Back

Community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 virus in England during May 2020: REACT study

Riley, S.; Ainslie, K. E. C.; Eales, O.; Jeffrey, B.; Walters, C. E.; Atchison, C. J.; Diggle, P. J.; Ashby, D.; Donnelly, C. A.; Cooke, G.; Barclay, W.; Ward, H.; Taylor, G.; Darzi, A.; Elliott, P.

2020-07-11 infectious diseases
10.1101/2020.07.10.20150524 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundEngland has experienced one of the highest rates of confirmed COVID-19 mortality in the world. SARS-CoV-2 virus has circulated in hospitals, care homes and the community since January 2020. Our current epidemiological knowledge is largely informed by clinical cases with far less understanding of community transmission. MethodsThe REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission (REACT) study is a nationally representative prevalence survey of SARS-CoV-2 virus swab-positivity in the community in England. We recruited participants regardless of symptom status. ResultsWe found 159 positives from 120,610 swabs giving an average prevalence of 0.13% (95% CI: 0.11%,0.15%) from 1st May to 1st June 2020. We showed decreasing prevalence with a halving time of 8.6 (6.2, 13.6) days, implying an overall reproduction number R of 0.57 (0.45, 0.72). Adults aged 18 to 24 yrs had the highest swab-positivity rates, while those >64 yrs had the lowest. Of the 126 participants who tested positive with known symptom status in the week prior to their swab, 39 reported symptoms while 87 did not, giving an estimate that 69% (61%,76%) of people were symptom-free for the 7 days prior testing positive in our community sample. Symptoms strongly associated with swab-positivity were: nausea and/or vomiting, diarrhoea, blocked nose, loss of smell, loss of taste, headache, chills and severe fatigue. Recent contact with a known COVID-19 case was associated with odds of 24 (16, 38) for swab-positivity. Compared with non-key workers, odds of swab-positivity were 7.7 (2.4, 25) among care home (long-term care facilities) workers and 5.2 (2.9, 9.3) among health care workers. However, some of the excess risk associated with key worker status was explained by recent contact with COVID-19 cases. We found no strong evidence for geographical variability in positive swab results. ConclusionOur results provide a reliable baseline against which the impact of subsequent relaxation of lockdown can be assessed to inform future public health efforts to control transmission.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 14%
12.4%
2
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.0%
3
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
4
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
5
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.8%
6
The Lancet Regional Health - Europe
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.9%
7
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.9%
8
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.9%
50% of probability mass above
9
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.9%
10
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.0%
11
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
12
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.4%
13
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.3%
14
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
15
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
16
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
17
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
18
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
19
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.3%
20
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
21
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 67%
1.2%
22
Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
23
Public Health
34 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
24
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
25
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
26
New England Journal of Medicine
50 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
27
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
32 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
28
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 20%
0.7%
29
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
30
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%