Quantitative risk assessment of COVID-19 and serious illness among spectators at mass gathering events with vaccine-testing package implementation

  1. Michio Murakami
  2. Tsukasa Fujita
  3. Yuichi Iwasaki
  4. Masaki Onishi
  5. Wataru Naito
  6. Seiya Imoto
  7. Tetsuo Yasutaka

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

While mass gathering events have resumed in conjunction with vaccine-testing (VT) packages, their effects on reducing COVID-19 risk remain unclear. Here, we used an environmental exposure model to analyze the effects of vaccinations and proof of negative test results on reducing infection risk and serious illness among spectators at mass gathering events. We then analyzed the difference in risk with and without VT and regular seat zoning. Risk of infection and serious illness were quantified using a model incorporating parameters such as vaccination coverage, vaccine prevention effectiveness, and sensitivity of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or qualitative antigen tests. When vaccine prevention effectiveness was 50% (corresponding to 4 months for the delta variant and 1–2 months for the omicron variant after the second vaccine dose), the risk of infection and serious illness among vaccinated spectators were 0.32–0.40 and 0.13–0.16 times of those who tested negative, respectively. In contrast, the risks of infection and serious illness among vaccinated spectators without measures such as mask wearing were 4.0 and 1.6 times higher than those among unvaccinated spectators with such measures, respectively. The risk of infection with an 80% vaccination coverage and a vaccine prevention effectiveness of 20% (corresponding to 5–6 months for the delta variant or 3–4 months for the omicron variant after the second vaccine dose) was comparable to that of a 20% vaccine coverage and a vaccine prevention effectiveness of 80% (corresponding to 1–3 months for delta variant after the second vaccine dose). Regarding zoning, there was little difference in risk with a vaccination coverage of ≥80%. Adherence to individual measures after vaccination and maintenance of high vaccine effectiveness among spectators at stadiums are important for reducing risk of infection and serious illness. Furthermore, seat zoning did not affect overall infection risk reduction.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.30.22269980: (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.

    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 10.1101/2022.01.30.22269980 on medRxiv