Search

Background The Omicron B.1.1.529 variant increased severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in doubly vaccinated individuals, particularly in the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1) recipients. To tackle infections, the UK’s booster vaccination programmes used messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines irrespective of an individual’s primary course vaccine type, and prioritized the clinically vulnerable. These mRNA vaccines included the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (mRNA-1273). There is limited understanding of the effectiveness of different primary vaccination courses on mRNA booster vaccines against SARs-COV-2 infections and how time-varying confounders affect these evaluations. Methods Trial emulation was applied to a prospective community observational cohort in England and Wales to reduce time-varying confounding-by-indication driven by prioritizing vaccination based upon age, vulnerability and exposure. Trial emulation was conducted by meta-analysing eight adult cohort results whose booster vaccinations were staggered between 16 September 2021 and 05 January 2022 and followed until 23 January 2022. Time from booster vaccination until SARS-CoV-2 infection, loss of follow-up or end of study was modelled using Cox proportional hazard models and adjusted for age, sex, minority ethnic status, clinically vulnerability and deprivation. Results A total of 19 159 participants were analysed, with 11 709 ChAdOx1 primary courses and 7450 BNT162b2 primary courses. Median age, clinical vulnerability status and infection rates fluctuate through time. In mRNA-boosted adults, 7.4% (n = 863) of boosted adults with a ChAdOx1 primary course experienced a SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with 7.7% (n = 571) of those who had BNT162b2 as a primary course. The pooled adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) was 1.01 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of: 0.90 to 1.13. Conclusion After an mRNA booster dose, we found no difference in protection comparing those with a primary course of BNT162b2 with those with a ChAdOx1 primary course. This contrasts with pre-booster findings where previous research shows greater effectiveness of BNT162b2 than ChAdOx1 in preventing infection.

Key FeaturesVirus Watch is a national community cohort study of COVID-19 in households in England and Wales, established in June 2020. The study aims to provide evidence on which public health approaches are most effective in reducing transmission, and investigate community incidence, symptoms, and transmission of COVID-19 in relation to population movement and behaviours.28,527 households and 58,628 participants of age (0-98 years, mean age 48), were recruited between June 2020 - July 2022Data collected include demographics, details on occupation, co-morbidities, medications, and infection-prevention behaviours. Households are followed up weekly with illness surveys capturing symptoms and their severity, activities in the week prior to symptom onset and any COVID-19 test results. Monthly surveys capture household finance, employment, mental health, access to healthcare, vaccination uptake, activities and contacts. Data have been linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), inpatient and critical care episodes, outpatient visits, emergency care contacts, mortality, virology testing and vaccination data held by NHS Digital.Nested within Virus Watch are a serology & PCR cohort study (n=12,877) and a vaccine evaluation study (n=19,555).Study data are deposited in the Office of National Statistics (ONS) Secure Research Service (SRS). Survey data are available under restricted access upon request to ONS SRS.

BackgroundMigrants in the UK may be at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure; however, little is known about their risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisation during waves 1-3 of the pandemic.MethodsWe analysed secondary care data linked to Virus Watch study data for adults and estimated COVID-19-related hospitalisation incidence rates by migration status. To estimate the total effect of migration status on COVID-19 hospitalisation rates, we ran fixed-effect Poisson regression for wave 1 (01/03/2020-31/08/2020; wildtype), and fixed-effect negative binomial regressions for waves 2 (01/09/2020-31/05/2021; Alpha) and 3 (01/06/2020-31/11/2021; Delta). Results of all models were then meta-analysed.ResultsOf 30,276 adults in the analyses, 26,492 (87.5%) were UK-born and 3,784 (12.5%) were migrants. COVID-19-related hospitalisation incidence rates for UK-born and migrant individuals across waves 1-3 were 2.7 [95% CI 2.2-3.2], and 4.6 [3.1-6.7] per 1,000 person-years, respectively. Pooled incidence rate ratios across waves suggested increased rate of COVID-19-related hospitalisation in migrants compared to UK-born individuals in unadjusted 1.68 [1.08-2.60] and adjusted analyses 1.35 [0.71-2.60].ConclusionOur findings suggest migration populations in the UK have excess risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisations and underscore the need for more equitable interventions particularly aimed at COVID-19 vaccination uptake among migrants.

BackgroundDifferential exposure to public activities may contribute to stark deprivation-related inequalities in SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes but has not been directly investigated. We set out to investigate whether participants in Virus Watch—a large community cohort study based in England and Wales—reported differential exposure to public activities and non-household contacts during the autumn–winter phase of the COVID-19 pandemic according to postcode-level socioeconomic deprivation.MethodsParticipants (n=20 120–25 228 across surveys) reported their daily activities during 3 weekly periods in late November 2020, late December 2020 and mid-February 2021. Deprivation was quantified based on participants’ residential postcode using English or Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation quintiles. We used Poisson mixed-effect models with robust standard errors to estimate the relationship between deprivation and risk of exposure to public activities during each survey period.ResultsRelative to participants in the least deprived areas, participants in the most deprived areas exhibited elevated risk of exposure to vehicle sharing (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) range across time points: 1.73–8.52), public transport (aRR: 3.13–5.73), work or education outside of the household (aRR: 1.09–1.21), essential shops (aRR: 1.09–1.13) and non-household contacts (aRR: 1.15–1.19) across multiple survey periods.ConclusionDifferential exposure to essential public activities—such as attending workplaces and visiting essential shops—is likely to contribute to inequalities in infection risk and outcomes. Public health interventions to reduce exposure during essential activities and financial and practical support to enable low-paid workers to stay at home during periods of intense transmission may reduce COVID-related inequalities.

Purpose We aimed to understand which non-household activities increased infection odds and contributed greatest to SARS-CoV-2 infections following the lifting of public health restrictions in England and Wales. Procedures We undertook multivariable logistic regressions assessing the contribution to infections of activities reported by adult Virus Watch Community Cohort Study participants. We calculated adjusted weighted population attributable fractions (aPAF) estimating which activity contributed greatest to infections. Findings Among 11 413 participants (493 infections), infection was associated with: leaving home for work (aOR 1.35 (1.11–1.64), aPAF 17%), public transport (aOR 1.27 (1.04–1.57), aPAF 12%), shopping once (aOR 1.83 (1.36–2.45)) vs. more than three times a week, indoor leisure (aOR 1.24 (1.02–1.51), aPAF 10%) and indoor hospitality (aOR 1.21 (0.98–1.48), aPAF 7%). We found no association for outdoor hospitality (1.14 (0.94–1.39), aPAF 5%) or outdoor leisure (1.14 (0.82–1.59), aPAF 1%). Conclusion Essential activities (work and public transport) carried the greatest risk and were the dominant contributors to infections. Non-essential indoor activities (hospitality and leisure) increased risk but contributed less. Outdoor activities carried no statistical risk and contributed to fewer infections. As countries aim to ‘live with COVID’, mitigating transmission in essential and indoor venues becomes increasingly relevant.

BackgroundStudies of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness show increases in COVID-19 cases within 14 days of a first dose, potentially reflecting post-vaccination behaviour changes associated with SARS-CoV-2 transmission before vaccine protection. However, direct evidence for a relationship between vaccination and behaviour is lacking. We aimed to examine the association between vaccination status and self-reported non-household contacts and non-essential activities during a national lockdown in England and Wales.MethodsParticipants (n=1,154) who had received the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine reported non-household contacts and non-essential activities from February to March 2021 in monthly surveys during a national lockdown in England and Wales. We used a case-crossover study design and conditional logistic regression to examine the association between vaccination status (pre-vaccination vs. 14 days post-vaccination) and self-reported contacts and activities within individuals. Stratified subgroup analyses examined potential effect heterogeneity by sociodemographic characteristics such as sex, household income or age group.Results457/1,154 (39.60%) participants reported non-household contacts post-vaccination compared with 371/1,154 (32.15%) participants pre-vaccination. 100/1,154 (8.67%) participants reported use of non-essential shops or services post-vaccination compared with 74/1,154 (6.41%) participants pre-vaccination. Post-vaccination status was associated with increased odds of reporting non-household contacts (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.31-2.06, pConclusionParticipants had higher odds of reporting non-household contacts and use of non-essential shops or services within 14 days of their first COVID-19 vaccine compared to pre-vaccination. Public health emphasis on maintaining protective behaviours during this post-vaccination time period when individuals have yet to develop full protection from vaccination could reduce risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Background: The two most common SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the UK, BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca), employ different immunogenic mechanisms. Compared to BNT162b2, two-dose immunisation with ChAdOx1 induces substantially lower peak anti-spike antibody (anti-S) levels and is associated with a higher risk of breakthrough infections. To provide preliminary indication of how a third booster BNT162b2 dose impacts anti-S levels, we performed a cross-sectional analysis using capillary blood samples from vaccinated adults participating in Virus Watch, a prospective community cohort study in England and Wales. Methods: Blood samples were analysed using Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S immunoassay. We analysed anti-S levels by week since the third dose for vaccines administered on or after 1 September 2021 and stratified the results by second-dose vaccine type (ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2), age, sex and clinical vulnerability. Results: Anti-S levels peaked at two weeks post-booster for BNT162b2 (22,185 U/mL; 95%CI: 21,406-22,990) and ChAdOx1 second-dose recipients (19,203 U/mL; 95%CI: 18,094-20,377). These were higher than the corresponding peak antibody levels post-second dose for BNT162b2 (12,386 U/mL; 95%CI: 9,801-15,653, week 2) and ChAdOx1 (1,192 U/mL; 95%CI: 818-1735, week 3). No differences emerged by second dose vaccine type, age, sex or clinical vulnerability. Anti-S levels declined post-booster for BNT162b2 (half-life=44 days) and ChAdOx1 second dose recipients (half-life=40 days). These rates of decline were steeper than those post-second dose for BNT162b2 (half-life=54 days) and ChAdOx1 (half-life=80 days). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that peak anti-S levels are higher post-booster than post-second dose, but levels are projected to be similar after six months for BNT162b2 recipients. Higher peak anti-S levels post-booster may partially explain the increased effectiveness of booster vaccination compared to two-dose vaccination against symptomatic infection with the Omicron variant. Faster waning trajectories post-third dose may have implications for the timing of future booster campaigns or four-dose vaccination regimens for the clinically vulnerable.

BackgroundOccupational disparities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake can impact the effectiveness of vaccination programmes and introduce particular risk for vulnerable workers and those with high workplace exposure. This study aimed to investigate COVID-19 vaccine uptake by occupation, including for vulnerable groups and by occupational exposure status.MethodsWe used data from employed or self-employed adults who provided occupational information as part of the Virus Watch prospective cohort study (n=19,595) and linked this to study-obtained information about vulnerability-relevant characteristics (age, medical conditions, obesity status) and work-related COVID-19 exposure based on the Job Exposure Matrix. Participant vaccination status for the first, second, and third dose of any COVID-19 vaccine was obtained based on linkage to national records and study records. We calculated proportions and Sison-Glaz multinomial 95% confidence intervals for vaccine uptake by occupation overall, by vulnerability-relevant characteristics, and by job exposure.FindingsVaccination uptake across occupations ranged from 89-96% for the first dose, 87-94% for the second dose, and 75-86% for the third dose, with transport, trade, service and sales workers persistently demonstrating the lowest uptake. Vulnerable workers tended to demonstrate fewer between-occupational differences in uptake than non-vulnerable workers, although clinically vulnerable transport workers (76%-89% across doses) had lower uptake than several other occupational groups (maximum across doses 86-96%). Workers with low SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk had higher vaccine uptake (86%-96% across doses) than those with elevated or high risk (81-94% across doses).InterpretationDifferential vaccination uptake by occupation, particularly amongst vulnerable and highly-exposed workers, is likely to worsen occupational and related socioeconomic inequalities in infection outcomes. Further investigation into occupational and non-occupational factors influencing differential uptake is required to inform relevant interventions for future COVID-19 booster rollouts and similar vaccination programmes.

Background: Workplaces are an important potential source of SARS-CoV-2 exposure; however, investigation into workplace contact patterns is lacking. This study aimed to investigate how workplace attendance and features of contact varied between occupations across the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Methods: Data were obtained from electronic contact diaries (November 2020-November 2021) submitted by employed/self-employed prospective cohort study participants (n=4,616). We used mixed models to investigate the effects of occupation and time for: workplace attendance, number of people sharing workspace, time spent sharing workspace, number of close contacts, and usage of face coverings. Findings: Workplace attendance and contact patterns varied across occupations and time. The predicted probability of intense space sharing during the day was highest for healthcare (78% [95% CI: 75–81%]) and education workers (64% [59%–69%]), who also had the highest probabilities for larger numbers of close contacts (36% [32%–40%] and 38% [33%–43%] respectively). Education workers also demonstrated relatively low predicted probability (51% [44%–57%]) of wearing a face covering during close contact. Across all occupational groups, workspace sharing and close contact increased and usage of face coverings decreased during phases of less stringent restrictions. Interpretation: Major variations in workplace contact patterns and mask use likely contribute to differential COVID-19 risk. Patterns of variation by occupation and restriction phase may inform interventions for future waves of COVID-19 or other respiratory epidemics. Across occupations, increasing workplace contact and reduced face covering usage is concerning given ongoing high levels of community transmission and emergence of variants.

Background: Workers differ in their risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection according to their occupation; however, few studies have been able to control for multiple confounders or investigate the work-related factors that drive differences in occupational risk. Using data from the Virus Watch community cohort study in England and Wales, we set out to estimate the total effect of occupation on SARS-CoV-2 serological status, whether this is mediated by frequency of close contact within the workplace, and how exposure to poorly ventilated workplaces varied across occupations. Methods: We used data from a sub-cohort (n =3761) of adults (≥18) tested for SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid antibodies between 01 February-28 April 2021 and responded to a questionnaire about work during the pandemic. Anti-nucleocapsid antibodies were used as a proxy of prior natural infection with COVID-19. We used logistic decomposition to estimate the total and direct effect of occupation and indirect effect of workplace contact frequency on odds of seropositivity, adjusting for age, sex, household income and region. We investigated the relationship between occupation and exposure to poorly-ventilated workplace environments using ordinal logistic regression. Results: Seropositivity was 16.0% (113/707) amongst workers with daily close contact, compared to 12.9% (120/933) for those with intermediate-frequency contact and 9.6% (203/2121) for those with no work-related close contact. Healthcare (OR= 2.14, 95% CI 1.47,3.12), indoor trade, process and plant (2.09, 1.31,3.33), leisure and personal service (1.96, 1.004,3.84), and transport and mobile machine (2.17, 1.12,4.18) workers had elevated total odds of SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity compared to other professional and associate occupations. Frequency of workplace contact accounted for a variable part of the increased odds in different occupational groups (OR range 1.04 [1.0004,1.07] - 1.22 [1.07, 1.38]). Healthcare workers and indoor trades and process plant workers continued to have raised odds of infection after accounting for work-related contact, and also had had greater odds of frequent exposure to poorly-ventilated workplaces (respectively 2.15 [1.66, 2.79] and (1.51, [1.12, 2.04]). Discussion: Marked variations in occupational odds of seropositivity remain after accounting for age, sex, region, and household income. Close contact in the workplace appears to contribute substantially to this variation. Reducing frequency of workplace contact is a critical part of COVID-19 control measures.

SummaryBackgroundRespiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, can infect the eyes or pass into the nose via the nasolacrimal duct. The importance of transmission via the eyes is unknown but might plausibly be reduced in those who wear glasses. Previous studies have mainly focussed on protective eyewear in healthcare settings.MethodsParticipants from the Virus Watch prospective community cohort study in England and Wales responded to a questionnaire on the use of glasses and contact lenses. This included frequency of use, purpose, and likelihood of wearing a mask with glasses. Infection was confirmed through data linkage with Second Generation Surveillance System (Pillar 1 and Pillar 2), weekly questionnaires to self-report positive polymerase chain reaction or lateral flow results, and, for a subgroup, monthly capillary blood testing for antibodies (nucleocapsid and spike). A multivariable logistic regression model, controlling for age, sex, income and occupation, was used to identify odds of infection depending on the frequency and purpose of using glasses or contact lenses.Findings19,166 Virus Watch participants responded to the questionnaire, with 13,681 (71.3%, CI 70.7-72.0) reporting they wore glasses. A multivariable logistic regression model showed a 15% lower odds of infection for those who reported using glasses always for general use (OR 0.85, 95% 0.77-0.95, p = 0.002) compared to those who never wore glasses. The protective effect was reduced in those who said that wearing glasses interfered with mask wearing. No protective effect was seen for contact lens wearers.InterpretationPeople who wear glasses have a moderate reduction in risk of COVID-19 infection highlighting the importance of the eye as a route of infection. Eye protection may make a valuable contribution to the reduction of transmission in community and healthcare settings.FundingThe research costs for the study have been supported by the MRC Grant Ref: MC_PC 19070 awarded to UCL on 30 March 2020 and MRC Grant Ref: MR/V028375/1 awarded on 17 August 2020. The study also received $15,000 of Facebook advertising credit to support a pilot social media recruitment campaign on 18th August 2020. The study also received funding from the UK Government Department of Health and Social Care’s Vaccine Evaluation Programme to provide monthly Thriva antibody tests to adult participants. This study was supported by the Wellcome Trust through a Wellcome Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship to RA [206602]. Funding from the HSE Protect study, GOSH Children’s Charity and the Great Ormond Street Hospital BRC supported the involvement of CO in the project.Research in contextEvidence before the studyDespite the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission via the eyes, very few countries have advocated eye protection to reduce transmission amongst the public and, except when providing close care for those known or suspected to be infected, is variable and based on case-by-case assessment of exposure risk. The mechanism, but not the extent, of the transmission route through the eyes is well described in the literature, with several studies reporting detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the tear film, conjunctiva and conjunctival sac. There have been a small number of hospital based observational studies suggesting that eye protection may help prevent COVID-19 infection. A literature search was carried out on 23rd February 2022 across Medline and Embase using the search terms ‘eyewear’, ‘glasses’, ‘SARS-CoV-2’, ‘COVID-19’, ‘SARS’, ‘transmission’ and ‘infectivity’, providing 105 manuscripts. Of these, only eight investigated the risk of infection associated with eye protection, all in hospital settings or followed a cohort of healthcare workers. Among the studies was a systematic review that identified 5 observational studies from 898 articles that were screened. The cohort study with the largest sample size, 345 healthcare professionals, demonstrated a relative risk of 10.25 (95% CI 1.28–82.39; P = 0.009) for infection when not using eye protection. No studies of the potential protective effect of glasses wearing, for visual correction, in community settings were identified.Added value of this studyThe Virus Watch study is a prospective community household study across England and Wales. 19,166 participants responded to the monthly questionnaire on glasses and contact lens use, assessing reported frequency, the purpose of use and how likely they were to wear a mask with glasses. Infections were identified in data linked to the Second Generation Surveillance System (Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 testing), weekly surveys seeking self-reports of polymerase chain reaction or lateral flow device results and, in a subset of 11,701, self-collected capillary blood testing for antibodies (nucleocapsid and spike - nucleocapsid antibodies were taken as evidence of prior infection as these are unaffected by vaccination). Our multivariable logistic regression model, controlling for age, sex, household income and occupation, demonstrated 15% lower odds of infection for those who reported always using glasses for general use compared to those who never wear glasses. The protective effect was not observed in those who strongly agreed with the statement, ‘I am less likely to wear a face covering when I have my glasses on because my glasses steam up’. Counterfactual analysis of contact lenses did not suggest a protective effect regardless of frequency of use.Implications of all the available evidenceThe findings of this study demonstrate a moderate reduction in risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in those who always wear glasses compared to never. Unlike other studies, our results are representative of a community setting, adjust for potential confounders and provide a counterfactual analysis with contact lenses. This extends the current evidence to community settings and validates proposed biological mechanisms of eye protection reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

ImportanceThe Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant has increased SARs-CoV-2 infections in double vaccinated individuals globally, particularly in ChAdOx1 recipients. To tackle rising infections, the UK accelerated booster vaccination programmes used mRNA vaccines irrespective of an individual’s primary course vaccine type with booster doses rolled out according to clinical priority. There is limited understanding of the effectiveness of different primary vaccination courses on mRNA based booster vaccines against SARs-COV-2 infections and how time-varying confounders can impact the evaluations comparing different vaccines as primary courses for mRNA boosters.ObjectiveTo evaluate the comparative effectiveness of ChAdOx1 versus BNT162b2 as primary doses against SARs-CoV-2 in booster vaccine recipients whilst accounting for time-varying confounders.DesignTrial emulation was used to reduce time-varying confounding-by-indication driven by prioritising booster vaccines based upon age, vulnerability and exposure status e.g. healthcare worker. Trial emulation was conducted by meta-analysing eight cohort results whose booster vaccinations were staggered between 16/09/2021 to 05/01/2022 and followed until 23/01/2022. Time from booster vaccination until SARS-CoV-2 infection, loss of follow-up or end-of-study was modelled using Cox proportional hazards models for each cohort and adjusted for age, sex, minority ethnic status, clinically vulnerability, and deprivation.SettingProspective observational study using the Virus Watch community cohort in England and Wales.ParticipantsPeople over the age of 18 years who had their booster vaccination between 16/09/2021 to 05/01/2022 without prior natural immunity.ExposuresChAdOx1 versus BNT162b2 as a primary dose, and an mRNA booster vaccine.ResultsAcross eight cohorts, 19,692 mRNA vaccine boosted participants were analysed with 12,036 ChAdOx1 and 7,656 BNT162b2 primary courses with a median follow-up time of 73 days (IQR:54-90). Median age, clinical vulnerability status and infection rates fluctuate through time. 7.2% (n=864) of boosted adults with ChAdOx1 primary course experienced a SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to 7.6% (n=582) of those with BNT162b2 primary course during follow-up. The pooled adjusted hazard ratio was 0.99 [95%CI:0.88-1.11], demonstrating no difference between the incidence of SARs-CoV-2 infections based upon the primary vaccine course.Conclusion and RelevanceIn mRNA boosted individuals, we found no difference in protection comparing those with a primary course of BNT162b2 to those with aChAdOx1 primary course. This contrasts with pre-booster findings where previous research shows greater effectiveness of BNT162b2 than ChAdOx1 in preventing infection.

IntroductionSeroprevalence studies can provide a measure of cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but a better understanding of antibody dynamics following infection is needed to assess longevity of detectability. Infection is characterised by detection of spike (anti-S) and nucleocapsid (anti-N) antibodies, whereas vaccination only stimulates anti-S. Consequently, in the context of a highly vaccinated population, presence of anti-N can be used as a marker of previous infection but waning over time may limit its use.MethodsAdults aged ≥18 years old, from households enrolled in the Virus Watch prospective community cohort study in England and Wales, provided monthly capillary blood samples which were tested for anti-S and anti-N. Participants self-reported vaccination dates and past medical history. Prior polymerase chain reaction (PCR) swabs were obtained through Second Generation Surveillance System (SGSS) linkage data. Primary outcome variables were seropositivity (antibodies at or above the manufacturer’s cut-off for positivity) and total anti-N and anti-S levels after PCR confirmed infection. Outcomes were analysed by days since infection, self-reported demographic and clinical factors.ResultsA total of 13,802 eligible individuals, median age 63, provided 58,770 capillary blood samples. 537 of these had a prior positive PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection 0-269 days before the antibody sample date. 432 out of the 537 (80.44%) were anti-N positive and detection remained stable through-out follow-up. Median anti-N levels peaked between days 90 and 119 post PCR results and then began to decline. Logistic regression models, both univariable and multivariable, only showed higher odds of positive anti-N result between 0-269 days for 35-49 year olds, compared to 18-34 year olds. There is evidence of anti-N waning from 120 days onwards, with earlier waning for females and younger age categories.DiscussionApproximately 4 in 5 participants with prior PCR-confirmed infection were anti-N positive, and this remained stable through follow-up for at least 269 days. However, median antibody levels began to decline from about 120 days post-infection. This suggests that anti-N have around 80% sensitivity for identifying previous COVID-19 infection and that this sensitivity is maintained through 269 days of follow up.FundingThe research costs for the study have been supported by the MRC Grant Ref: MC_PC 19070 awarded to UCL on 30 March 2020 and MRC Grant Ref: MR/V028375/1 awarded on 17 August 2020. The study also received $15,000 of Facebook advertising credit to support a pilot social media recruitment campaign on 18th August 2020. The study also received funding from the UK Government Department of Health and Social Care’s Vaccine Evaluation Programme to provide monthly Thriva antibody tests to adult participants. This study was supported by the Wellcome Trust through a Wellcome Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship to RA [206602].

IntroductionInfections of SARS-CoV-2 in vaccinated individuals have been increasing globally. Understanding the associations between vaccine type and a post-vaccination infection could help prevent further COVID-19 waves. In this paper, we use trial emulation to understand the impact of a phased introduction of the vaccine in the UK driven by vulnerability and exposure status. We estimate the comparative effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines (ChAdOx1 versus BNT162b2) against post-vaccination infections of SARS-CoV-2 in a community setting in England and Wales.MethodTrial emulation was conducted by pooling results from six cohorts whose recruitment was staggered between 1st January 2021 and 31st March 2021 and followed until 12th November 2021. Eligibility for each trial was based upon age (18+ at the time of vaccination), without prior signs of infection or an infection within the first 14 days of the first dose. Time from vaccination of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 until SARS-CoV-2 infection (positive polymerase chain reaction or lateral flow test after 14 of the vaccination) was modelled using Cox proportional hazards model for each cohort and adjusted for age at vaccination, gender, minority ethnic status, clinically vulnerable status and index of multiple deprivation quintile. For those without SARS-CoV-2 infection during the study period, follow-up was until loss-of-follow-up or end of study (12th November 2021). Pooled hazard ratios were generated using random-effects meta-analysis.ResultsAcross six cohorts, there were a total of 21,283 participants who were eligible and vaccinated with either ChAdOx1 (n = 13,813) or BNT162b2 (n = 7,470) with a median follow-up time of 266 days (IQR: 235 - 282). By November 12th 2021, 750 (5.4%) adults who had ChAdOx1 as their vaccine experienced a SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to 296 (4.0%) who had BNT162b2. We found that people who received ChAdOx1 vaccinations had 10.54 per 1000 people higher cumulative incidence for SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to BNT162b2 for infections during a maximum of 315 days of follow-up. When adjusted for age at vaccination, sex, minority ethnic status, index of multiple deprivation, and clinical vulnerability status, we found a pooled adjusted hazard ratio of 1.35 [HR: 1.35, 95%CI: 1.15 - 1.58], demonstrating a 35% increase in SARS-CoV-2 infections in people who received ChAdOx1 compared to BNT162b2.DiscussionWe found evidence of greater effectiveness of receiving BNT162b2 compared to ChAdOx1 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection in England and Wales during a time period when Delta became the most prevalent variant of concern. Our findings demonstrate the importance of booster (third) doses to maintain protection and suggest that these should be prioritised to those who received ChAdOx1 as their primary course.

BackgroundWorkplaces are an important potential source of SARS-CoV-2 exposure; however, investigation into workplace contact patterns is lacking. This study aimed to investigate how workplace attendance and features of contact varied between occupations and over time during the COVID-19 pandemic in England.MethodsData were obtained from electronic contact diaries submitted between November 2020 and November 2021 by employed/self-employed prospective cohort study participants (n=4,616). We used mixed models to investigate the main effects and potential interactions between occupation and time for: workplace attendance, number of people in shared workspace, time spent sharing workspace, number of close contacts, and usage of face coverings.FindingsWorkplace attendance and contact patterns varied across occupations and time. The predicted probability of intense space sharing during the day was highest for healthcare (78% [95% CI: 75-81%]) and education workers (64% [59%-69%]), who also had the highest probabilities for larger numbers of close contacts (36% [32%-40%] and 38% [33%-43%] respectively). Education workers also demonstrated relatively low predicted probability (51% [44%-57%]) of wearing a face covering during close contact. Across all occupational groups, levels of workspace sharing and close contact were higher and usage of face coverings at work lower in later phases of the pandemic compared to earlier phases.InterpretationMajor variations in patterns of workplace contact and mask use are likely to contribute to differential COVID-19 risk. Across occupations, increasing workplace contact and reduced usage of face coverings presents an area of concern given ongoing high levels of community transmission and emergence of variants.

Background: Household overcrowding is associated with increased risk of infectious diseases across contexts and countries. Limited data exist linking household overcrowding and risk of COVID-19. We used data collected from the Virus Watch cohort to examine the association between overcrowded households and SARS-CoV-2. Methods: The Virus Watch study is a household community cohort of acute respiratory infections in England and Wales. We calculated overcrowding using the measure of persons per room for each household. We considered two primary outcomes: PCR-confirmed positive SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We used mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for household structure to estimate the association between household overcrowding and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results: 26,367 participants were included in our analyses. The proportion of participants with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result was highest in the overcrowded group (9.0%; 99/1,100) and lowest in the under-occupied group (4.2%; 980/23,196). In a mixed-effects logistic regression model, we found strong evidence of an increased odds of a positive PCR SARS-CoV-2 antigen result (odds ratio 2.45; 95% CI:1.43–4.19; p-value=0.001) and increased odds of a positive SARS-CoV-2 antibody result in individuals living in overcrowded houses (3.32; 95% CI:1.54–7.15; p-value Conclusion: Public health interventions to prevent and stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2 should consider the risk of infection for people living in overcrowded households and pay greater attention to reducing household transmission.

BackgroundWorkers differ in their risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection according to their occupation, but the direct contribution of occupation to this relationship is unclear. This study aimed to investigate how infection risk differed across occupational groups in England and Wales up to April 2022, after adjustment for potential confounding and stratification by pandemic phase.MethodsData from 15,190 employed/self-employed participants in the Virus Watch prospective cohort study were used to generate risk ratios for virologically- or serologically-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection using robust Poisson regression, adjusting for socio-demographic and health-related factors and non-work public activities. We calculated attributable fractions (AF) amongst the exposed for belonging to each occupational group based on adjusted risk ratios (aRR).FindingsIncreased risk was seen in nurses (aRR=1.44, 1.25-1.65; AF=30%, 20-39%), doctors (aRR=1.33, 1.08-1.65; AF=25%, 7-39%), carers (1.45, 1.19-1.76; AF=31%, 16-43%), primary school teachers (aRR=1.67, 1.42-1.96; AF=40%, 30-49%), secondary school teachers (aRR=1.48, 1.26-1.72; AF=32%, 21-42%), and teaching support occupations (aRR=1.42, 1.23-1.64; AF=29%, 18-39%) compared to office-based professional occupations. Differential risk was apparent in the earlier phases (Feb 2020 - May 2021) and attenuated later (June - October 2021) for most groups, although teachers and teaching support workers demonstrated persistently elevated risk across waves.InterpretationOccupational differentials in SARS-CoV-2 infection risk vary over time and are robust to adjustment for socio-demographic, health-related, and non-workplace activity-related potential confounders. Direct investigation into workplace factors underlying elevated risk and how these change over time is needed to inform occupational health interventions.

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 vaccines stimulate production of antibodies targeting the spike protein (anti-S). The level of antibodies following vaccination and trajectories of waning may differ between vaccines influencing the level of protection, how soon protection is reduced and, consequently the optimum timing of booster doses.MethodsWe measured SARS-CoV-2 anti-S titre in the context of seronegativity for SARS-CoV-2 anti-Nucleocapsid (anti-N), in samples collected between 1st July and 24th October 2021 in a subset of adults in the Virus Watch community cohort. We compared anti-S levels after BNT162b2 (BioNTech/Pfizer) or ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca/Oxford) vaccination using time since second dose of vaccination, age, sex and clinical vulnerability to investigate antibody waning. To investigate the use of anti-S levels as a correlate of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection, we undertook a survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier and Cox) with individuals entering 21 days after their second dose of vaccine, or first antibody test after 1st July (whichever was latest) and exiting with the outcome of SARS-Cov-2 infection or at the end of follow up 24th October 2021. We also undertook a negative test design case-control analysis of infections occurring after the second vaccine dose (breakthrough infections) to determine whether the type of vaccine affected the risk of becoming infected.Results24049 samples from 8858 individuals (5549 who received a second dose of ChAdOx1 and 3205 BNT162b2) who remained anti-N negative were included in the analysis of anti-S waning over time. Three weeks after the second dose of vaccine BNT162b2 mean anti-S levels were 9039 (95%CI: 7946-10905) U/ml and ChadOx1 were 1025 (95%CI: 917-1146) U/ml. For both vaccines, waning anti-S levels followed a log linear decline from three weeks after the second dose of vaccination. At 20 weeks after the second dose of vaccine, the mean anti-S levels were 1521 (95%CI: 1432-1616) U/ml for BNT162b2 and 342 (95%CI: 322-365) U/ml for ChadOx1. We identified 197 breakthrough infections and found a reduced risk of infection post second dose of vaccine for individuals with anti-S levels greater than or equal to 500 U/ml compared to those with levels under 500 U/ml (HR 0.62; 95%CIs:0.44-0.87; p=0.007). Time to reach an anti-S threshold of 500 U/ml was estimated at 96 days for ChAdOx1 and 257 days for BNT162b2. We found an increased risk of a breakthrough infection for those who received the ChAdOx1 compared to those who received BNT162b2 (OR: 1.43, 95% CIs:1.18-1.73, pDiscussionAnti-S levels are substantially higher following the second dose of BNT162b2 compared to ChAdOx1. There is a log linear waning in levels for both vaccines following the second dose. Anti-S levels are an important correlate of protection as demonstrated by those with anti-S levels < 500U/ml following vaccination being at significantly greater risk of subsequent infection. Since anti-S levels are substantially lower in ChAdOx1 than in BNT162b2 and both decline at similar rates we would expect waning immunity to occur earlier in ChAdOx1 compared to BNT162b2. Our results showing an increased risk of breakthrough infections for those who were vaccinated with ChAdOx1 compared to BNT162b2 are in line with this hypothesis. Consistent with our data, national analyses of vaccine effectiveness also suggest that waning of immunity for infection and, to a lesser extent for severe disease, is seen earlier in ChAdOx1 than in BNT162b2. Our data demonstrate the importance of booster doses to maintain protection in the elderly and clinically vulnerable and suggest that these should be prioritised to those who received ChAdOx1 as their primary course.

Background Vaccination intention is vital to the success of any vaccination programme, alongside vaccine availability and access. Public intention to take a COVID-19 vaccine if offered is high in the UK, but evidence of disparities between ethnic, social and age groups has led to concern. Methods Online survey of prospective household community cohort study participants across England and Wales (Virus Watch). Vaccination intention was measured by individual participant responses to ‘Would you accept a COVID-19 vaccine if offered?’, collected in December 2020 and February 2021. Responses to a 13-item questionnaire collected in January 2021 were analysed using factor analysis to investigate psychological influences on vaccination intention. Results Survey response rate was 56% (20,785/36,998) in December 2020 and 53% (20,590/38,727) in February 2021, with 14880 adults reporting across both time points. Of participants reporting across both timepoints, 13,411 (90%) answered ‘Yes’ and 1,469 (10%) responded ‘No’ or ‘Unsure’ in December 2020. Of those answering ‘No’ or ‘Unsure’ in December 2020, 1,266 (86%) subsequently answered ‘Yes’ or ‘Already had a COVID-19 vaccine’ in February 2021. Vaccination intention increased across all ethnic groups and levels of social deprivation. Age was most strongly associated with vaccination intention, with 16–24-year-olds more likely to respond “Unsure” or “No” versus “Yes” than 65-74-year-olds in December 2020 (OR: 4.63, 95%CI: 3.42, 6.27 & OR 7.17 95%CI: 4.26, 12.07 respectively) and February 2021 (OR: 27.92 95%CI: 13.79, 56.51 & OR 17.16 95%CI: 4.12, 71.55). The association between ethnicity and vaccination intention has weakened, but not disappeared, over time. Both vaccine- and illness-related psychological factors were shown to influence vaccination intention. Conclusions Four in five adults (86%) who were reluctant or intending to refuse a COVID-19 vaccine in December 2020 had changed their mind in February 2021 and planned to accept, or had already accepted, a vaccine.

Background: “Lockdowns” to control serious respiratory virus pandemics were widely used during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, there is limited information to understand the settings in which most transmission occurs during lockdowns, to support refinement of similar policies for future pandemics. Methods: Among Virus Watch household cohort participants we identified those infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outside the household. Using survey activity data, we undertook multivariable logistic regressions assessing the contribution of activities on non-household infection risk. We calculated adjusted population attributable fractions (APAF) to estimate which activity accounted for the greatest proportion of non-household infections during the pandemic’s second wave. Results: Among 10,858 adults, 18% of cases were likely due to household transmission. Among 10,475 participants (household-acquired cases excluded), including 874 non-household-acquired infections, infection was associated with: leaving home for work or education (AOR 1.20 (1.02 – 1.42), APAF 6.9%); public transport (more than once per week AOR 1.82 (1.49 – 2.23), public transport APAF 12.42%); and shopping (more than once per week AOR 1.69 (1.29 – 2.21), shopping APAF 34.56%). Other non-household activities were rare and not significantly associated with infection. Conclusions: During lockdown, going to work and using public or shared transport independently increased infection risk, however only a minority did these activities. Most participants visited shops, accounting for one-third of non-household transmission. Transmission in restricted hospitality and leisure settings was minimal suggesting these restrictions were effective. If future respiratory infection pandemics emerge these findings highlight the value of working from home, using forms of transport that minimise exposure to others, minimising exposure to shops and restricting non-essential activities.

BackgroundSome evidence suggests that individuals may change adherence to public health policies aimed at reducing contact, transmission and spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus after they receive their first SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. In this study, we aim to estimate the rate of change in average daily travel distance from a participant’s registered address before and after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.MethodParticipants were recruited into Virus Watch starting in June 2020. Weekly surveys were sent out to participants and vaccination status was collected from January 2021 onwards. Between September 2020 and February 2021, we invited 13,120 adult Virus Watch participants to contribute towards our tracker sub-cohort which uses the Global Positioning System (GPS) to collect data on movement. We used segmented linear regression to estimate the median daily travel distance before and after the first self-reported SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose.ResultsWe analysed the daily travel distance of 228 vaccinated adults. Between 157 days prior to vaccination until the day before vaccination, the median daily travel distance travelled was 8.9km (IQR: 3.50km, 24.17km). Between the day of vaccination and 100 days after vaccination, the median daily travel distance travelled was 10.30km (IQR: 4.11, 27.53km). Between 157 days prior to vaccination and the vaccination date, there was a daily median decrease in mobility of 40m (95%CI: −51m, −31m, p-value ConclusionsOur study demonstrates the feasibility of collecting high volume geolocation data as part of research projects, and the utility of these for understanding public health issues. Our results are consistent with both an increase and decrease in movement after vaccination and suggest that, amongst Virus Watch participants, any changes in movement distances post-vaccination are small.

We aimed to assess the relative importance of different settings for SARS-CoV2 transmission in a large community cohort. We demonstrate the importance of home, work and education as venues for transmission. In children, education was most important and in older adults essential shopping was of high importance. Our findings support public health messaging about infection control at home, advice on working from home and restrictions in different venues.

Using data from 4678 children participating in VirusWatch, a household cohort study, we estimated the prevalence of persistent symptoms lasting ≥4 weeks as 1.7%, and 4.6% in children with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Persistent symptom prevalence was higher in girls, teenagers and children with long-term conditions.

IntroductionThe Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic has caused significant global mortality and impacted lives around the world. Virus Watch aims to provide evidence on which public health approaches are most likely to be effective in reducing transmission and impact of the virus, and will investigate community incidence, symptom profiles, and transmission of COVID-19 in relation to population movement and behaviours.Methods and analysisVirus Watch is a household community cohort study of acute respiratory infections in England & Wales and will run from June 2020 to August 2021. The study aims to recruit 50,000 people, including 12,500 from minority ethnic backgrounds, for an online survey cohort and monthly antibody testing using home finger prick kits. Nested within this larger study will be a sub-cohort of 10,000 individuals, including 3,000 people from minority ethnic backgrounds. This cohort of 10,000 people will have full blood serology taken between October 2020 and January 2021 and repeat serology between May 2021 and August 2021. Participants will also post self-administered nasal swabs for PCR assays of SARS-CoV-2 and will follow one of three different PCR testing schedules based upon symptoms.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Hampstead NHS Health Research Authority Ethics Committee. Ethics approval number – 20/HRA/2320. We are monitoring participant queries and using these to refine methodology where necessary, and are providing summaries and policy briefings of our preliminary findings to inform public health action by working through our partnerships with our study advisory group, Public Health England, NHS and Government Scientific Advisory panels.Strengths and limitations of this studyVirus Watch is a large national household community cohort study of the occurrence and risk factors for COVID-19 infection that aims to recruit 50,000 people, including 12,500 from minority ethnic backgrounds.Virus Watch is designed to estimate incidence of PCR confirmed COVID-19 in those with respiratory and non-respiratory presentations and the incidence of hospitalisation among PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases.Virus Watch will measure effectiveness and impact of recommended COVID-19 control measures including testing, isolation, social distancing, respiratory and hand hygiene measures on risk of respiratory infection.Only households with a lead householder able to speak English were able to take part in the study up until March 2021.Only households of up to six people were eligible for inclusion and they were also required to have access to an internet connection. These restrictions will limit the generalisability to large or multigenerational households, and those without access to the internet.

BackgroundUnderstanding the symptomatology and accuracy of clinical case definitions for COVID-19 in the community is important for the initiation of Test, Trace and Isolate (TTI) and may, in future, be important for early prescription of antivirals.MethodsVirus Watch is a large community cohort with prospective daily recording of a wide range of symptoms and self-reporting of swab results (mainly undertaken through the UK TTI system). We compared frequency, severity, timing, and duration of symptoms in test positive and test negative cases. We compared the test performance of the current UK case definition used by TTI (any one of: new continuous cough, high temperature, or loss of or altered sense of smell or taste) with a wider definition that also included muscle aches, chills, headache, or loss of appetite.FindingsWe included results from 8213 swabbed illnesses, 944 of which tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. All symptoms were more common in test positive than test negative illnesses and symptoms were also more severe and of longer duration. Common symptoms such as cough, headache, fatigue, muscle aches, and loss of appetite occurred early in the course of illness but were also very common in test-negative illnesses. In contrast, high temperature and loss of or altered sense of smell or taste were less frequently identified in swab positive illnesses but were markedly more common than in swab negative illnesses. The current UK definition had a sensitivity and specificity of 81% and 47% respectively for symptomatic COVID-19 compared to 93% and 26% for the broader definition. On average, cases met the broader case definition 0.3 days earlier than the current definition. 1.7-fold more illnesses met the broader definition than the current case definition.InterpretationCOVID-19 is difficult to distinguish from other respiratory infections and common ailments on the basis of symptoms. Broadening the list of symptoms used to encourage engagement with TTI could moderately increase the number of infections identified and shorten delays to isolation, but with a large increase in the number of tests needed and the number of unwell individuals and contacts who are advised to self-isolate whilst awaiting results, and subsequently test negative for SARS-CoV-2.

IntroductionIncreased transmissibility of B.1.17 variant of concern (VOC) in the UK may explain its rapid emergence and global spread. We analysed data from putative household infector - infectee pairs in the Virus Watch Community cohort study to assess the serial interval of COVID-19 and whether this was affected by emergence of the B.1.17 variant.MethodsThe Virus Watch study is an online, prospective, community cohort study following up entire households in England and Wales during the COVID-19 pandemic. Putative household infector-infectee pairs were identified where more than one person in the household had a positive swab matched to an illness episode. Data on whether individual infections were caused by the B.1.1.7 variant were not available. We therefore developed a classification system based on the percentage of cases estimated to be due to B.1.17 in national surveillance data for different English regions and study weeks.ResultsOut of 24,887 illnesses reported, 915 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 186 likely infector-infectee pairs in 186 households amongst 372 individuals were identified. The mean COVID-19 serial interval was 3.18 (95%CI: 2.55 - 3.81) days. There was no significant difference (p=0.267) between the mean serial interval for Variants of Concern (VOC) hotspots (mean = 3.64 days, (95%CI: 2.55 – 4.73)) days and non-VOC hotspots, (mean = 2.72 days, (95%CI: 1.48 – 3.96)).ConclusionsOur estimates of the average serial interval of COVID-19 are broadly similar to estimates from previous studies and we find no evidence that B.1.1.7 is associated with a change in serial intervals. Alternative explanations such as increased viral load, longer period of viral shedding or improved receptor binding may instead explain the increased transmissibility and rapid spread and should undergo further investigation.

BackgroundVaccination constitutes the best long-term solution against Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Real-world immunogenicity data are sparse, particularly for ChAdOx1 and in populations with chronic conditions; and given the UK’s extended dosing interval, it is also important to understand antibody responses in SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals following a single dose.MethodsAdults aged ≥18 years from households enrolled in Virus Watch, a prospective community cohort study in England and Wales, provided capillary blood samples and self-reported vaccination status. Primary outcome variables were quantitative Spike total antibody levels (U/ml) and seropositivity to Spike (≥0.8 U/ml), as per Roche’s Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay. Samples seropositive for Nucleocapsid, and samples taken prior to vaccination, were excluded. Outcomes were analysed by days since vaccination, vaccine type (BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1), and a range of self-reported demographic and clinical factors.Results8,837 vaccinated participants (median age 65 years [IQR: 58, 71]), contributed 17,160 samples (10,508 following ChAdOx1, 6,547 following BNT162b2). Seropositivity to Spike was 96.79% (95% CI 96.42, 97.12) from 28 days following a single dose, reaching 99.34% (98.91, 99.60) from 14 days after a second dose. Seropositivity rates, and Spike-antibody levels rose more quickly following the first dose of BNT162b2, however, were equivalent for both vaccines by 4 and 8 weeks, respectively. There was evidence for lower S-antibody levels with increasing age (p=0.0001). In partially vaccinated 65-79 year-olds, lower S-antibody levels were observed in men compared with women (26.50 vs 44.01 U/ml, pInterpretationA single dose of either BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 leads to high Spike seropositivity rates in SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals. Observed disparities in antibody levels by vaccine type, age, and comorbidities highlight the importance of ongoing non-pharmaceutical preventative measures for partially vaccinated adults, particularly those who are older and more clinically vulnerable; and high antibody levels across all groups following a second dose demonstrate the importance of complete vaccination. However, the relationship between Spike-antibody levels and protection against COVID-19, and thus the clinical significance of observed disparities, is not yet clear.

Background: Household overcrowding is associated with increased risk of infectious diseases across contexts and countries. Limited data exist linking household overcrowding and risk of COVID-19. We used data collected from the Virus Watch cohort to examine the association between overcrowded households and SARS-CoV-2. Methods: The Virus Watch study is a household community cohort of acute respiratory infections in England & Wales that began recruitment in June 2020. We calculated the persons per room for each household and classified accommodation as overcrowded when the number of rooms was fewer than the number of people. We considered two primary outcomes - PCR-confirmed positive SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests and laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (Roche Elecsys anti-N total immunoglobulin assay). We used mixed effects logistic regression models that accounted for household structure to estimate the association between household overcrowding and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results: The proportion of participants with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result was highest in the overcrowded group (6.6%; 73/1,102) and lowest in the under-occupied group (2.9%; 682/23,219). In a mixed effects logistic regression model that included age, sex, ethnicity, household income and geographical region, we found strong evidence of an increased odds of having a positive PCR SARS-CoV-2 antigen result (Odds Ratio 3.72; 95% CI: 1.92, 7.13; p-value < 0.001) and increased odds of having a positive SARS-CoV-2 antibody result in individuals living in overcrowded houses (2.96; 95% CI: 1.13, 7.74; p-value =0.027) compared to people living in under-occupied houses. The proportion of variation at the household level was 75.1% and 74.0% in the PCR and antibody models respectively. Discussion: Public health interventions to prevent and stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2 should consider the much greater risk of infection for people living in overcrowded households and pay greater attention to reducing household transmission. There is an urgent need to better recognise housing as a leading determinant of health in the context of a pandemic and beyond.