PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Thomas, Amy
AU  - Danon, Leon
AU  - Christensen, Hannah
AU  - Northstone, Kate
AU  - Smith, Daniel
AU  - Nixon, Emily
AU  - Trickey, Adam
AU  - Hemani, Gibran
AU  - Sauchelli, Sarah
AU  - Finn, Adam
AU  - Timpson, Nicholas
AU  - Brooks-Pollock, Ellen
TI  - Limits of lockdown: characterising essential contacts during strict physical distancing
AID  - 10.1101/2021.03.12.21253484
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.03.12.21253484
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/13/2021.03.12.21253484.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/13/2021.03.12.21253484.full
AB  - COVID-19 has exposed health inequalities within countries and globally. The fundamental determining factor behind an individual’s risk of infection is the number of social contacts they make. In many countries, physical distancing measures have been implemented to control transmission of SARS-CoV-2, reducing social contacts to a minimum. Characterising unavoidable social contacts is key for understanding the inequalities behind differential risks and planning vaccination programmes. We utilised an existing English longitudinal birth cohort, which is broadly representative of the wider population (n=6807), to explore social contact patterns and behaviours when strict physical distancing measures were in place during the UK’s first lockdown in March-May 2020. Essential workers, specifically those in healthcare, had 4.5 times as many contacts as non-essential workers [incident rate ratio = 4.42 (CI95%: 3.88–5.04)], whilst essential workers in other sectors, mainly teaching and the police force had three times as many contacts [IRR = 2.84 (2.58–3.13)]. The number of individuals in a household, which is conflated by number of children, increases essential social contacts by 40%. Self-isolation effectively reduces numbers of contacts outside of the home, but not entirely. Together, these findings will aid the interpretation of epidemiological data and impact the design of effective SARS-CoV-2 control strategies, such as vaccination, testing and contact tracing.Competing Interest StatementEBP and LD contribute to the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (SPIM). AF contributes to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI).Funding StatementThe UK Medical Research Council and Wellcome (Grant ref: 217065/Z/19/Z) and the University of Bristol provide core support for ALSPAC. This publication is the work of the authors and ACT, LD, HC, KN, DS, EN, AT, GH, SST, AF, NT, EBP will serve as guarantors for the contents of this paper. A comprehensive list of grants funding is available on the ALSPAC website (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/external/documents/grant-acknowledgements.pdf); This research was specifically funded by the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council and University of Bristol Elizabeth Blackwell Institute for Research (102215/2/13/2). ACT and GH are funded by the Wellcome Trust (217509/Z/19/Z and 208806/Z/17/Z). HC and EBP would like to acknowledge support from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at the University of Bristol. HC is additionally funded through an NIHR Career Development Fellowship [CDF-2018-11-ST2-015]. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. EN, LD and EBP are supported by the MRC (MR/V038613/1). LD and EBP are also supported by the MRC (MC/PC/19067) and LD is further supported by EPSRC (EP/V051555/1) and The Alan Turing Institute under the EPSRC grant EP/N510129/1. NJT is a Wellcome Trust Investigator (202802/Z/16/Z), is the PI of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (MRC & WT 217065/Z/19/Z), is supported by the University of Bristol NIHR Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-2001), the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (MC_UU_00011) and works within the CRUK Integrative Cancer Epidemiology Programme (C18281/A19169).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the ALSPAC Ethics and Law Committee and the Local Research Ethics Committees. Informed consent for the use of data collected via questionnaires and clinics was obtained from participants following the recommendations of the ALSPAC Ethics and Law Committee at the time. Participation was voluntary and analyses were performed on anonymised data.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesFull details of the cohort and study design have been described previously and are available at http://www.alspac.bris.ac.uk.Please note that the study website contains details of all the data that is available through a fully searchable data dictionary and variable search tool (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/researchers/our-data/).ALSPAC data access is managed through a system of open access. The steps below highlight how to apply for access to the data included in this project (accessed under the project number B3514) and all other ALSPAC data: Please read the ALSPAC access policy, which describes the process of accessing the data and samples in detail, and outlines the costs associated with doing so.You may also find it useful to browse our fully searchable research proposals database, which lists all research projects that have been approved since April 2011.Please submit your research proposal for consideration by the ALSPAC Executive Committee. You will receive a response within 10 working days to advise you whether your proposal has been approved.Please note that a standard COVID-19 dataset will be made available at no charge (see description below); however, costs for required paperwork and any bespoke datasets required additional variables will apply.The code used to conduct data analyses is available at https://github.com/amythomas/AlspacContactsQ1.git