abstract Countries around the world are experiencing a second wave of COVID-19 which is proving to be difficult to control. This report describes the combination of physical distancing, mandatory mask wearing, movement restrictions and enhanced test, trace and isolation efforts that can be used to successfully suppress community transmission to zero.