Estimating the change in soccer's home advantage during the Covid-19 pandemic using bivariate Poisson regression.

In wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, 2019-2020 soccer seasons across the world were postponed and eventually made up during the summer months of 2020. Researchers from a variety of disciplines jumped at the opportunity to compare the rescheduled games, played in front of empty stadia, to previous games, played in front of fans. To date, most of this post-Covid soccer research has used linear regression models, or versions thereof, to estimate potential changes to the home advantage. However, we argue that leveraging the Poisson distribution would be more appropriate and use simulations to show that bivariate Poisson regression (Karlis and Ntzoufras in J R Stat Soc Ser D Stat 52(3):381-393, 2003) reduces absolute bias when estimating the home advantage benefit in a single season of soccer games, relative to linear regression, by almost 85%. Next, with data from 17 professional soccer leagues, we extend bivariate Poisson models estimate the change in home advantage due to games being played without fans. In contrast to current research that suggests a drop in the home advantage, our findings are mixed; in some leagues, evidence points to a decrease, while in others, the home advantage may have risen. Altogether, this suggests a more complex causal mechanism for the impact of fans on sporting events.

Development of a Telemedicine Screening Program During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: Telemedicine use increased during the COVID-19 pandemic due to concerns for patient and provider safety. Given the lack of testing resources initially and the large geographical range served by Augusta University (AU), a telemedicine platform with up-to-date screening guidelines was implemented for COVID-19 testing in March 2020. Our objective was to understand the level of adherence to telemedicine screening guidelines for COVID-19. Methods: The study population included health care providers and population who participated in an encounter in the AU Health Express Care virtual care program from March 22 to May 21, 2020. All encounters were intended to be for COVID-19 screening, free, and available 24 h per day, 7 days per week. Screening guidelines were developed by AU based on information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Georgia Department of Public Health. Results: Among 17,801 total encounters, 13,600 were included in the final analysis. Overall adherence to screening guidelines was 71% in the adult population and 57% in the pediatric population. When providers did not follow guidelines, 72% determined that the patient should have a positive screen. Guidelines themselves determined that only 52% of encounters should have a positive screen. Providers' specialty significantly correlated with guideline adherence (p = 0.002). Departments with the highest adherence were psychiatry, neurology, and ophthalmology. No significant correlation was found between guideline adherence and provider degree/position. Conclusions: This study provides proof of concept of a free telehealth screening platform during an ongoing pandemic. Our screening experience was effective and different specialties participated. Our patient population lived in lower than average income zip codes, suggesting that our free telemedicine screening program successfully reached populations with higher financial barriers to health care. Early training and a posteriori knowledge of telemedicine was likely key to screening guideline adherence.

Efficacy of Various Facial Protective Equipment for Infection Control in a Healthcare Setting.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has reinforced the importance of facial protection against droplet transmission of diseases. Healthcare workers wear personal protection equipment (PPE), including face shields and masks. Plastic face shields may have advantages over regular medical masks. Although many designs of face shields exist, there is a paucity of evidence regarding the efficacy of shield designs against droplet transmissions. There is even less published evidence comparing various face shields. Due to the urgency of the pandemic and the health and safety of healthcare workers, we aimed to study the efficacy of various face shields against droplet transmission. METHODS: We simulated droplet transmission via coughing using a heavy-duty chemical spray bottle filled with fluorescein. A standard-adult sized mannequin head was used. The mannequin head wore various face shields and was positioned to face the spray bottle at either a 0°, 45°, or 90° angle. The spray bottle was positioned at and sprayed from 30 centimeters (cm), 60 cm, or 90 cm away from the head. These steps were repeated for all face shields used. Control was a mannequin that wore no PPE. A basic mask was also tested. We collected data for particle count, total area of particle distribution, average particle size, and percentage area covered by particles. We analyzed percent covered by particles using a repeated measures mixed-model regression with Tukey-Kramer pairwise comparison. RESULTS: We used least square means to estimate the percentage area covered by particles. Wearing PPE regardless of the design reduced particle transmission to the mannequin compared to the control. The LCG mask had the lowest square means of 0.06 of all face-shield designs analyzed. Tukey-Kramer pairwise comparison showed that all PPEs had a decrease in particle contamination compared to the control. LCG shield was found to have the least contamination compared to all other masks (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Results suggest the importance of wearing a protective covering against droplet transmission. The LCG shield was found to decrease facial contamination by droplets the most of any tested protective equipment.

Observed Versus Expected COVID-19 Infections Among National Football League Players During the 2020 Season.

BACKGROUND: The National Football League (NFL) and National Football League Players Association implemented a set of strict protocols for the 2020 season with the intent to mitigate COVID-19 risk among players and staff. In that timeframe, the league's 32 teams completed 256 regular season games and several thousand meetings and practices. In parallel, community cases of COVID-19 were highly prevalent. We assess the risk of holding a 2020 NFL season by comparing community and player COVID-19 infections. METHODS: We used county-level COVID-19 test data from each team to establish baseline distributions of infection rates expected to occur in a population similar in age and sex to NFL players. We used a binomial distribution to simulate expected infections in each community cohort and compared these findings with observed COVID-19 infections in players. RESULTS: Over a 5-month period (1 August 2020 to 2 January 2021), positive NFL player infections (n = 256) were 55.7% lower than expected when compared with simulations from NFL community cohorts. For 30 of 32 teams (94%), observed counts fell at or below expectation, including 28 teams (88%) for which rates were lower. Two teams fell above baseline expectation. CONCLUSIONS: The NFL/NFLPA protocols that governed team facilities, travel, gameday, and activities outside of the workplace were associated with lower infection rates among NFL players compared with the surrounding community. The NFL's 2020-2021 season are consistent with the hypothesis that robust testing and behavioral protocols support a safe return to sport and work.