Community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in England: Results from the ONS Coronavirus Infection Survey Pilot

  1. Koen B Pouwels
  2. Thomas House
  3. Julie V Robotham
  4. Paul J Birrell
  5. Andrew Gelman
  6. Nikola Bowers
  7. Ian Boreham
  8. Heledd Thomas
  9. James Lewis
  10. Iain Bell
  11. John I Bell
  12. John N Newton
  13. Jeremy Farrar
  14. Ian Diamond
  15. Pete Benton
  16. Ann Sarah Walker
  17. the COVID-19 Infection Survey team

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objective

To estimate the percentage of individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) over time in the community in England and to quantify risk factors.

Design

Repeated cross-sectional surveys of population-representative households with longitudinal follow-up if consent given.

Setting

England

Participants

34,992 Individuals aged 2 years and over from 16,722 private residential households. Data were collected in a pilot phase of the survey between 26 April and 28 June 2020.

Main outcome measures

Percentage of individuals in the community testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA using throat and nose swabs. Individuals were asked about any symptoms and potential risk factors.

Results

The percentage of people in private-residential households testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 reduced from 0.32% (95% credible interval (CrI) 0.19% to 0.52%) on 26 April to 0.08% (95% CrI 0.05% to 0.12%) on 28 June, although the prevalence stabilised near the end of the pilot. Factors associated with an increased risk of testing positive included having a job with direct patient contact (relative exposure (RE) 4.06, 95% CrI 2.42 to 6.77)), working outside the home (RE 2.49, 95% CrI 1.39 to 4.45), and having had contact with a hospital (RE 2.20, 95% CrI 1.09 to 4.16 for having been to a hospital individually and RE 1.95, 95% CrI 0.81 to 4.09 for a household member having been to a hospital). In 133 visits where individuals tested positive, 82 (61%, 95% CrI 53% to 69%) reported no symptoms, stably over time.

Conclusion

The percentage of SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals declined between 26 April and 28 June 2020. Positive tests commonly occurred without symptoms being reported. Working outside your home was an important risk factor, indicating that continued monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in the community will be essential for early detection of increases in infections following return to work and other relaxations of control measures.

What is already known on this topic

  • -

    Unprecedented control measures, such as national lockdowns, have been widely implemented to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

  • -

    Previous mass surveillance has been based on data sources such as hospital admission, deaths or self-reported symptoms that do not measure community prevalence of virus directly.

  • -

    Decisions regarding the continued need for social distancing measures in the overall population, specific subgroups and geographic areas heavily rely on accurate and up-to-date information about the number of people and risk factors for testing positive.

    • What this study adds

  • -

    The percentage of individuals from the general community in England testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 clearly declined between 26 April and 28 June 2020 from around one in three 300 to around one in a thousand.

  • -

    Risk factors for testing positive included having a job with direct patient contact, having had (indirect) contact with a hospital in the past 2 weeks, and working outside your home.

  • -

    Positive tests commonly occurred without symptoms being reported and the percentage of individuals with a positive test that reported no symptoms was stable over time.

    • Article activity feed

    1. ScreenIT

      SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.06.20147348: (What is this?)

      Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

      Table 1: Rigor

      NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

      Table 2: Resources

      No key resources detected.

      Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

      Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

      Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

      Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

      Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

      Results from rtransparent:
      • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
      • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
      • No protocol registration statement was detected.

      About SciScore

      SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

    2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.07.06.20147348v1 on medRxiv