High SARS-CoV-2 attack rates following exposure during five singing events in the Netherlands, September-October 2020
Shah, A. A.; Dusseldorp, F.; Veldhuijzen, I. K.; te Wierik, M. J. M.; Bartels, A.; Schijven, J.; Vermeulen, L. C.; Knol, M. J.
Show abstract
BackgroundPrevious reports suggest SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk increases during singing events. From September-October 2020, several clusters of COVID-19 cases among singing events were reported across the Netherlands. Our aim was to investigate whether singing increased SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk during these events. MethodsData from 5 events were retrospectively collected from spokespersons and singing group members via questionnaires. Information was consolidated with the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. Specimens were requested for sequencing for point source and cluster assessment. We described outbreaks in terms of person, place and time and depicted potential SARS-CoV-2 transmission routes. A previously published model (AirCoV2) was used to estimate mean illness risk of 1 person through airborne transmission under various scenarios. ResultsEvents included 9-21 persons (mean: 16), aged 20-89 years (median: 62). Response rates ranged 58-100%. Attack rates were 53-74%. Limited sequencing data was obtained from 2 events. Events lasted 60-150 minutes (singing: 20-120). Rooms ranged 320-3000m3. SARS-CoV-2 transmission likely occurred during all events; with a possible index case identified in 4 events. AirCoV2 showed 86% (54-100%) mean illness risk for 120 minutes of singing, smaller room (300m3), 1 air exchange/hour (ACH), and supershedder presence. ConclusionsDroplet transmission and indirect contact probably caused some cases, but unlikely explain the high attack rates. AirCoV2 indicated that airborne transmission due to singing is possible in case of supershedder presence. Airflow expelling respiratory droplets >1.5m possibly influenced transmission. It is possible that singing itself increased SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk through airborne transmission. SummaryThis outbreak investigation among five singing events with high SARS-CoV-2 attack rates (53-74%) suggested that airflow expelling respiratory droplets >1.5m possibly influenced transmission and it is possible that singing itself increased SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk through airborne transmission.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Professional practice for COVID-19 risk reduction among health care workers: a Cross-Sectional Study with Matched Case-Control Comparison 92%
- Epidemiological characterization of symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID-19 cases and positivity in subsequent RT-PCR tests in the United Arab Emirates 92%
- Serological prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and associated factors in health care workers in a “non-COVID” hospital in Mexico City 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- SARS-CoV-2 risk taxation model and validation based on large scale Dutch test-events 93%
- SARS-CoV-2 Aerosol Transmission Indoors: A Closer Look at Viral Load, Infectivity, the Effectiveness of Preventive Measures and a Simple Approach for Practical Recommendations 92%
- Confirmed COVID-19 cases per economic activity during Autumn wave in Belgium 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Experience with open schools and preschools in periods of high community transmission of COVID-19 in Norway during the academic year of 2020/2021. 92%
- COVID-19 infections in day care centres in Germany: Social and organisational determinants of infections in children and staff in the second and third wave of the pandemic 92%
- Evaluating the Risk of Conflict on Recent Ebola Outbreaks in Guinea and the Democratic Republic of the Congo 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among children and staff in German daycare centers: results from the COALA study 95%
- Public Health response to an outbreak of SARS-CoV2 infection in a Barcelona prison 92%
- Occupational exposures associated with being a COVID-19 case; evidence from three case-controls studies 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.