University settings have demonstrated potential for COVID-19 outbreaks, as they can combine congregate living, substantial social activity, and a young population predisposed to mild illness. Using genomic and epidemiologic data, we describe a COVID-19 outbreak at the University of Wisconsin (UW)–Madison. During August – October 2020, 3,485 students tested positive, including 856/6,162 students living in residence halls. Case counts began rising during move-in week for on-campus students (August 25-31, 2020), then rose rapidly during September 1-11, 2020. UW-Madison initiated multiple prevention efforts, including quarantining two residence halls; a subsequent decline in cases was observed. Genomic surveillance of cases from Dane County, where UW-Madison is located, did not find evidence of transmission from a large cluster of cases in the two residence halls quarantined during the outbreak. Coordinated implementation of prevention measures can effectively reduce SARS-CoV-2 spread in university settings and may limit spillover to the community surrounding the university.Competing Interest StatementThe findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Clinical TrialN/A.Funding StatementG.K.M. is supported by an NLM training grant to the Computation and Informatics in Biology and Medicine Training Program (NLM 5T15LM007359). This work was funded in part by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Contract #75D30120C09870: Defining the Role of College Students in SARS-CoV-2 Spread in the Upper Midwest.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:A waiver of HIPAA Authorization was obtained by the Western Institutional Review Board (WIRB #1-1290953-1) to obtain the clinical specimens for whole genome sequencing. This analysis was reviewed by CDC and was conducted consistent with applicable federal law and CDC policy. These activities were determined to be non-research public health surveillance by the Institutional Review Board at UW-Madison.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.YesAll sequencing data is available on www.gisaid.org. Scripts for sequence data analysis is available at https://github.com/gagekmoreno/SARS-CoV-2-at-UW_Madison. https://github.com/gagekmoreno/SARS-CoV-2-at-UW_Madison

University settings have demonstrated potential for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreaks; they combine congregate living, substantial social activity, and a young population predisposed to mild illness. Using genomic and epidemiologic data, we describe a COVID-19 outbreak at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. During August-October 2020, a total of 3,485 students, including 856/6,162 students living in dormitories, tested positive. Case counts began rising during move-in week, August 25-31, 2020, then rose rapidly during September 1-11, 2020. The university initiated multiple prevention efforts, including quarantining 2 dormitories; a subsequent decline in cases was observed. Genomic surveillance of cases from Dane County, in which the university is located, did not find evidence of transmission from a large cluster of cases in the 2 quarantined dorms during the outbreak. Coordinated implementation of prevention measures can reduce COVID-19 spread in university settings and may limit spillover to the surrounding community.

There have been periodic electronic news media reports of potential bioterrorism-related incidents involving unknown substances (often referred to as "white powder") since the 2001 intentional dissemination of Bacillus anthracis through the U.S. Postal System. This study reviewed the number of unknown "white powder" incidents reported online by the electronic news media and compared them with unknown "white powder" incidents reported to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) during a 2-year period from June 1, 2009 and May 31, 2011. Results identified 297 electronic news media reports, 538 CDC reports, and 384 FBI reports of unknown "white powder." This study showed different unknown "white powder" incidents captured by each of the three sources. However, the authors could not determine the public health implications of this discordance.

OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study is to review information within the situation reports (SITREPs) and incident notices (INs) prepared by the Division of Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response/Epidemiology Surveillance and Response Branch, (DBPR/ESRB), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The secondary objective is to evaluate accuracy and completeness of the information provided in these documents. METHODS: The authors reviewed all SITREPs/INs prepared by DBPR/ESRB from January 2007 to June 2009. Data were abstracted for variables related to the type of incidents, the type of CDC assistance requested, the geographic origin of the calls, and the organization reporting the event or requesting CDC assistance or both. In addition, variables were also created to assess the accuracy and completeness of reports for quality improvement analysis. RESULTS: The DBPR/ESRB prepared 77 SITREPs and 22 INs. Most of them were related to unknown white powders/suspicious packages or BioWatch Actionable Reports (78%). Most calls (79%), requesting CDC assistance or not, were domestic. Almost all calls requesting CDC assistance were for clinical and/or laboratory consultation and/or request for analysis of samples. Most of the calls requesting CDC assistance came from city, county, state, or federal government agencies and military organizations (82%). However, 14 of the analyzed documents (14.4%) were misclassified, that is, a SITREP was written when it should have been an IN or vice versa. The authors also noted the absence of some relevant information among some of the documents, for example, date/time of update. CONCLUSIONS: All of the issues/incidents reported in this article to which DBPR/ESRB responded were cause for legitimate concern. However, significant improvement can be made in the preparation of these reports by CDC staff to ensure efficient and effective response from CDC and its partners. Finally, local entities may wish to develop a similar documentation and reporting process to help manage significant incidents.

This study's goal was to determine cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), total mercury (THg), and inorganic mercury (IHg) levels in human cadavers to compare measured levels with established reference ranges for living persons and to determine whether blood levels varied with time from death to sample collection or by body collection site. Subjects (n = 66) recruited from the Fulton County Medical Examiner's Office in Atlanta, GA, were 20 years of age or older, had no penetrating trauma, no obvious source of environmental contamination of the vasculature, and had whole blood accessible from the femoral (F) site, the cardiac (C) site, or both. Geometric mean results were as follows: 2.59 microg/L F-Cd; 11.81 microg/L C-Cd; 1.03 microg/L F-THg; 2.01 microg/L C-THg; 0.29 microg/L F-IHg; 0.49 microg/L C-IHg; 1.78 microg/dL F-Pb; and 1.87 microg/dL C-Pb. Both F- and C-Cd levels as well as C-THg levels were significantly higher than reference values among living persons (C- and F-Cd, p < 0.0001 and C-THg, p = 0.0001, respectively). Based on regression modeling, as the postmortem interval increased, blood Cd levels increased (p < 0.006). Postmortem blood Cd concentrations were elevated compared to population values and varied with respect to sampling location and postmortem interval.