Abstract
Aim With increasing global use of hotel-based quarantine as part of COVID-19 border control efforts, we aimed to assess its risk of failure.
Methods We searched official websites in both Australia and New Zealand (NZ) to identify outbreaks and border control failures associated with hotel quarantine (searches conducted up to 12 February 2021). We used two denominators: a) the estimated number of travelers who went through these facilities during the 2020 year up to 31 January 2021; and b) the equivalent number of SARS-CoV-2 positive people who went through these facilities.
Results Up to 31 January 2021, Australia had seven failures with one causing over 800 deaths and six resulting in lockdowns. In NZ there were nine failures, with one causing an outbreak with three deaths, and also a lockdown. The overall failure risk for those transiting quarantine was estimated at one failure per 20,702 travelers and one failure per 252 SARS-CoV-2 positive cases (both countries combined). At the country level, there were 15.5 failures per 1000 SARS-CoV-2 positive cases transiting quarantine in NZ (95%CI: 5.4 to 25.7), compared to 2.0 per 1000 SARS-CoV-2 positive cases in Australia (0.5 to 3.5) – a greater than seven-fold difference in risk. Approaches to infection control and surveillance in hotel quarantine were found to vary widely by country and by state/territory.
Conclusions There appears to be a notable risk of failure with the use of hotel quarantine in these two countries. The large variation in infection control practices suggests opportunity for risk reduction.
Introduction
New Zealand and Australian states have successfully eliminated community transmission of the pandemic virus SARS-CoV-2,1 albeit with occasional outbreaks from imported cases that have been quickly brought under control. These two countries have mostly used hotel-based quarantine for citizens returning to their countries during the pandemic period. This process is typically 14 days of quarantine combined with PCR testing and mask use in any areas involving shared space (eg, exercise areas).
Converting hotels for quarantine purposes has the advantage of making use of a resource that would otherwise be underused during a pandemic, given declines in international tourism. However, the major disadvantage of hotel-based quarantine is that it is likely to be less effective than purpose-built quarantine facilities owing to shared spaces and lack of proper ventilation (as per WHO advice on air flow2). Moreover, the consequences of leakage of the virus out of quarantine (eg, through facility workers) may be more severe given higher population density in urban settings where the hotels are based. Given these issues, we aimed to estimate the failure risk of hotel-based quarantine in New Zealand and Australia in terms of the spread of COVID-19 infection into the community.
Methods
We searched official websites in both countries, and for the eight states and territories in Australia, to identify outbreaks and border control failures associated with hotel quarantine (searches conducted between 6 January and 12 February 2021). Where an outbreak source was uncertain (eg, the Auckland, New Zealand, August 2020 outbreak) we used the best available evidence to classify it as a hotel quarantine failure or not. We used two denominators: a) the estimated number of travelers who went through these facilities during the 2020 year up to 31 January 2021; and b) the number of SARS-CoV-2 positive people who went through these facilities in this same time period. The unit of analyses were New Zealand, the eight Australian states and territories, and both countries combined.
For New Zealand, we used official data on both travelers going through the hotel quarantine system3 along with official (Ministry of Health) data on SARS-CoV-2 positive cases,4 although there are some discrepancies in the information about when regular testing began in Managed Isolation and Quarantine (MIQ) facilities. For Australia we used overseas arrival data,5 health data,6 and also considered the new caps on travelers for Australia in January 2021.7
Results
The collated data for hotel quarantine failures is shown in Table 1, with specific details of each event in the Appendix (Table A1). In Australia, seven failures were identified, one causing over 800 deaths and six out of the seven resulting in lockdowns. In New Zealand, there were nine failures, with one causing an outbreak with three deaths, and also a lockdown.
Given our estimates of the number of travelers processed via hotel-based quarantine (Table 1), the overall risks for both countries combined were one failure per 20,702 travelers, and one failure per 252 SARS-CoV-2 positive cases in hotel-based quarantine. The combined data can also be interpreted as one outbreak leading to a lockdown response per 47,319 travelers; and approximately one death from COVID-19 per 412 travelers (using the 800 deaths estimate from Australia and the three deaths from New Zealand – although this figure is largely driven by the second wave in Victoria and is unlikely generalizable forward in time).
At the country level, there were 15.5 failures per 1000 SARS-CoV-2 positive cases transiting quarantine in New Zealand (95%CI: 5.4 to 25.7), compared to 2.0 per 1000 SARS-CoV-2 positive cases in Australia (0.5 to 3.5) – a greater than seven-fold difference in risk. Given the proportion of SARS-CoV-2 positive cases since 1 December 2020 in quarantine has increased to 9.1 per 1000 in New Zealand and 16.3 per 1000 in Australia, this would equate to 1.8 and 0.7 expected failures per month in New Zealand and Australia, respectively – assuming past quarantine practices are constant into the future. Moreover, if new arrivals with SARS-CoV-2 have a variant that may be around 50% more infectious, that would become 2.8 and 1.0 respectively (assuming a linear increase in risk, which is likely an underestimate).
Discussion
This analysis identified 16 failures of hotel quarantine in Australia and New Zealand combined (up to 31 January 2021). The significantly higher failure risk per 1000 SARS-CoV-2 positive cases transiting quarantine in New Zealand vs Australia could reflect a lower quality approach in the former and/or possibly better detection in New Zealand from greater use of border worker testing over a longer period. However, it must be noted that since 1 December 2020, the proportion of SARS-CoV-2 positive cases among international arrivals is greater in Australia (16.3 per 1000) than in New Zealand (9.1 per 1000).
These estimates are both subject to chance variations due to low numbers of failures, and as an estimate of all breaches of quarantine an underestimate. That is, there will probably have been instances of viral incursion out of quarantine that failed to spread substantially and be detected. Genomes of the first 649 viral isolates collected in New Zealand show that only 19% of introductions were estimated to infect more than one other person.9 Therefore, counts of border failures are sensitive to how they are identified and defined. Indeed, with increased testing (eg, testing of people after leaving quarantine on day 16 as is now common in Australia), we may be detecting breaches that previously went undetected.
Looking forward, the failure risks per month in New Zealand and Australia are likely to increase, given that the proportion of travelers returning to these countries who are infected is increasing due to global intensification of the pandemic and the increasing infectivity of new SARS-CoV-2 variants.10 Indeed, in February 2021 there have been two clearly documented cases of spread within quarantine hotels in Melbourne, highlighting the increased risk and evolving situation with more highly infectious variants arriving from overseas. Offsetting this trend will be measures such as vaccinating quarantine workers (assuming the vaccine prevents transmission, which appears likely with overall infection rates halved for the AstraZeneca vaccine11 and perhaps 70% less for the Moderna mRNA vaccine, as indicated by using swab results for asymptomatic infection plus symptomatic cases12). Another risk reduction practice would be using better facilities in rural locations as these have less risk from close contacts in CBD hotels and within-building spread from poor ventilation systems. Furthermore, the level of testing of hotel quarantine workers has been increasing (eg,13; which will find some failures before they have a chance to establish as an outbreak in the community), and there have been other improvements in hotel quarantine in late 2020 (eg, improved security, introduction of mask wearing within quarantine settings, reduction in shared spaces, improved PPE used by workers, and other procedures as detailed in both countries14,15).
Limitations of our analysis include residual uncertainty around the cause of some outbreaks (eg, the Auckland August 2020 outbreak), and imprecision with denominator data on traveler numbers for Australia (eg, some travelers were moved between states on domestic flights which is not captured in the official data we used). Additionally, case numbers are constantly changing, due to the number of reclassifications caused by false positives and duplications.
To substantially reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 incursion out of quarantine, the most obvious action is to reduce arrivals, or even suspend arrivals, from high infection locations. Beyond this, there are a range of other potential improvements in ongoing arrangements and processes as detailed in Table 2.
In summary, Australia and New Zealand have had 16 COVID-19 identified failures arising from hotel-based quarantine up to 31 January 2021. These systems are now facing higher proportions of infected travelers that threaten the elimination status of these jurisdictions – urgent improvements to quarantine are required.
Data Availability
The datasets analyzed during the current study were derived from public resources available from the New Zealand Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment, the New Zealand Ministry of Health. the Australia Bureau of Statistics. and the Australian Department of Health.
https://www.health.gov.au/resources/collections/coronavirus-covid-19-common-operating-picture
Competing interests
Nil.
Funding
Prof Baker and Dr Kvalsvig received funding support from the Health Research Council of New Zealand (20/1066). Dr Grout, Ms Katar, Dr Ait Ouakrim, Dr Summers, Prof Blakely, and Prof Wilson did not have external funding support.
Appendix
Approaches to managing hotel quarantine in Australia and New Zealand
Table A2 details the various approaches to hotel quarantine used in both countries. Key features of which are summarised below:
The length of quarantine in all jurisdictions is 14 days.
Almost all jurisdictions require at least two separate PCR tests for travelers: one shortly after arrival and another closer to the end of the quarantine period.
Many jurisdictions have introduced or are considering additional tests for travelers, either earlier in (eg, Day 0/1 in New Zealand) or after (eg, Day 16 in New South Wales) the quarantine period. This is in response to concerns about new highly infectious variants in early 2021.
Australia does not currently have a national strategy for quarantine.
Detailed information on quarantine programs for each Australian state/territory is limited and in many cases we had to rely on news articles for additional details in compiling Table A2. Descriptions of PPE required for hotel quarantine staff in different jurisdictions were particularly difficult to identify and information often was not available by staff role (eg, security guards vs cleaners).