Non-differential risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection for members of polling stations on Catalan parliament voting day

  1. Manuel Medina-Peralta
  2. Luis Garcia-Eroles
  3. Eduardo Hermosilla
  4. Antonio Fuentes
  5. Leonardo Méndez-Boo
  6. Francesc Fina
  7. Mireia Fàbregas
  8. Ermengol Coma
  9. Yolanda Lejardi
  10. Marc Ramentol
  11. Ismael Peña-López

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

We aimed to assess the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection for polling station members during the Catalan elections in February 2021. We compared the incidence 14 days after the elections between a cohort of polling station members (N= 18,304) and a control cohort paired by age, sex and place of residence. A total of 37 COVID-19 cases (0.2%) were confirmed in the members of the polling stations and 43 (0.23%) in the control group (p-value 0.576). Our study suggests that there was no greater risk of infection for the members of the polling stations.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.13.21257143: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Ethical statement: This work was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the IDIAPJGol (project code: 21/104-PCV), including a waiver for the informed consent of citizens taking part in the study.
    Consent: Ethical statement: This work was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the IDIAPJGol (project code: 21/104-PCV), including a waiver for the informed consent of citizens taking part in the study.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationWe performed a controlled retrospective cohort study to determine if being a member of a polling station during the Catalan elections was associated with an increased risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2. In Catalonia, members of polling stations are randomly selected from the census and it’s mandatory unless exception applies.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Our study has limitations. We do not have access to the entire census of people who were part of the polling stations during the Catalan elections and we ignore if there may be any bias in our sample. However we analysed data of more than 65% of polling stations and the control group was paired by place of residence. In addition we do not know the place where people in our study were infected. Considering the importance of elections and the damages and dangers in democratic terms that a cancellation or suspension could have, our study suggests that if the appropriate measures are implemented, there is no greater risk of infection for the members of the polling stations, even in a situation of high community transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

    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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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 10.1101/2021.05.13.21257143v1 on medRxiv