Large Gathering Attendance is Associated with Increased Odds of Contracting COVID-19: A Survey Based Study

Abstract

We used a telephone survey to determine risk factors associated with a positive polymerase chain reaction test of a nasopharyngeal swab for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) at a community hospital in Central New Jersey during the early stages of the pandemic. We compared survey responses of 176 patients in March 2020. Respondents were asked about their living situation, work environment, use of public transportation and attendance at one or more large gatherings (more than 10 people) in the 3 weeks prior to undergoing COVID testing. We found that those who attended a large gathering in the 3 weeks prior to their COVID test had a 2.50 odds ratio (95% CI 1.19, 5.22) of testing positive after controlling for age, sex, race/ethnicity, occupation, living situation and recent visit to a nursing home. The total number of gatherings attended or the number of people in attendance was not associated with a positive test. An association was also seen for specific job types such as factory workers, construction workers, and facilities managers. Attendance at a gathering of more than ten people was associated with testing positive for COVID-19.

COVID-19-related hospital admission in spouses of partners in at-risk occupations

“…Domestic crowding is associated with risk of viral transmission ( 21 , 22 ) and fewer opportunities for isolation at the home, but is, at least partially, accounted for by adjusting for social, ethnic and geographical characteristics including number of household members and children. Nevertheless, information about factors such as home-to-work commuting patterns ( 23 , 24 ), large gathering attendance ( 25 ) and local hotspots ( 26 ) was not available at the individual level and skewed distribution of these factors across exposure categories may have contributed to residual confounding in either direction. The same applies to JEM-based assignment of probability of smoking and body mass index.…”

“…Within the source population, we identified cohabiting couples, comprising two adults, both aged 25 Employees in low-risk occupations who were not living with a spouse/partner according to the above definitions (N=155 506) were excluded from the main analyses but included in a sensitivity analysis (figure 1).…”