Guidance

Event Research Programme (ERP) - Capping summary

Published 26 November 2021

Applies to England

1. Overview of the Events Research Programme

1.1 Objectives of the ERP

The Events Research Programme (ERP) was the most comprehensive structured programme of research of audiences returning to mass events conducted to date. The objectives of the ERP were to build evidence on the risks associated with events-related transmission routes of the COVID-19 virus; characteristics of events and surrounding activities; and the extent to which risk mitigation measures could be effectively implemented and address these risks.

The UK government’s roadmapout of lockdown, published in February 2021, committed to exploring how large-scale events could return safely with reduced or no social distancing from Step 4 onwards, accounting for the variable levels of risk at different events, as identified by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). As part of that, the ERP was established to deliver this work, conducting pilot events across different settings and sectors to aid understanding and inform approaches to reduce transmission risks.

1.2 Structure of the ERP

Phases I, II and III

The ERP consisted of three phases. Phase I ran from 17th April to 15th May 2021, and consisted of nine pilot events, some running across multiple days, in a variety of indoor and outdoor settings, with variations of seated, standing, structured and unstructured audience styles, cultural and sport activities, proportion of occupied venue capacity and a range of participant numbers. The pilot selection was based on event settings that would provide data and transferable learning that could be generalised across many settings. The findings from Phase I were published on 25th June and can be found here.

Phases II and III of the ERP were designed to build on the findings from Phase I and ran from 10 June to 25 July 2021. These pilot events provided the opportunity to generate further evidence, particularly around transmission risk as well as around the implementation and operational considerations of the findings from Phase I. Additionally, there was a particular focus on testing the NHS COVID Pass, and other certification of test results and vaccination status in real world settings. Phases II and III also aimed to further develop the scientific and analytical approaches from Phase I and to provide additional data that could be pooled across different events to increase statistical power to the evidence already generated.

See the full list of pilot events from Phases I-III.

Science framework

The programme design drew upon a science framework for studying events that was developed by a working group led by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) sub-group, the Environmental Modelling Group (SAGE-EMG). Researchers collected large amounts of data as parts of published protocols before, during, and after these events, including: environmental data through high-resolution monitoring, observational and self-reported data on behaviour, testing and wider public health data.

The programme was overseen by an independently-chaired Science Board, led by Dame Theresa Marteau, and with representation from departmental Chief Scientific Advisers and with other leading government and independent experts (see Science Board membership). See also the Science Board Statement, conflicts of interest, and protocols for the studies.

Specific provisions of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps) (England) Regulations enabled the Secretary of States for DCMS and DHSC, considering advice from the Chief Medical Officer or Deputy Chief Medical Officer, to disapply restrictions or requirements contained in a number of different Coronavirus regulations to allow these events to take place during a period of restrictions.

1.3 Scope

The ERP began during Step 2 of the government’s Roadmap, when large events were still prohibited and interventions to contain COVID transmission in place. The ERP was the largest science-based programme in the UK, outside of clinical trials, to inform innovative policy and its implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Between April and July, a total of 31 pilot events were conducted in England across a range of settings and sectors, with over two million participants involved in an ERP event, in a comprehensive programme not attempted previously. It allowed for new levels of scientific research into mass events, and a number of firsts, including bringing audiences back to 100% capacity in some events, hosting the first nightclub event in the UK and music festival in the Northern Hemisphere since the beginning of the pandemic, and facilitating what was at that point in time the largest gathering of spectators with pre-event testing anywhere in the world.

Events included the FA Cup Final, the BRIT Awards, the British Formula 1 Grand Prix, The Wimbledon Tennis Championships, UEFA EURO 2020, Latitude Festival, theatrical performances and nightclub events. The UK was among the first to pilot such events, and at such a scale to help shape the route back to events with audiences fully reopening.

The ERP has advanced the understanding of the risk of transmission of COVID-19 at large events, and has explored how to mitigate against this. Internationally, the programme has generated the most extensive evidence base to inform the running of events to minimise the risk of transmission. The programme used a collaborative approach involving leading university research teams, a crowd dynamics consultancy, independent scientific and ethics advisers working in partnership with 8 government departments and agencies, national and local public health leads, events industry stakeholders and 27 local authorities. The ERP gave the opportunity to evaluate on the basis of ‘real life’, albeit within the context of a global pandemic.

The novel combination of environmental and behavioural research was carried out to assess and mitigate the risk of transmission. This included the installation of over 750 temporary cameras capturing over 9300 hours of video footage with over 275,000 individual data points extracted, alongside the monitoring of 179 individual spaces using 370 CO2 monitors, which logged data every two minutes. The self controlled case series method, is an existing epidemiological study design, however was innovatively applied within the ERP to measure the risk of transmission associated with attending an event. See Section 2.2 for limitations of these studies.

The programme also piloted the use of the NHS App to evidence COVID status at large events explored the operational challenges of delivering events in a more COVID secure manner (see Section 2.6 and Annex A). This work supported the development of government guidance (as detailed in Section 3.1) and its COVID-19 policy for the reopening of events and attractions.

1.4 Link to previous publications

Findings from Phase I of the programme.

The ERP Reporting Dashboard, which captures detailed management information from all ERP events from Phases I-III, includes a breakdown of NHS Test and Trace data associated with ERP events. As stated, this NHS Test and Trace data cannot be directly attributed to transmission occurring at a specific ERP event or venue itself, but can inform the impact on population health of staging events.

2. Phases II and III findings

2.1. Purpose

Phases II and III of the ERP set out to build on findings from Phase I. As per this Science Board statement, Phase II was implemented with the primary research aim of resolving the question: what is the impact on risk of transmission of events held at full capacity, without social distancing, with entry conditional upon pre-event negative lateral flow test (LFT) results? The primary research question for Phase III was: What is the impact on risk of transmission of events held indoors or outdoors at or close to full capacity, without social distancing? The later phases of the programme also allowed further exploration of the logistics of running events (including testing the NHS COVID Pass) and the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce risk.

2.1. Limitations and interpretation

The ERP focused on the measures that might help the safe return of large events and closed settings. As set out in the ERP’s Terms of Reference, the programme was not responsible for advising on the timing of progression through the steps of the roadmap. This progression was decided by Ministers as part of the overall approach to reopening.

Findings from the ERP should be interpreted within the context of the COVID-19 situation and the underlying COVID-19 prevalence at any given time. Caution is advised when interpreting results as they may not generalise to other contexts. Phases II and III of the ERP were set against a background of rising infection rates driven by the Delta variant (B.1.617.2), plus an increasingly vaccinated population, and results should be considered through this lens. It should also be noted that a different epidemiological situation may have resulted in different results from the studies conducted, and it is possible that we see new variants arise that are more transmissible and possibly less responsive to vaccines than those encountered in our studies, which could change transmission risk. Different events present different contexts of audience characteristics and vaccination coverage, levels of mixing, state of background virus transmission, security, operational and other challenges which impact the research conducted and the generalisability of results. All of these factors must be taken into account when considering the overall conclusions and the policy and public health implications of the programme. The overall transmission risk from attending an event also includes potential exposures outside the venue, including travel to and from the event and any associated activities (e.g. visits individuals make to bars and restaurants). The self-controlled case series study does incorporate this end-to-end transmission risk however it is not in the scope of the environmental and behavioural study, which considers risk within the event venue.

The studies undertaken at events were subject to a range of methodological and scientific limitations, and these must be considered when interpreting the findings. These are described in detail in the protocols published on gov.uk and evidence likely generated by the programme summarised in the Science Board statements. Results presented here should be read in conjunction with the documented limitations. Similarly, the results for the environmental and self controlled case study should be interpreted in the context of the limitations described in the science notes.

2.3. Findings - Environmental and Behavioural studies

The Environmental and Behavioural studies were used to further understand transmission risk at ERP events as a result of environment, crowd densities and attendee behaviour, as detailed in the published research protocols. See also the full Science Note.

The studies investigated factors associated with risk of transmission of COVID-19 at events using high resolution monitoring, both distributed throughout each venue and following individual attendee journeys. Data collected during the studies included, among others, CO2 measurements, airflows, occupancy levels, crowd density estimates and adherence with mitigations (e.g. face coverings, crowd movement) across a wide range of events.

The studies demonstrate that environmental and behavioural risk factors associated with COVID-19 transmission at events are complex and contextual. The studies assessed air quality by measuring CO2 across 179 spaces in ten venues, as CO2 is mainly present in exhaled breath and can identify spaces with poor air quality from overcrowding or insufficient ventilation. Poor air quality in events with multiple occupants indicates a higher airborne transmission risk. The studies observed good air quality, for the given occupancy levels, in nearly all venues, however there were situations leading to poor air quality in some spaces: mostly due to pockets of overcrowding but occasionally due to ventilations strategies needing improvement. Key measures of average and maximum CO2 levels and peak crowd densities varied significantly between different events and during them.The maximum recorded CO₂ values were below 1500 ppm in 161 of the spaces monitored, and where they were higher this usually did not persist for longer than 1-2 hours. The average CO₂ levels during an entire event were below 800 ppm in 170 out of 179 monitored spaces^{[footnote 1]}.

Air quality studies were complemented by studies focusing on attendee behaviour during the event. Studies showed that increasing the number of people in a given space reduces the ability to physically distance and increases the risk of close contact with others. Adherence to safety measures including physical distancing and face covering usage were higher at events or locations within an event where they were required rather than discretionary.

Individual risk while attending an event is dependent on social interactions, on the interaction with the environment, and on the individual journey through an event. It is not yet possible to directly quantify the passive risk of inhaling aerosol particles that carry the virus from ambient air. However, risk is increased with prolonged and repeated exposure to poor air quality, insufficient ventilation, reduced distancing between individuals or limited compliance with face covering. It was found to vary significantly among venues and even within the same event, implying that customers can choose lower risk environments and behaviours to reduce their personal risk. Risk assessments and possibly additional mitigations should be considered separately for staff.

Analysis of the data from ERP continues and further investigation of key risk factors will be used for further modelling and to inform policy guidance. Venues and event organisers should consider their ventilation strategy, occupancy, operations, space utilisation, and people movement within an overall risk assessment tailored to each venue. Appropriate mitigations, such as an enhanced ventilation strategy, must be part of a hierarchy of controls including face coverings and reducing crowding.

2.4. Findings - Self Controlled Case Series study

The Self-Controlled Case Series study was used to further measure the risk of COVID-19 infection associated with attending Phase III ERP events held at or close to full capacity without social distancing, as detailed in the published research protocol. See also the full Science Note.

In a self-controlled case series each person acts as their own control. Data were obtained for a sample of people who both attended a Phase III ERP event, and had any COVID-19 test result recorded in NHS Test and Trace in the 16 days following attendance at the event. The proportion of attendees for whom attendance data were available varied from approximately 3% at some events to greater than 90% at others. The rate of positive testing for COVID-19 was compared within person, between a 7 day high risk period following attendance at an event with the subsequent 7 day period when infection risk is assumed to be unaffected by attendance at the event. The rate for negative testing was also calculated to determine any bias in testing trends over the observation period.

Approximately 1.7% of attendees, for whom data were available, tested positive for COVID-19 during their 16 day study period. The results tend to show that there was little evidence of increased transmission by attendance at the following categories of events: mainly outdoor seated, mainly outdoor partially seated or the indoor seated theatre events studied. Caution is needed when interpreting these findings. For example, some theatre events were run at or below 50% of normal full capacity and involved low numbers of attendees meaning we were unable to rule out a potentially important increased risk of transmission. Bearing in mind the findings of the environmental and behavioural studies these results may not generalise to other contexts where venue characteristics and individual/crowd behaviour may be different.

Attendance at the mainly outdoor unseated events studied (Goodwood, Latitude and Tramlines) was associated with a 1.7 fold increased risk of COVID-19 transmission amongst attendees (95% confidence interval between 1.52 and 1.89). For context, the risk of infection in the baseline period was ~0.9% for Latitude attendees in the study; a 70% increase would take this risk to 1.53%. This confidence interval means the estimate of 70% is robust due to the large number of attendees (over 2000) at these events. Reasons for this difference in transmission risk are likely to be multifactorial and could include behaviour whilst at the event, overall event size and duration or mode of travel to and from the event. It should also be noted that these results are set against the background of a particular epidemiological situation, and the possibility remains that new variants arise that are more transmissible and possibly less responsive to vaccines than those encountered in our studies, which would change transmission risk.

Across all events, where attendee COVID-19 vaccination status was self-reported, 87% of people with a positive COVID-19 test result during the study period were unvaccinated

2.5 NHS App trial and COVID-status Certification Learnings

COVID-status certification was piloted in all three phases of the ERP, with Phase I using testing protocols only (demonstration of a negative lateral flow test). The NHS COVID Pass was introduced for the EUROs games in Phase II as a means for certification, alongside using a vaccination letter ordered from 119 or nhs.uk to verify COVID status, and this method was used for all Phase III events (as per this work statement). In Phase II (EUROs only) and III individuals were required to show proof of:

• a negative test (lateral flow) taken within 24-72 hours of entry to a venue (in Phase III it was 48 hours)

• vaccination (two doses of a U.K. approved vaccine plus two weeks); or

• natural immunity from a prior positive PCR test (up to 180 days post PCR test)

The above protocols are consistent with voluntary certification, which is currently available for use by organisations via the NHS COVID Pass (accessible via the NHS App and NHS.UK and letter via NHS.UK or by calling 119) for organisations in England to use to help limit the risk of transmission in their venues and events.

The government has set out that if data suggests that further measures are necessary to protect the NHS, ‘Plan B’ could be enacted, in which mandatory vaccine only certification would be introduced in certain settings (as per the policy paper published here, which sets out the rationale for vaccine only certification, and the proposal for how it would be implemented in Plan B).

Testing of the NHS COVID Pass generated insights on user journey and communications, as well as testing infrastructure, experience of organisers and operational delivery at venues. Insights from the wider testing of certification through the ERP have informed the proposal for mandatory vaccine certification in a Plan B scenario, as set out in the policy paper.

These pilots found compliance with certification protocols improved with clearer and more consistent communications, which aided the avoidance of confusion. They demonstrated the importance of having properly trained stewards who are equipped to rapidly and accurately verify COVID status, in order to minimise queuing and associated safety and security concerns, and the findings from the ERP have been used to inform the government’s plans for mandatory certification in ‘Plan B’. Full findings can be found at Annex A.

2.6. Delivery

Event delivery

Generally, event organisers who participated in the ERP were very enthusiastic about their involvement, with many seeing it as part of their duty to their sectors in order to aid their reopening. government-event organiser relationships were on the whole very positive.

The events of the ERP were organised and delivered at great pace and event organisers largely responded positively to the challenging asks of the programme at short notice in order to be included in the ERP. Events that traditionally would have taken months to deliver were delivered in a matter of weeks. This led to undertaking tasks in parallel that would ideally have been carried out in sequence.

Research delivery

The ERP drew upon a science framework for studying events that was developed by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) sub-group, the Environmental Modelling Group (SAGE-EMG). The programme was supported by an independently chaired Science Board. As with event delivery, the research plans for the programme were drawn up in compressed timescales, and were necessarily constrained by the wider public health situation. Furthermore, the studies had to be designed to allow for events to take place in a ‘normal’ way to ensure real life could be simulated. Despite all of this, the research teams devised comprehensive studies, collecting large amounts of useful data to aid the safe return of large events.

3. Legacy

3.1. Guidance and pioneering approaches

Findings from the ERP have fed into a wide range of government guidance, and continue to inform policy as we look ahead to the next few months in managing COVID-19. Findings from the ERP have informed the Events and Attractions, hotels, and grassroot sports guidance, and fed into work around social distancing. Findings from the ERP have influenced the government’s proposal for mandatory vaccine-only certification in a Plan B scenario.

The programme was pioneering in its collaborative approach to the generation of as robust as possible evidence base on the risks of transmission of COVID-19. The collaboration of university and consultancy research teams, independent scientific and ethics advisers, working in partnership with 8 core government departments and agencies, national and local public health leads, events industry stakeholders and 27 local authorities was a first for government and has been very successful, and lessons learned from this approach should be used by government to tackle big policy questions in future.

3.1. Data sources to be used for future research

Phase I findings of the ERP.

Data dashboard comprising management information and case rate data for Phases I-III of the ERP.

3.3. ERP research still to be published

Analysis of the ERP data continues and detailed scientific reports on each study will be produced and submitted for publication in peer reviewed journals by research teams, to be published with open access.

Future research questions

The ERP has opened up an area of scientific study relating to risk-mitigation at events. It has provided important evidence on the variety of settings and differences within venues such as ventilation systems, the organisation of events, venue design, and attendee behaviour.

The evidence generated by the ERP will inform further improvements to guidance for events organisers. This will allow venues and event organisers to consider incorporating ventilation strategy, occupancy, operations, space utilisation, and people movement alongside other factors within existing practices and develop an overall risk assessment tailored to each venue.

DCMS will continue to work with the UK Health Security Agency to investigate the possibility of expanding the existing Data Dashboard to collate data from events going forward and monitor cases arising from them.

Significant challenges remain in establishing an effective data collection system for understanding large scale public events.The ERP found the collection and linking of data particularly challenging given the combination of issues arising from information around individuals with privacy concerns, health data collected for public health and information arising from event attendance. Linking data for the purposes of research analysis was challenging, often reflecting that the data and information systems to collect the data were designed for very different purposes. Three critical research data challenges need to be addressed:

• The design of data collection and analysis systems that focus on providing a longer term research infrastructure rather than public health monitoring.
• Development of privacy preserving data collection and linking facilities that allow the combined analysis of different forms of data including personal data and health record data.
• The design of appropriate governance structures that link with the various policy interventions around data to allow the smooth linking and analysis of data.

Acknowledgements and thanks

The Events Research Programme would not have been possible without the intensive contributions of a wide range of people: those participating as audience members and responding to our research requests; the event organisers, promoters, ticketing and venue staff working with local authority events and public health teams on the ground; and the scientists designing and conducting studies including collecting and analysing complex sets of data. This includes teams led by the University of Liverpool, Loughborough University, Sheffield University, University College London, the University of Edinburgh and the crowd dynamics consultancy, Movement Strategies who undertook the research core to the ERP. The government is very grateful to the independent scientists on our Science Board who oversaw the programme, numerous officials from a wide range of government departments and agencies, local authorities, and the members of the Senior Steering Steering Board, plus the two Chief Advisers who oversaw the first phase of the programme.

Annex A: Full NHS App trial and COVID-status certification learnings

Communications

In the majority of cases, venues and users understood the certification protocols required to enter the events. Communications on certification requirements were found to be more effective when sent further in advance. Extra communications were required by event organisers in order to ensure attendees understood certification requirements, and there were several instances of organisers receiving heightened volumes of correspondence ahead of events as attendees were concerned about satisfying certification requirements for entry. There was also confusion reported around the distinction between the NHS App and the NHS Covid-19 App, although this decreased with the inclusion of more visual communications. It is expected that this would become less of an issue for repeat visitors as individuals got used to requirements, which was not tested during the ERP.

Feedback from attendees who were less engaged with the certification protocol was largely centred on misunderstanding of Covid entry requirements, with attendees at multiple events mistakenly bringing vaccination cards. The majority of these attendees were able to sign up to get a digital pass via the NHS App and gain entry via that route instead.

If certification were to be introduced in a Plan B scenario, the government would publish clear guidance for event organisers, which would include advice on communications for attendees, informed by the findings of the ERP.

Testing capacity

For all phases of the ERP, a negative lateral flow test was accepted as a means to demonstrate COVID status. In some cases, in the event that an individual failed to provide the correct documentation for entry, on-site Asymptomatic Test Sites (ATS) were used as a means to allow entry by taking a negative lateral flow test. The Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) provided ATSs on site for five of these venues, with Local Authorities providing 11 ATSs, and two events directed attendees to pharmacies to utilise the ‘pharmacy collect service’ as a means of entry for non-compliant attendees. This provision of contingency testing resources was widely reported to be well operated and managed, with no major testing incidents reported at any event, other than the Brent ATS supporting the EURO2020 games at Wembley, where high demand and a high international traveller presence caused pressure on the system during one match in particular. Across all ERP events, less than 1% of attendees needed to use an ATS site.

If certification were to be introduced in a plan B scenario, the government has said that this would be on the basis of demonstrating vaccine status only, therefore reducing the reliance on testing infrastructure.

Stewarding, crowd management, safety considerations

Those supporting entry to the venue were asked to ensure that all attendees showed an acceptable COVID Pass via the NHS App or other method, including downloading and presenting the COVID Pass, or using a vaccination letter ordered from 119 or gov.uk to verify COVID status.

Checking of the COVID pass was imperfect, due to varying degrees of confidence, training and time allowed for checks, at times presenting risk to the efficacy of the service and highlighting the dependency on venues. It was more successful where staff were trained, confident in what they were looking for, perceived they had time to do checks and also where there was space to remove those from queues who were not presenting the correct information. It is worth noting that ERP events were in many instances stewards’ first encounter with COVID status certification and this process would likely become smoother over time (although this was not tested by the ERP).

Where venues had periods of low mobile data connectivity and WIFI, participants were impacted in accessing their pass. This was particularly common when there was very high footfall or a place with known low mobile phone bandwidth. Since the conclusion of the ERP, ‘wallet functionality’ has been added to the COVID Pass, which enables users to download their COVID Pass to their device, which can then be shown without the requirement for internet connection, which is helping to mitigate against this issue.

There were two instances of certification checks being paused by venues while allowing entry to continue - notably at the EURO 2020 final although also at Silverstone (although for a short period of time), due to concerns about crowd management and the potential for crushing at gates, meaning some ticket holders gained entry without proving their COVID status.

Certification increased entry times to venues, sometimes to the point where spectators missed the beginning of the events they were attending. Most venues employed additional stewards to support attendees preparing for entry, but in some cases this was not sufficient to get all attendees inside on time. Relatedly, certification increased queueing times, with concerns raised around increased COVID risk in queues plus security concerns about queues spilling over into roads, which can in turn create reputational risks for venues. Some venues implemented measures to mitigate against issues such as these, including staggering entry times to reduce queuing and multiple entry points.

These experiences have informed the current proposal on certification in a Plan B scenario. If certification were to be introduced, the government would provide guidance on how to mitigate some of these challenges.

Impact on organisers

Certification in some cases led to increased cost and burden for event organisers. In order to facilitate certification as a condition of entry, in some cases event organisers had to employ higher numbers of stewards, increasing costs and time spent training new staff. It should be considered however that once staff are trained and familiar with certification protocols, both the burden on event organisers and wait times would be reduced as the process becomes more mature.

Some organisers noted what they believed was reduced attendance at events due to the ‘hassle’ of certification, particularly unvaccinated individuals having to do an LFD test to prove their COVID status. This problem could be mitigated as levels of vaccination increase, and the NHS App can be used to show COVID status with no prior testing required.

The government recognises these challenges, but notes that, in a Plan B scenario, certification could allow settings that have experienced long periods of closure to remain open, compared to more stringent measures which may severely reduce capacity or cause them to close entirely.

Certification consumer experience

Across England, there was generally high uptake of the NHS App at the time that the ERP was running. Downloads of the NHS App were between 70,000 - 100,000 per day following the 17 May launch of the international travel service. During the period of the ERP events significant incremental growth was seen above the May and June baseline, with 2 million App downloads attributable to Phase III of the programme.

The vast majority of people were able to access their COVID Pass, using one of the approved mechanisms with the uptake of the NHS App ranging from 70-98% depending upon the event and the cohort. These figures were ascertained by on-site sample testing during events.

Usage of the NHS App was highest amongst those who had been vaccinated. Where communications minimised use of the Test and Trace text message or email for those using LFTs and promoted surfacing this through the App instead, an increase in app usage of around 33% was seen.

There was a preference for live presentation of the COVID Pass rather than an offline / paper alternative. When attempting to show a live Pass within the NHS App there was a short time required to type in username and password for those that had not set up facial or fingerprint ID, or where it was not possible on the device. People often underestimated the time this would take, or preferred to get into a queue and undertake it as they moved along, which could affect queuing times.

The majority of those that had been vaccinated and arrived with a UK vaccination card, GP record or letter did not have to be tested on-site, as they could access the NHS App or NHS.UK service on site through auto-verification. This meant they were able to enter the event considerably quicker than had testing been required. Limiting the information that an individual could see in the NHS App to just the COVID Pass and not the health data behind it increased access to the App on site from approx 75% to 96%.

The gov.uk test result self-registration went down once in Phase II and once in Phase III, and the NHS App was inaccessible at two points during Phase III. The first time, an issue with Test and Trace meant that those using tests to verify their COVID status were unable to do so, and on the second occasion the NHS App was unavailable due to a global outage of the platform which hosts the App. Event organisers were able to use text or email to confirm lateral flow test results, but this did not help those relying on their vaccination status to gain entry to these events. As flagged above, this issue will be mitigated due to the ‘wallet functionality’ being added to the COVID Pass, which enables users to download their COVID Pass to their device.

There were some minor instances of anti-vaccine/anti-vaccine passports protests at a number of events across the programme, including notably on 11 July ahead of the Wimbledon Final. Typically these protests were small scale, and there were several instances of the same protesters appearing across multiple events.

1. For mitigation against COVID-19, indoor spaces recording CO2 values that regularly exceed 1500 ppm indicate poor ventilation and are considered a priority for improvement. CO2 values consistently lower than 800ppm in an occupied space indicate that the space is well-ventilated, thus spaces where aerosol generating activities occur (such as singing, aerobic activity or dancing) are encouraged to adopt a ventilation strategy capable of maintaining CO2 values at or below 800ppm. ↩