Abstract
The effectiveness of screening travellers during times of international disease outbreak is contentious, especially as the reduction in the risk of disease importation can be very small. Border screening typically consists of travellers being thermally scanned for signs of fever and/or completing a survey declaring any possible symptoms prior to admission to their destination country; while more thorough testing typically exists, these would generally prove more disruptive to deploy. In this paper, we describe a simple Monte Carlo based model that incorporates the epidemiology of COVID-19 to investigate the potential benefit of requiring all travellers to undergo thorough screening upon arrival. This is a purely theoretical study to investigate whether a single test at point of entry might ever prove to be a way of significantly decreasing risk of importation. We therefore assume ideal conditions such as 100% compliance among travellers and the use of a “perfect” test. In addition to COVID-19, we also apply the presented model to simulated outbreaks of Influenza, SARS and Ebola for comparison. Our model only considers screening implemented at airports, being the predominant method of international travel. Primary results showed that in the best-case scenario, screening may expect to detect 8.8% of travellers infected with COVID-19, compared to 34.8.%, 9.7% and 3.0% for travellers infected with influenza, SARS and Ebola respectively. While results appear to indicate that screening is more effective at preventing disease ingress when the disease in question has a shorter average incubation period, our results indicate that screening alone does not represent a sufficient method to adequately protect a nation from the importation of COVID-19 cases.
Data availability All results described in the work, in addition to technical descriptions of methods used, are made available in the supplementary material. The Python package used to implement these methods and obtain our results has been made accessible online[1].
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Not applicable
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Not applicable
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I 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.
Yes
Data Availability
All data referred to in paper is included in presented tables
