Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination during June-October 2021: A multi-site prospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccine hesitancy presents a challenge to COVID-19 control efforts. To identify beliefs associated with delayed vaccine uptake, we developed and implemented a vaccine hesitancy survey for the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership. METHODS: In June 2021, we assessed attitudes and beliefs associated with COVID-19 vaccination using an online survey. Self-reported vaccination data were requested daily through October 2021. We compared responses between vaccinated and unvaccinated respondents using absolute standardized mean differences (ASMD). We assessed validity and reliability using exploratory factor analysis and identified latent factors associated with a subset of survey items. Cox proportional hazards models and mediation analyses assessed predictors of subsequent vaccination among those initially unvaccinated. RESULTS: In June 2021, 29,522 vaccinated and 1,272 unvaccinated participants completed surveys. Among those unvaccinated in June 2021, 559 (43.9 %) became vaccinated by October 31, 2021. In June, unvaccinated participants were less likely to feel "very concerned" about getting COVID-19 than vaccinated participants (10.6 % vs. 43.3 %, ASMD 0.792). Among those initially unvaccinated, greater intent to become vaccinated was associated with getting vaccinated and shorter time to vaccination. However, even among participants who reported no intention to become vaccinated, 28.5 % reported vaccination before study end. Two latent factors predicted subsequent vaccination-being 'more receptive' was derived from motivation to protect one's own or others' health and resume usual activities; being 'less receptive' was derived from concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. In a Cox model, both factors were partially mediated by vaccination intention. CONCLUSION: This study characterizes vaccine hesitant individuals and identifies predictors of eventual COVID-19 vaccination through October 31, 2021. Even individuals with no intention to be vaccinated can shift to vaccine uptake. Our data suggest factors of perceived severity of COVID-19 disease, vaccine safety, and trust in the vaccine development process are predictive of vaccination and may be important opportunities for ongoing interventions.

Safety and Efficacy of Combined Tixagevimab and Cilgavimab Administered Intramuscularly or Intravenously in Nonhospitalized Patients With COVID-19: 2 Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Development of effective, scalable therapeutics for SARS-CoV-2 is a priority. Objective: To test the efficacy of combined tixagevimab and cilgavimab monoclonal antibodies for early COVID-19 treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two phase 2 randomized blinded placebo-controlled clinical trials within the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV)-2/A5401 platform were performed at US ambulatory sites. Nonhospitalized adults 18 years or older within 10 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 test and symptom onset were eligible and were enrolled from February 1 to May 31, 2021. Interventions: Tixagevimab-cilgavimab, 300 mg (150 mg of each component) given intravenously (IV) or 600 mg (300 mg of each component) given intramuscularly (IM) in the lateral thigh, or pooled placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: Coprimary outcomes were time to symptom improvement through 28 days; nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA below the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) on days 3, 7, or 14; and treatment-emergent grade 3 or higher adverse events through 28 days. Results: A total of 229 participants were randomized for the IM study and 119 were randomized for the IV study. The primary modified intention-to-treat population included 223 participants who initiated IM tixagevimab-cilgavimab (n = 106) or placebo treatment (n = 117) (median age, 39 [IQR, 30-48] years; 113 [50.7%] were men) and 114 who initiated IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab (n = 58) or placebo treatment (n = 56) (median age, 44 [IQR, 35-54] years; 67 [58.8%] were women). Enrollment in the IV study was stopped early based on a decision to focus on IM product development. Participants were enrolled at a median of 6 (IQR, 4-7) days from COVID-19 symptom onset. Significant differences in time to symptom improvement were not observed for IM tixagevimab-cilgavimab vs placebo or IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab vs placebo. A greater proportion in the IM tixagevimab-cilgavimab arm (69 of 86 [80.2%]) than placebo (62 of 96 [64.6%]) had nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA below LLOQ at day 7 (adjusted risk ratio, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.12-1.57]) but not days 3 and 14; the joint test across time points favored treatment (P = .003). Differences in the proportion below LLOQ were not observed for IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab vs placebo at any of the specified time points. There were no safety signals with either administration route. Conclusions: In these 2 phase 2 randomized clinical trials, IM or IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab was safe but did not change time to symptom improvement. Antiviral activity was more evident in the larger IM trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04518410.

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination during June–October, 2021: a multi-site prospective study

Introduction Vaccine hesitancy presents a challenge to COVID-19 control efforts. To identify beliefs associated with delayed vaccine uptake, we developed and implemented a vaccine hesitancy survey for the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership. Methods In June 2021, we assessed attitudes and beliefs associated with COVID-19 vaccination using an online survey. Self-reported vaccination data were requested daily through October 2021. We compared responses between vaccinated and unvaccinated respondents using absolute standardized mean differences (ASMD). We assessed validity and reliability using exploratory factor analysis and identified latent factors associated with a subset of survey items. Cox proportional hazards models and mediation analyses assessed predictors of subsequent vaccination among those initially unvaccinated. Results In June 2021, 29,522 vaccinated and 1,272 unvaccinated participants completed surveys. Among those unvaccinated in June 2021, 559 (43.9%) became vaccinated by October 31, 2021. In June, unvaccinated participants were less likely to feel "very concerned” about getting COVID-19 than vaccinated participants (10.6% vs. 43.3%, ASMD 0.792). Among those initially unvaccinated, greater intent to become vaccinated was associated with getting vaccinated and shorter time to vaccination. However, even among participants who reported no intention to become vaccinated, 28.5% reported vaccination before study end. Two latent factors predicted subsequent vaccination—being ‘more receptive' was derived from motivation to protect one's own or others' health and resume usual activities;being ‘less receptive' was derived from concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. In a Cox model, both factors were partially mediated by vaccination intention. Conclusion This study characterizes vaccine hesitant individuals and identifies predictors of eventual COVID-19 vaccination through October 31, 2021. Even individuals with no intention to be vaccinated can shift to vaccine uptake. Our data suggest factors of perceived severity of COVID-19 disease, vaccine safety, and trust in the vaccine development process are predictive of vaccination and may be important opportunities for ongoing interventions.

Association between self-reported masking behavior and SARS-CoV-2 infection wanes from Pre-Delta to Omicron-predominant periods - North Carolina COVID-19 Community Research Partnership (NC-CCRP).

BACKGROUND: Wearing a face mask is a primary public health method to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. METHODS: We performed a nested case-control analysis within the North Carolina COVID-19 Community Research Partnership (NC-CCRP) of adults who completed daily surveillance surveys, April 2020 - February 2022. We assessed the association between self-reported mask wearing behavior during nonhousehold interactions and COVID-19 infection during 3 pandemic periods using conditional logistic regression models of risk of infection that were adjusted for demographics, vaccination status, and recent known exposure to COVID-19. RESULTS: Among 3,901 cases and 27,813 date-matched controls, there was a significant interaction between mask use and time period (P < .001). Prior to July 2021, the odds of a reported infection were 66% higher (aOR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.43-1.91) among participants reporting ≥1 day not wearing a mask compared to those who reported no days (1,592 cases, 11,717 controls). During the Delta-predominant period, the results were similar (aOR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.23-1.89; 659 cases, 4,649 controls). This association was attenuated during the Omicron-predominant period, where odds of an infection was 16% higher (aOR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.03-1.32; 1,563 cases, 10,960 controls). CONCLUSIONS: While the effect of not wearing a mask remains significant, during the Omicron-predominant period we observed a decrease in the association between self-reported mask wearing and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Characterisation of infection-induced SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence amongst children and adolescents in North Carolina.

Few prospective studies have documented the seropositivity among those children infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. From 2 April 2021 to 24 June 2021, we prospectively enrolled children between the ages of 2 and 17 years at three North Carolina healthcare systems. Participants received at least four at-home serological tests detecting the presence of antibodies against, but not differentiating between, the nucleocapsid or spike antigen. A total of 1,058 participants were enrolled in the study, completing 2,709 tests between 1 May 2021 and 31 October 2021. Using multilevel regression with poststratification techniques and considering our assay sensitivity and sensitivity, we estimated that the seroprevalence of infection-induced antibodies among unvaccinated children and adolescents aged 2-17 years in North Carolina increased from 15.2% (95% credible interval, CrI 9.0-22.0) in May 2021 to 54.1% (95% CrI 46.7-61.1) by October 2021, indicating an average infection-to-reported-case ratio of 5. A rapid rise in seropositivity was most pronounced in those unvaccinated children aged 12-17 years, based on our estimates. This study underlines the utility of serial, serological testing to inform a broader understanding of the regional immune landscape and spread of infection.

Association between COVID-19 and consistent mask wearing during contact with others outside the household-A nested case-control analysis, November 2020-October 2021.

BACKGROUND: Face masks have been recommended to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. However, evidence of the individual benefit of face masks remains limited, including by vaccination status. METHODS: As part of the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership cohort study, we performed a nested case-control analysis to assess the association between self-reported consistent mask use during contact with others outside the household and subsequent odds of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) during November 2020-October 2021. Using conditional logistic regression, we compared 359 case-participants to 3544 control-participants who were matched by date, adjusting for enrollment site, age group, sex, race/ethnicity, urban/rural county classification, and healthcare worker occupation. RESULTS: COVID-19 was associated with not consistently wearing a mask (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.14, 1.95]). Compared with persons ≥14 days after mRNA vaccination who also reported always wearing a mask, COVID-19 was associated with being unvaccinated (aOR 5.94; 95% CI [3.04, 11.62]), not wearing a mask (aOR 1.62; 95% CI [1.07, 2.47]), or both unvaccinated and not wearing a mask (aOR 9.07; 95% CI [4.81, 17.09]). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that consistent mask wearing can complement vaccination to reduce the risk of COVID-19.

COVID-19 Symptoms by Variant Period in the North Carolina COVID-19 Community Research Partnership, North Carolina, USA.

In North Carolina, USA, the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant was associated with changing symptomology in daily surveys, including increasing rates of self-reported cough and sore throat and decreased rates of loss of taste and smell. Compared with the pre-Delta period, Delta and Omicron (pre-BA.4/BA.5) variant periods were associated with shorter symptom duration.

Association of Obesity and Diabetes with SARS-Cov-2 Infection and Symptoms in the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership.

OBJECTIVE: Obesity and diabetes are established risk factors for severe SARS-CoV-2 outcomes, but less is known about their impact on susceptibility to COVID-19 infection and general symptom severity. We hypothesized that those with obesity or diabetes would be more likely to self-report a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and among those with a positive test, have greater symptom severity and duration. METHODS: Among 44,430 COVID-19 Community Research Partnership participants, we evaluated the association of self-reported and electronic health record obesity and diabetes with a self-reported positive COVID-19 test at any time. Among the 2,663 participants with a self-reported positive COVID-19 test during the study, we evaluated the association of obesity and diabetes with self-report of symptom severity, duration, and hospitalization. Logistic regression models were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and healthcare worker status. RESULTS: We found a positive graded association between Body Mass Index (BMI) category and positive COVID-19 test (Overweight OR = 1.14 [1.05-1.25]; Obesity I OR = 1.29 [1.17-2.42]; Obesity II OR = 1.34 [1.19-1.50]; Obesity III OR = 1.53 [1.35-1.73]), and a similar but weaker association with COVID-19 symptoms and severity among those with a positive test. Diabetes was associated with COVID-19 infection but not symptoms after adjustment, with some evidence of an interaction between obesity and diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: While the limitations of this health system convenience sample include generalizability and selection around test-seeking, the strong graded association of BMI and diabetes with self-reported COVID-19 infection suggests that obesity and diabetes may play a role in risk for symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 beyond co-occurrence with socioeconomic factors.

Association of Obesity and Diabetes with SARS-Cov-2 Infection and Symptoms

Background: Obesity and T2D are risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 outcomes, but less is known about non-hospitalized cases. We hypothesized that those with obesity or T2D are more likely to have a positive Covid test, and among those with a positive test, to have symptoms. Methods: Among 31,117 North Carolina Covid Community Research Partnership participants with EHR data, we evaluated the association of self-reported and EHR obesity and T2D with a self-reported positive Covid test at any time. Among 2,418 participants with a positive test during the study, we evaluated the association of obesity and T2D with self-report of symptoms. Logistic regression models were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and healthcare worker status. Results: We found a positive graded association between BMI category and positive Covid test, and a similar but weaker association with Covid symptoms among those with a positive test (Table) . T2D was associated with Covid infection but not symptoms. Conclusions: While the limitations of this health system convenience sample include generalizability and test seeking selection bias, the strong graded association of BMI and T2D with self-reported Covid infection suggests that obesity and T2D may play a role in risk for symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 beyond co-occurrence with socioeconomic risk factors.

Comparative Pharmacokinetics of Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab (AZD7442) Administered Intravenously Versus Intramuscularly in Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

AZD7442 (Evusheld) is a combination of two human anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), tixagevimab (AZD8895) and cilgavimab (AZD1061). Route of administration is an important consideration to improve treatment access. We assessed pharmacokinetics (PKs) of AZD7442 absorption following 600 mg administered intramuscularly (i.m.) in the thigh compared with 300 mg intravenously (i.v.) in ambulatory adults with symptomatic COVID-19. PK analysis included 84 of 110 participants randomized to receive i.m. AZD7442 and 16 of 61 randomized to receive i.v. AZD7442. Serum was collected prior to AZD7442 administration and at 24 hours and 3, 7, and 14 days later. PK parameters were calculated using noncompartmental methods. Following 600 mg i.m., the geometric mean maximum concentration (Cmax ) was 38.19 µg/mL (range: 17.30-60.80) and 37.33 µg/mL (range: 14.90-58.90) for tixagevimab and cilgavimab, respectively. Median observed time to maximum concentration (Tmax ) was 7.1 and 7.0 days for tixagevimab and cilgavimab, respectively. Serum concentrations after i.m. dosing were similar to the i.v. dose (27-29 µg/mL each component) at 3 days. The area under the concentration-time curve (AUC)0-7d geometric mean ratio was 0.9 for i.m. vs. i.v. Participants with higher weight or body mass index were more likely to have lower concentrations with either route. Women appeared to have higher interparticipant variability in concentrations compared with men. The concentrations of tixagevimab and cilgavimab after administration i.m. to the thigh were similar to those achieved with i.v. after 3 days from dosing. Exposure in the i.m. group was 90% of i.v. over 7 days. Administration to the thigh can be considered to provide consistent mAb exposure and improve access.

Self-Reported SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Is Consistent with Electronic Health Record Data among the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership.

Introduction: Observational studies of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness depend on accurate ascertainment of vaccination receipt, date, and product type. Self-reported vaccine data may be more readily available to and less expensive for researchers than assessing medical records. Methods: We surveyed adult participants in the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership who had an authenticated Electronic Health Record (EHR) (N = 41,484) concerning receipt of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination using a daily survey beginning in December 2020 and a supplemental survey in September-October 2021. We compared self-reported information to that available in the EHR for the following data points: vaccine brand, date of first dose, and number of doses using rates of agreement and Bland-Altman plots for visual assessment. Self-reported data was available immediately following vaccination (in the daily survey) and at a delayed interval (in a secondary supplemental survey). Results: For the date of first vaccine dose, self-reported "immediate" recall was within ±7 days of the date reported in the "delayed" survey for 87.9% of participants. Among the 19.6% of participants with evidence of vaccination in their EHR, 95% self-reported vaccination in one of the two surveys. Self-reported dates were within ±7 days of documented EHR vaccination for 97.6% of the "immediate" surveys and 92.0% of the "delayed" surveys. Self-reported vaccine product details matched those in the EHR for over 98% of participants for both "immediate" and "delayed" surveys. Conclusions: Self-reported dates and product details for COVID-19 vaccination can be a good surrogate when medical records are unavailable in large observational studies. A secondary confirmation of dates for a subset of participants with EHR data will provide internal validity.

Self-reported mask use among persons with or without SARS CoV-2 vaccination -United States, December 2020-August 2021.

Wearing a facemask can help to decrease the transmission of COVID-19. We investigated self-reported mask use among subjects aged 18 years and older participating in the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership (CRP), a prospective longitudinal COVID-19 surveillance study in the mid-Atlantic and southeastern United States. We included those participants who completed ≥5 daily surveys each month from December 1, 2020 through August 31, 2021. Mask use was defined as self-reported use of a face mask or face covering on every interaction with others outside the household within a distance of less than 6 feet. Participants were considered vaccinated if they reported receiving ≥1 COVID-19 vaccine dose. Participants (n = 17,522) were 91% non-Hispanic White, 68% female, median age 57 years, 26% healthcare workers, with 95% self-reported receiving ≥1 COVID-19 vaccine dose through August 2021; mean daily survey response was 85%. Mask use was higher among vaccinated than unvaccinated participants across the study period, regardless of the month of the first dose. Mask use remained relatively stable from December 2020 through April (range 71-80% unvaccinated; 86-93% vaccinated) and declined in both groups beginning in mid-May 2021 to 34% and 42% respectively in June 2021; mask use increased again since July 2021. Mask use by all was lower during weekends and on Christmas and Easter, regardless of vaccination status. Independent predictors of higher mask use were vaccination, age ≥65 years, female sex, racial or ethnic minority group, and healthcare worker occupation, whereas a history of self-reported prior COVID-19 illness was associated with lower use.

Frailty and COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Antibody Response in the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has disproportionately affected older adults. Frailty has been associated with impaired vaccine response in other vaccine types, but the impact of frailty on mRNA vaccine response is undefined. METHODS: Observational study of adults aged 55 and older from 1 U.S. health care system between January 22, 2021 and September 16, 2021 with self-reported Moderna or Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccine and an electronic frailty index (eFI) score from their medical record (n = 1 677). Participants' frailty status was compared with positive antibody detection (seroconversion) following full vaccination and subsequent loss of positive antibody detection (seroreversion) using logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of 1 677 older adults with median (interquartile range) age, 67 (62 and 72) years, and frailty status (nonfrail: 879 [52%], prefrail: 678 [40%], and frail: 120 [7.2%]), seroconversion was not detected in 23 (1.4%) over 60 days following full vaccination. Frail individuals were less likely to seroconvert than nonfrail individuals, adjusted odds ratio (OR) 3.75, 95% confidence interval (CI; 1.04, 13.5). Seroreversion was detected in 50/1 631 individuals (3.1%) over 6 months of median follow-up antibody testing. Frail individuals were more likely to serorevert than nonfrail individuals, adjusted OR 3.02, 95% CI (1.17, 7.33). CONCLUSION: Overall antibody response to COVID-19 mRNA vaccination was high across age and frailty categories. While antibody detection is an incomplete descriptor of vaccine response, the high sensitivity of this antibody combined with health-system data reinforce our conclusions that frailty is an independent predictor of impaired antibody response to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Frailty should be considered in vaccine studies and prevention strategies.

Analysis of accumulated SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion in North Carolina: The COVID-19 Community Research Partnership.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 Community Research Partnership is a population-based longitudinal syndromic and sero-surveillance study. The study includes over 17,000 participants from six healthcare systems in North Carolina who submitted over 49,000 serology results. The purpose of this study is to use these serology data to estimate the cumulative proportion of the North Carolina population that has either been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or developed a measurable humoral response to vaccination. METHODS: Adult community residents were invited to participate in the study between April 2020 and February 2021. Demographic information was collected and daily symptom screen was completed using a secure, HIPAA-compliant, online portal. A portion of participants were mailed kits containing a lateral flow assay to be used in-home to test for presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM or IgG antibodies. The cumulative proportion of participants who tested positive at least once during the study was estimated. A standard Cox proportional hazards model was constructed to illustrate the probability of seroconversion over time up to December 20, 2020 (before vaccines available). A separate analysis was performed to describe the influence of vaccines through February 15, 2021. RESULTS: 17,688 participants contributed at least one serology result. 68.7% of the population were female, and 72.2% were between 18 and 59 years of age. The average number of serology results submitted per participant was 3.0 (±1.9). By December 20, 2020, the overall probability of seropositivity in the CCRP population was 32.6%. By February 15, 2021 the probability among healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers was 83% and 49%, respectively. An inflection upward in the probability of seropositivity was demonstrated around the end of December, suggesting an influence of vaccinations, especially for healthcare workers. Among healthcare workers, those in the oldest age category (60+ years) were 38% less likely to have seroconverted by February 15, 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study suggest more North Carolina residents may have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 than the number of documented cases as determined by positive RNA or antigen tests. The influence of vaccinations on seropositivity among North Carolina residents is also demonstrated. Additional research is needed to fully characterize the impact of seropositivity on immunity and the ultimate course of the pandemic.

Original Research: Well-Being and Resilience Among Health Care Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Poor well-being among health care workers, often observed as professional burnout, is a well-documented phenomenon. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has further stressed the health care workforce, but its specific effects on this workforce remain unknown. This study examined well-being and resilience among health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The study used a cross-sectional survey design. Data collection took place through anonymous surveys of nurses (LPNs and RNs), advanced practice providers (NPs, physician assistants, and certified nurse midwives), certified registered nurse anesthetists, respiratory therapists, health care technicians, and therapy service professionals (physical, occupational, and speech therapists). Of the 6,120 health care workers recruited to participate in the study, data from 2,459 participants were analyzed using logistic regression and linear regression. RESULTS: The study found that several factors significantly increased the likelihood of at-risk well-being. These included having a lower level of resilience, using support resources, feeling the organization lacked understanding of the emotional support needs of health care workers during the pandemic, believing the workload had increased, believing there was insufficient personal protective equipment, believing there was inadequate staffing to safely care for patients, and having a lower degree of psychological safety. After controlling for health care workers' role and employment location, several factors were found to be significantly associated with higher levels of resilience. These included having positive perceptions about the organization's understanding of the emotional support needs of health care workers during the pandemic, believing sufficient educational resources were available regarding the care of COVID-19 patients, having positive perceptions of leadership support from direct managers, having positive perceptions of the redeployment policy, and having a higher degree of psychological safety. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified several work environment factors that have significantly affected health care workers' well-being and resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. This knowledge has practical relevance for health care leaders who aim to better understand and address the well-being and resilience of the health care workforce during this pandemic and beyond.

Changing Attitudes toward the COVID-19 Vaccine among North Carolina Participants in the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership.

Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccine acceptance is variable. We surveyed participants in the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership from 17 December 2020 to 13 January 2021 to assess vaccine receptiveness. Vaccine uptake was then monitored until 15 May 2021; 20,232 participants responded to the receptiveness survey with vaccination status accessed in 18,874 participants via daily follow-up surveys (participants not completing daily surveys ≥30 days to 15 May 2021, were excluded). In the initial survey, 4802 (23.8%) were vaccine hesitant. Hesitancy was most apparent in women (Adjusted RR 0.93, p < 0.001), Black Americans (Adjusted RR 1.39, 1.41, 1.31 to non-Hispanic Whites, Other, and Hispanic or Latino, respectively p < 0.001), healthcare workers (Adjusted RR 0.93, p < 0.001), suburbanites (ref. Urban Adjusted RR 0.85, 0.90 to urban and rural dwellers, respectively, p < 0.01), and those previously diagnosed with COVID-19 (RR 1.20, p < 0.01). Those <50 years were also less accepting of vaccination. Subsequent vaccine uptake was 99% in non-hesitant participants. For those who were unsure, preferred not to answer, or answered "no", vaccination rates were 80% (Adjusted RR 0.86, p < 0.0001), 78% (Adjusted RR 0.83, p < 0.0001), and 52.7% (Adjusted RR 0.65, p < 0.0001), respectively. These findings suggest that initial intent did not correlate with vaccine uptake in our cohort.