Public health impact of mass sporting and cultural events in a rising COVID-19 prevalence in England.

A subset of events within the UK Government Events Research Programme (ERP), developed to examine the risk of transmission of COVID-19 from attendance at events, was examined to explore the public health impact of holding mass sporting events. We used contact tracing data routinely collected through telephone interviews and online questionnaires, to describe the potential public health impact of the large sporting and cultural events on potential transmission and incidence of COVID-19. Data from the EURO 2020 matches hosted at Wembley identified very high numbers of individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 and were traced through NHS Test & Trace. This included both individuals who were potentially infectious (3036) and those who acquired their infection during the time of the Final (6376). This is in contrast with the All England Lawn Tennis Championships at Wimbledon, where there were similar number of spectators and venue capacity but there were lower total numbers of potentially infectious cases (299) and potentially acquired cases (582). While the infections associated with the EURO 2020 event may be attributed to a set of socio-cultural 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, minimising crowding in poorly ventilated indoor spaces such as bars and pubs where people may congregate to watch events, and reducing the risk of aerosol exposure through requesting that individuals avoid shouting and chanting in large groups in enclosed spaces.

STAR--people-powered prioritization: a 21st-century solution to allocation headaches.

The aim of cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) is to inform the allocation of scarce resources. CEA is routinely used in assessing the cost-effectiveness of specific health technologies by agencies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales. But there is extensive evidence that because of barriers of accessibility and acceptability, CEA has not been used by local health planners in their annual task of allocating fixed budgets to a wide range of types of health care. This paper argues that these planners can use Socio Technical Allocation of Resources (STAR) for that task. STAR builds on the principles of CEA and the practice of program budgeting and marginal analysis. STAR uses requisite models to assess the cost-effectiveness of all interventions considered for resource reallocation by explicitly applying the theory of health economics to evidence of scale, costs, and benefits, with deliberation facilitated through an interactive social process of engaging key stakeholders. In that social process, the stakeholders generate missing estimates of scale, costs, and benefits of the interventions; develop visual models of their relative cost-effectiveness; and interpret the results. We demonstrate the feasibility of STAR by showing how it was used by a local health planning agency of the English National Health Service, the Isle of Wight Primary Care Trust, to allocate a fixed budget in 2008 and 2009.