Human respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is an important cause of acute respiratory infection with the most severe disease in the young and elderly. Non-pharmaceutical interventions and travel restrictions for controlling COVID-19 have impacted the circulation of most respiratory viruses including RSV globally, particularly in Australia, where during 2020 the normal winter epidemics were notably absent. However, in late 2020, unprecedented widespread RSV outbreaks occurred, beginning in spring, and extending into summer across two widely separated regions of the Australian continent, New South Wales (NSW) and Australian Capital Territory (ACT) in the east, and Western Australia. Through genomic sequencing we reveal a major reduction in RSV genetic diversity following COVID-19 emergence with two genetically distinct RSV-A clades circulating cryptically, likely localised for several months prior to an epidemic surge in cases upon relaxation of COVID-19 control measures. The NSW/ACT clade subsequently spread to the neighbouring state of Victoria and to cause extensive outbreaks and hospitalisations in early 2021. These findings highlight the need for continued surveillance and sequencing of RSV and other respiratory viruses during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, as mitigation measures may disrupt seasonal patterns, causing larger or more severe outbreaks.

Considerable concerns relating to the duration of protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 exist, with evidence of antibody titres declining rapidly after infection and reports of reinfection. Here we monitor the antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD) for up to six months after infection. While antibody titres are maintained, about 13% of the cohort’s neutralising responses return to background. However, encouragingly in a selected subset of 13 participants, 12 have detectable RBD-specific memory B cells and these generally are increasing out to 6 months. Furthermore, we are able to generate monoclonal antibodies with SARS-CoV-2 neutralising capacity from these memory B cells. Overall our study suggests that the loss of neutralising antibodies in plasma may be countered by the maintenance of neutralising capacity in the memory B cell repertoire.

Understanding the long-term maintenance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunity is critical for predicting protection against reinfection. In an age- and gender-matched cohort of 24 participants, the association of disease severity and early immune responses on the maintenance of humoral immunity 12 months post-infection is examined. All severely affected participants maintain a stable subset of SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD)-specific memory B cells (MBCs) and good neutralizing antibody breadth against the majority of the variants of concern, including the Delta variant. Modeling these immune responses against vaccine efficacy data indicate a 45%–76% protection against symptomatic infection (variant dependent). Overall, these findings indicate durable humoral responses in most participants after infection, reasonable protection against reinfection, and implicate baseline antigen-specific CD4+ T cell responses as a predictor of maintenance of antibody neutralization breadth and RBD-specific MBC levels at 12 months post-infection.

Pandemic dynamics and health care responses are markedly different during the COVID-19 pandemic than in earlier outbreaks. Compared with established infectious disease such as influenza, we currently know relatively little about the origin, reservoir, cross-species transmission and evolution of SARS-CoV-2. Health care services, drug availability, laboratory testing, research capacity and global governance are more advanced than during 20th century pandemics, although COVID-19 has highlighted significant gaps. The risk of zoonotic transmission and an associated new pandemic is rising substantially. COVID-19 vaccine development has been done at unprecedented speed, with the usual sequential steps done in parallel. The pandemic has illustrated the feasibility of this approach and the benefits of a globally coordinated response and infrastructure. Some of the COVID-19 vaccines recently developed or currently in development might offer flexibility or sufficiently broad protection to swiftly respond to antigenic drift or emergence of new coronaviruses. Yet many challenges remain, including the large-scale production of sufficient quantity of vaccines, delivery of vaccines to all countries and ensuring vaccination of relevant age groups. This wide vaccine technology approach will be best employed in tandem with active surveillance for emerging variants or new pathogens using antigen mapping, metagenomics and next generation sequencing.

In this large-scale cluster-randomized controlled trial (cRCT) we sought to assess the effectiveness of facemasks against viral respiratory infections. Over three consecutive Hajj seasons (2013, 2014, 2015) pilgrims’ tents in Makkah were allocated to ‘facemask’ or ‘no facemask’ group. Fifty facemasks were offered to participants in intervention tents, to be worn over four days, and none were offered to participants in control tents. All participants recorded facemask use and respiratory symptoms in health diaries. Nasal swabs were collected from the symptomatic for virus detection by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. Clinical symptoms and laboratory results were analyzed by ‘intention- to-treat’ and ‘per-protocol’. A total of 7687 adult participants from 318 tents were randomized: 3864 from 149 tents to the intervention group, and 3823 from 169 tents to the control group. Participants were aged 18 to 95 (median 34, mean 37) years, with a male to female ratio of 1:1.2. Overall, respiratory viruses were detected in 277 of 650 (43%) nasal/pharyngeal swabs collected from symptomatic pilgrims. Common viruses were rhinovirus (35.1%), influenza (4.5%) and parainfluenza (1.7%). In the intervention arm, respectively 954 (24.7%) and 1842 (47.7%) participants used facemasks daily and intermittently, while in the control arm, respectively 546 (14.3%) and 1334 (34.9%) used facemasks daily and intermittently. By intention-to-treat analysis, facemask use did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections (odds ratio [OR], 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 2.1, p = 0.18) nor against clinical respiratory infection (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.4, p = 0.40). Similarly, in a per-protocol analysis, facemask use did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.9–1.7, p = 0.26) nor against clinical respiratory infection (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0–1.8, p = 0.06). This trial was unable to provide conclusive evidence on facemask efficacy against viral respiratory infections most likely due to poor adherence to protocol.