ArticlePloS one2024
Superspreading of SARS-CoV-2 at a choir rehearsal in Finland-A computational fluid dynamics view on aerosol transmission and patient interviews.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Analysis of Virology and Pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 and HIV Infections: Implications for Public Health and Treatment Strategies.Infection and drug resistance · 2025Review
- Emerging Human Health Problems Caused by Pathogenic and Immuno-activating Fungi.Current topics in microbiology and immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCOVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the role of aerosol transmission and the importance of superspreading events. We analyzed a choir rehearsal in November 2020, where all participants, except one who had recently earlier recovered from COVID-19, were infected. We explore the risk factors for severe disease in this event and model the aerosol dispersion in the rehearsal room. MATERIALS AND
methodsCharacteristics of participants were collected by interviews and supplemented with patient records. A computational simulation of aerosol distribution in the rehearsal room and the efficacy of potential safety measures was conducted using the Large-Eddy Simulation approach. Infection risk was studied by analyzing quanta emission and exposure with the Wells-Riley equation.
resultsThe simulation showed that airborne transmission likely explains this mass contagion event. Every singer was exposed to the virus in only 5 min from the beginning of the rehearsal, and maximum concentration levels were reached at 20 min the concentration levels started to approach a steady state after 20 min. Although concentration differences existed in the room, risk levels near (1 m) and far (5 m) from the aerosol source were similar for certain singers. Modeling indicated infection risk levels of 70-100% after one hour; the risk would have been considerably reduced by wearing high-filtration respirators. Age and pre-existing comorbidities predicted more severe disease. The high incidence of illness may be partly attributed to the relatively high median age of individuals. Additionally, those admitted to the hospital had multiple underlying health conditions that predispose them to more severe disease.
conclusionsAirborne transmission and indoor space can explain this mass exposure event. High-filtration respirators could have prevented some infections. The importance of safety distances diminishes the longer the indoor event. The concept of safety distance is challenging, as our study suggests that long range airborne transmission may occur in indoor events with extended duration. We encourage informing the public, especially persons at risk, of safety measures during epidemics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.