The UK Government Events Research Programme has published a report on the Public Health Impact of mass cultural and sporting events on the prevalence of Covid 19. LINK
The report covers Euro 2020 matches including the final at Wembley Stadium on July 12th and will feed into various inquiries, hopefully including the two internal inquiries agreed by Brent Council. LINK
The disorder and stadium invasion at Wembley Stadium on July 11th when England played Italy probably had an impact as did the nature of football crowds and pre-match socialising and drinking.
I reprint the substance of the report blow. A full version with footnotes can be found on the link above.
DISCUSSION
The increasing number of reported cases across all
events reflects the increasing community prevalence of COVID-19 during that
period. Both the EURO 2020 matches at Wembley and the All England Lawn Tennis
Championships were mass spectator sporting events taking place on multiple days
within a short period of time at an outdoor stadium in Greater London. There
were similar numbers of spectators and high capacity in the stadia, reaching
75% for the later EURO 2020 matches and 100% on Centre Court at the Wimbledon
final. Both required evidence of vaccination or negative LFD or natural immunity
as a condition of entry. There are very markedly different numbers of positive cases
reported as associated with these events, with those associated with the Wimbledon
event more comparable with those reported from the other ERP events running
concurrently, and with the numbers testing positive within the wider community
at that time. This suggests that the EURO 2020 matches generated a level of
COVID -19 transmission over and above that which would be more commonly
associated with large crowds attending an outdoor sporting event with measures
in place to mitigate transmission.
The
number of potentially infected persons attending Wembley stadium increased as
the tournament progressed, reaching more than 2,000 at the EURO 2020 final despite
event goers requiring a COVID pass for entry; this was in contrast with much
lower infectious cases detected at other events occurring in the same month.
This raises questions on the utility of individuals self-reporting tests in
reducing the prevalence of COVID infection at rare or special occasion events
and the longer term deliverability of self-testing as an option to mitigate
disease transmission.
Research
teams present at each of these events have verbally reported stark differences in
crowd and spectator behaviour (personal communication from Dr Aoife Hunt,
formal report in preparation). Whilst attendees at Wimbledon were reported to
be largely compliant with the crowd management measures in place, at the
Wembley stadium the concourse areas became densely populated with shouting,
chanting and boisterous behaviour with close contact in these areas before and
during the semi-final and final matches.
At both venues alcohol was served, but at Wembley
attendees were not allowed to take this into the seated accommodation. At both
venues the compliance with risk mitigation measures was variable. However, the
initial reports from research teams indicate that the Wembley spectators became
less compliant with mitigation such as face coverings as the tournament
progressed. In addition to this, the carbon dioxide levels reported from the
concourse areas were higher than those recorded at other high risk settings in
the ERP events, including the densely crowded areas at the Download music festival,
and will have compounded the risk associated with the high numbers of spectators
potentially infectious at the event itself (personal communication from Dr
Liora Malki-Epshtein UCL, formal report in preparation).
Finally, the public disorder offences occurring at
EURO 2020 have been widely reported, including an undefined number of ticketless
fans who gained entry to the stadium. Public disorder in and around the stadium
meant that COVID-19 status checks were suspended for the Final.
The
EURO 2020 events had an increasing impact on a national scale which was not observed
for other events within the ERP, suggesting that there were additional factors associated
with these events and that the risk of COVID transmission was not mitigated by
the control measures in place for entry to the event itself. There was
increasing national interest as the tournament progressed, as this was the
first time an English team were in an international final for 55 years
generating a sense of the final stages being a ‘once in a generation’ occasion.
This will not be replicated for all sport tournaments taking place over the
winter, nor for all football matches. However, previous crowd behaviours
associated with football fans has underpinned the methods used to manage these
crowds including the legislation in place governing alcohol consumption within football
stadia. In general terms, this has the effect of concentrating people into as
few areas as possible while crowd management strategies often hold groups until
they can be moved en-masse in a controlled manner. To mitigate the risk of
transmission of COVID-19 it would be preferable to dissipate the crowds across
as wide an area as possible and manage the movement over long periods of time,
as happened at other events
including the Wimbledon tennis championships. Further analysis of movement strategies
will be reported as part of ERP phase 3 reports.
In
addition to the cases associated directly with Wembley stadium, there was a noticeable
national impact on COVID-19 case rates for key games including the Ukraine versus
England quarter-final (3 July in Rome), for the England versus Denmark semi-final
(7 July) and for the England versus Italy final (11 July), reflecting that in
the later stages of the EURO 2020 tournament people came together across the
country to watch the games and celebrate. There are higher proportions of
events coded as pubs or bars on each of these dates compared to other dates for
COVID-19 cases in England.
The
case numbers associated with the events were detected using the routine
reporting systems and were mainly from individuals who were symptomatic. As
high proportions of cases, especially in young healthy individuals are
asymptomatic, this is likely to be an underestimate of the full impact of these
events. In addition, contact tracing is only undertaken for PCR test results
and supervised LFD test results (those who are positive on home LFDs are
requested to undertake an immediate PCR test) and recall bias of those
contacted will vary. While there is no detailed age and sex breakdown for those
who attended, it is highly likely that certain sports events (for example,
football, golf) were more likely to have higher male and younger demographic
attending. The age distribution also likely reflects the impact of vaccination;
by 11 July 2021, more than 80% of those over 50 years were fully vaccinated and
less than 30% of those under 40 years were fully vaccinated.
Contact
tracing information can indicate events or locations individuals have attended while
at risk of transmitting COVID-19 or places where transmission may have
occurred.
It is
not possible to say with certainty how many individuals transmitted COVID-19 at
an event or venue, nor exactly where an individual contracted the virus. The
Euro Final match did not take place until 8pm, meaning that those attending may
have been engaging
in social activities during their journey to the match, and prior to entering
the stadium itself. Transmission of infection may have occurred at the event
itself or during any of the other reported activities associated with the
event, of which attending a pub or
restaurant
is the most frequently reported.
Neither
full vaccination nor a negative LFD test will completely eliminate the
possibility of an infectious individual attending an event, but it should
reduce the likelihood of someone transmitting
highly infectious amounts of virus to a large number of individuals attending the
event.
CONCLUSION
The EURO2020 tournament and England’s progress to
the EURO final generated a significant risk to public health across the UK even
when England played overseas. This risk arose not just from individuals
attending the event itself, but included activities undertaken
during travel and associated social activities. For the final and semi-final games
at Wembley, risk mitigation measures in place were less effective in
controlling COVID transmission than was the case for other mass spectator
sports events.
EURO2020-related
transmissions have also been documented in Scotland where 2,632 individuals
self-reported attending a EURO2020 event in the UK; and Finland, where 947 new
SARS-CoV-2-positive cases were linked to travel to Moscow, Russia.
Whilst
some of this may be attributed to a set of circumstances which are unlikely to be
replicated for the forthcoming sporting season, other aspects may be important
to consider including mitigations for spectators to consider such as face
coverings when travelling
to and from events and minimising crowding in poorly ventilated indoors spaces such
as bars and pubs where people may congregate to watch events. It is also important
that individuals are informed to reduce the risk of transmission from aerosol exposure
related to shouting and chanting in large groups by improving ventilation in enclosed
spaces.
Other
risk mitigation measures at high community prevalence include reducing the number
of persons entering events or venues who are potentially infectious or at risk
of severe disease or hospitalisation by promoting attendance by fully
vaccinated individuals will be important. Promoting vaccination and the wearing
of face coverings for those attending events will also reduce the risk of
transmission associated with the journey to and from the event and associated
social activities. Finally, event organisers should consider measures to manage
the density of crowds in areas such as hospitality and concessions on the
concourses, and entry and exit points to the event.
