Abstract
Introduction Since March of 2020, over 210 million SARS-CoV-2 cases have been reported and roughly five billion doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine have been delivered. The rise of the more infectious delta variant has recently indicated the value of reinstating previously relaxed non-pharmacological and test-driven preventative measures. These efforts have been met with resistance, due, in part, to a lack of site-specific quantitative evidence which can justify their value. As vaccination rates continue to increase, a gap in knowledge exists regarding appropriate thresholds for escalation and de-escalation of COVID-19 preventative measures.
Methods We conducted a series of simulation experiments, trialing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 virus in a hypothesized working environment that is subject to COVID-19 infections from the surrounding community. We established cohorts of individuals who would, in simulation, work together for a set period of time. With these cohorts, we tested the rates of workplace and community acquired infections based on applied isolation strategies, community infection rates (CIR), scales of testing, non-pharmaceutical interventions, variant predominance’s and testing strategies, vaccination coverages, and vaccination efficacies of the members included. Permuting through each combination of these variables, we estimated expected case counts for 33,462 unique workplace scenarios.
Results When the CIR is 5 new confirmed cases per 100,000 or fewer, and at 50% of the workforce is vaccinated with a 95% efficacious vaccine, then testing daily with an antigen-based or PCR based test in only unvaccinated workers will result in less than one infection through 4,800 person weeks. When the community infection rate per 100,000 persons is less than or equal to 60, and the vaccination coverage of the workforce is 100% with 95% vaccine efficacy then no masking or routine testing + isolation strategies are needed to prevent workplace acquired infections regardless of variant predominance. Identifying and isolating workers with antigen-based SARS-CoV-2 testing methods results in the same or fewer workplace acquired infections than testing with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods.
Conclusions Specific scenarios exist in which preventative measures taken to prevent SARS-CoV-2 spread, including masking, and testing plus isolation strategies can safely be relaxed. Further, efficacious testing with quarantine strategies exist for implementation in only unvaccinated cohorts in a workplace. Due to shorter turnaround time, antigen-based testing with lower sensitivity is more effective than PCR testing with higher sensitivities in comparable testing strategies. The general reference interactive heatmap we provide can be used for site specific, immediate, parameter-based case count predictions to inform appropriate institutional policy making.
Competing Interest Statement
Patrick Yu, Peter Matos, and Julie McCashin are employed by Corporate Medical Advisors, which has been using simulations to help guide decisions about how to manage specific staffing environments. They have not had any influence over the simulation studies that were conducted or influenced the findings from these studies.
Funding Statement
Funding: Cancer Prevention Research Interest of Texas (CPRIT) award: RR170048 (CIA); National Institutes of Health (NIH) for INTEGRAL consortium: U19CA203654 (CIA); National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH T32ES027801 (RWP) Patrick Yu, Peter Matos, and Julie McCashin are employed by Corporate Medical Advisors, which has been using simulations to help guide decisions about how to manage specific staffing environments. They have not had any influence over the simulation studies that were conducted or influenced the findings from these studies.
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:
This is a simulation study with no human or clinical data. No IRB approval required.
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
Footnotes
↵* Indicates co-first authors
Data Availability
The simulation package, which was used to generate our simulation data is publicly available at https://ictr.github.io/covid19-outbreak-simulator/. All simulation results are provided in supplementary Table 3.
