Abstract
We developed a flexible infectious disease model framework that combines a detailed individual-based model of arrival pathways (quarantine model) and an individual-based model of the arrivals environment (community model) to inform border risk assessments. The work was motivated by Australia’s desire to safely increase international arrival volumes, which had been heavily constrained since early 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. These analyses supported decisions on quarantine and border policy in the context of the Australian government’s national reopening plan in late 2021.
The quarantine model provides a detailed representation of transmission within quarantine and time-varying infectiousness and test sensitivity within individuals, to characterise the likelihood and infectiousness of breaches from quarantine. The community model subsequently captures the impact these infectious individuals have in the presence of varying vaccination coverage, arrival volumes, public health and social measures (PHSMs) and test-trace-isolate-quarantine system effectiveness in the Australian context.
Our results showed that high vaccination coverage would be required to safely reopen with support from ongoing PHSMs, and quarantine pathways have minimal impact on infection dynamics in the presence of existing local transmission. The modelling pipeline we present can be flexibly adapted to a range of scenarios and thus provides a useful framework for generating timely risk assessments in the event of future pandemics.
Introduction
Border controls and quarantine have played an important role in the COVID-19 response in many countries by reducing the risk of importation, thereby postponing establishment of community transmission [1–3]. The use of strong border measures enabled many island nations in the Western Pacific region including Australia to minimise the number of seeding events, to the extent that public health and social measures could maintain very low levels of transmission for extended periods throughout 2020 and 2021 until effective vaccines were available. However, border measures impose considerable social and economic costs by limiting personal and business travel, making reopening essential when deemed safe to do so.
In Australia, the initial wave of COVID-19 in 2020 was brought under control by a nationwide lockdown that supported active case finding and contact management, achieving local elimination. This situation was effectively maintained in most of the country over the next two years by stringent caps on international arrivals and mandatory quarantine requirements [4, 5]. Quarantine was managed by states and territories, using hotels and a small number of repurposed accommodation facilities, all of which had to be adapted and operated according to strict protocols to be fit for purpose. Infection breaches were rare but highly visible, requiring active public health management and social measures including lockdowns to constrain onward spread [6]. These disruptive events prompted close attention to mitigation of residual risks in the arrivals system [5].
Incursions associated with travellers were due either to very prolonged viral shedding (if infected in the country of origin) or undetected infections acquired from fellow travellers during the quarantine period. Transmission to quarantine workers was a more frequently identified source of infection importation into the wider community. Vaccination of travellers and workers within the quarantine system prior to the emergence of the Omicron variant was a highly effective strategy to reduce the risk of transmission events within managed facilities, and hence the rate of breaches [7] — though the reduced effectiveness of vaccines against transmission for Omicron would subsequently lessen this impact [8]. Widespread administration of safe and effective vaccines at the population level further reduces the likelihood of effective seeding and the health and societal impacts of infection, easing pressure on border controls as the front line of population protection.
In August 2021, the Australian government proposed the ‘National Plan to transition Australia’s National COVID-19 Response’ (herein, ‘national reopening plan’) in which national vaccination coverage targets were explicitly tied to easing of restrictions on international travel and the end of lockdowns as an infection control strategy [9, 10]. At this time, the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 was circulating globally, with varying epidemiological characteristics across Australian states and territories ranging from jurisdictions that were largely free of COVID-19 to those with ongoing community transmission — correspondingly, jurisdictions had variable vaccination coverage and public health and social measures in place. While vaccine uptake was increasing across Australia, it was unclear what level of ongoing border controls would be required to limit the risk of sustained community outbreaks. Quarantine pathways had to be reconsidered to allow travellers to return in greater numbers, as the existing hotel quarantine system was subject to capacity constraints. Options for increasing international arrivals included reducing the length of stay in managed facilities, and/or allowing residents to quarantine at home. However, such decisions about international arrival arrangements needed to consider impact in Australia-specific settings, with diverse rates of pre-existing immunity due to vaccination and infection and different levels of community transmission.
This paper reports on the use of a series of linked models to estimate the risks and consequences of infection incursions under a range of arrivals assumptions, in the context of local vaccine coverage, public health measures, and epidemiology. Findings from this analysis on vaccination coverage targets and the levels of public health and social measures required to mitigate transmission in the presence of different arrival pathways and increased travel volumes informed Australia’s national reopening strategy in late 2021.
Methods
We used a series of models to 1) estimate the likelihood that infected travellers arriving into a quarantine system would either fail to be detected or transmit infection to a worker or another traveller throughout their arrival pathway, and 2) the impact of arrival pathways on subsequently seeding infection in the community, with variable consequences depending on local epidemiology, vaccine coverage and population behaviour.
There are three distinct components of our model framework, visualised in Figure 1:
Schematic depicting the modelling framework used in this analysis. An individual-based model of the quarantine system, exploring quarantine pathway, duration and testing, is implemented to generate characteristics of breach events resulting from travellers and workers. A linelist of breach events, containing individual-level characteristics, for each scenario is generated from the quarantine model. These breach events are subsequently sampled appropriately given travel volumes and source prevalence to generate multiple linelists of breach events for each scenario, including the time the breach enters the community. Community characteristics, such as level of public health and social measures (PHSMs), test-trace-isolate-quarantine (TTIQ) system effectiveness, and age-specific vaccination coverage are implemented in the community model where breaches are introduced and subsequent outbreaks can be simulated for each breach linelist.
The quarantine model is an individual-based model that simulates progression through alternate quarantine pathways with differing detection effectiveness. This model quantifies the frequency and infectiousness of individuals entering the community per unit time for a given arrivals volume. A linelist of breach events from this system is generated, including information on infectiousness and residual infectious duration of each breach, based on their time since infection, and individual-level information such as vaccination status and age.
The linking model takes the breach linelist from the quarantine model (generated for a fixed source prevalence and number of arrivals), and samples the quarantine model output to generate imputed linelists of infectious individuals from the quarantine system who will enter the community over time. Existing simulations in the breach linelist are used to generate the imputed linelist for varying source prevalence and numbers of arrivals, and can combine multiple quarantine pathways.
The community model is an individual-based model that simulates transmission in the general community resulting from the introduction of infectious individuals from the quarantine system. It incorporates the impact of public health and social measures, test-trace-isolate-quarantine system effectiveness, and age-specific vaccination coverage.
The quarantine [7] and transmission [10] models have been described previously, though we provide brief descriptions of the key components below and extensions relevant to this work. Code is available at: https://github.com/aus-covid-modelling/NationalCabinetModelling-OctNov21.
Quarantine model
The effect of quarantine systems on the number of infectious individuals entering the community from overseas, and the time during their infection at which they are released into the community, is simulated explicitly through the use of an individual-based model. The core features of this model have been described in previous work [7], and these have been extended for the present study.
Traveller groups
As in [7], we assume that all travellers arrive in groups of size four, and that there is a risk of transmission within the travelling party, with lesser risks to quarantine workers or other traveller groups within the same facility. Individuals who are identified as infected while in quarantine are removed and isolated for 10 days in separate facilities staffed by medically qualified personnel. Their accompanying travellers’ quarantine duration is ‘reset’ for another 14 days from the point of detection. The number of workers in the system scales with the numbers of travellers according to a fixed ratio (here, assumed one worker per five travellers).
A key point of differentiation for the model implemented here compared to previous work [7] is the inclusion of family groups in which two of the individuals are children. Based on Australian pre-COVID arrivals data, we assume that family groups make up approximately 18% of all arrival parties. For such groups, the isolation of confirmed infections takes into account the constraint that children must remain in the company of at least one parent at all times. Various isolation and quarantine scenarios based on different family infection patterns are described in detail in the Supplementary Material S1.1. Arrival into Australia at the time was contingent on adults being fully vaccinated (i.e., received all required doses of a recognised vaccine product), though this was not the case for children under 12 years, for whom no vaccine was approved in Australia. As such, we assumed that all adults in the system were vaccinated, and the children (who only appear in family units) were unvaccinated. The infectiousness of adult travellers was reduced by vaccination, and though children were unvaccinated, they were considered to be intrinsically less infectious than unvaccinated adults (assumed 40% less infectious than adults [11, 12]).
Quarantine environment and duration
We considered three types of quarantine arrangements: (1) quarantine in a hotel, as exemplar of a managed facility (2) quarantine at home, and (3) no quarantine. In hotel quarantine, compliance is assured (i.e., 100%), but transmission is possible to all travellers and workers present in the facility. In home quarantine, transmission is possible only within the small group who quarantine together, but compliance is imperfect, and each day there is a probability of interaction with the general public (compliance in home quarantine is assumed 90% throughout). The effectiveness of a 14-day benchmark quarantine duration was compared with only 7 days for each of these settings. The “no quarantine” scenario was implemented in the same way as home quarantine, but with a compliance probability of zero to establish a baseline absolute risk of importation without any controls measures in place, except testing of arrivals.
Testing strategies
In all quarantine scenarios, individuals are tested via PCR upon symptom onset, cases are isolated, and contacts of cases undergo an extended quarantine period within a facility (e.g., a “medi-hotel” or pseudo-clinical environment staffed by medically-trained personnel). Upon arrival into quarantine, travellers are tested on days 1, 5 and 13 for 14-day quarantine, or on days 1 and 5 for 7-day quarantine. Individuals arriving without quarantine requirements are tested on days 1 and 5.
Bridging between the Quarantine model and Community transmission model
The quarantine model outputs a time series of infected travellers and workers who have ‘breached’ the system for a fixed number of arrivals. Information on breach events includes time spent outside quarantine, relative infectiousness depending on time since infection, symptom and vaccination status, and age category (adult or child) – i.e., their breach characteristics.
In order to use these linelists as input to the community transmission model, we transform and sample from them to generate an imputed linelist, which scales the distribution of time between subsequent breach events according to relative travel volumes and prevalence of disease in the source location. That is, given a target number of arrivals, at, across the same timeframe as simulated from the quarantine model and a baseline prevalence of disease in the source country, ps, calculate the scaling factor,
where aq and pq are the number of arrivals and the assumed prevalence from the quarantine model simulations.
Then, we calculate the time between breach events in the imputed linelist by scaling the time between breach events by s. To do this, we take the vector of times between breach events from the quarantine model and divide by the scaling factor s, effectively assuming that the quarantine model is a stationary process (e.g., [13]). This is appropriate for all quarantine systems, as the number of workers in a hotel quarantine system are assumed to be proportional to the number of arrivals into the system.
The number of breaches and their (appropriately scaled) times are then sampled over the simulation horizon. In the context of hotel quarantine, both traveller and worker breach events are sampled and combined into a single linelist of breach events. The imputed linelists of breach events are incorporated into the individual-based model as ‘pseudo’ individuals. These individuals are not part of the modelled vaccination rollout (which defines the transmission model population), but are introduced into the population at the time of breach with the properties defined by the quarantine model.
As the number of breaches (hundreds) is relatively small compared to the size of the community into which they arrive (millions), these extra individuals have very little impact on population-dependent quantities such as the probability of contact.
The advantage of this imputation procedure over re-running the quarantine model is the time to produce results. The quarantine model captures considerable detail on a relatively small system, but as a result, the computation time becomes large for a given number of quarantine arrivals. The imputation procedure efficiently generates a series of linelists accounting for different travel volumes and/or prevalence in the source population. This allows for greater exploration of the number of arrivals and, while we only considered each pathway in isolation in this work, different combinations of arrival pathways can be readily configured.
Community transmission model
A separate individual-based model is used to model transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the general community. This model has been described in detail previously [10], and the key features are summarised here.
The transmission pathway in this model is Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered (SEIR), modified by vaccination. Individuals in the exposed class (E) are infectious but are not currently displaying symptoms. After their exposed period, individuals are classified as either symptomatic or asymptomatic. Individuals who are recovered are considered permanently immune given the timescale of several months relevant to the reopening agenda, although evidence of waning infection protection was emerging in late 2021 [14], with additional evidence generated since (e.g., [15]).
The number of contacts made by each infectious individual is Negative Binomial distributed (with the exception of those in isolation, who have zero contacts by definition). That is, the number of contacts an individual in age group i makes with individuals in age group k is,
where r is the dispersion parameter, δt is the size of the current time step and Λi,k is the (i, k)th element of the contact matrix, Λ. The Ci,k contacts are chosen uniformly from individuals of age k in the population (some of whom may not be susceptible). The probability of infection given contact with a susceptible individual is,
where β is the baseline probability of infection given contact, τs is the relative transmissibility of the infector (s = 1 for symptomatic, s = 0 for asymptomatic), and ξk is the relative susceptibility of the infectee (which depends on their age group). Vaccination is incorporated into the transmissibility of the infector, such that,
with 
for symptomatic, and 
for asymptomatic individuals and V Eτ is the vaccine efficacy against onward transmission. Vaccination of the infectee also modifies their relative susceptibility, such that,
where 
is the baseline susceptibility for an individual in age bracket k, and V Eξ is the vaccine efficacy against infection.
Vaccination coverage
The proportion of each age group that received a vaccine was taken from modelled estimates of the vaccination rollout used as part of Australia’s national reopening plan for COVID-19 [10]. Briefly, an agent-based model was used to inform the anticipated vaccine rollout, incorporating information on location and allocation data on vaccination sites and location data for the Australian population. A fraction of the population in each geographic location that satisfied the eligibility criteria over time would seek a vaccine. Sites were allocated a stock of vaccine, and would administer vaccines within that capacity to those seeking vaccination. The majority of vaccines deployed in Australia were mRNA vaccines, following early use of the ChAdOx1 vaccine in older age groups. For the purposes of this work, vaccination coverage inputs were fixed at either 70%, 80%, or 90% of the eligible population. The vaccination coverage within each age group across each vaccine product is taken from the observed and modelled rollout up to each vaccination threshold. The coverage by age group corresponding to the different population coverage levels is shown in Supplementary Figure S1.
Effect of public health and social measures and test-trace-isolate-quarantine
The effects of public health and social measures (PHSMs) and the test-trace-isolate-quarantine (TTIQ) system are captured directly within the community transmission model. The impact of PHSMs is captured as a reduction in R0 (or equivalently transmission potential, as described in Ryan et. al [16]), in line with previous work [10]. We consider two sets of PHSMs: ‘baseline’, representing population distancing behaviour under minimal density/capacity restrictions and no major outbreaks, and ‘low’, representing additional capacity limits on workplaces, retail and recreational activities. The impact of these restrictions on transmission was calibrated based on behavioural and case data from 2020 and 2021 in New South Wales, Australia [17].
The effect of TTIQ is incorporated by modifying the individual’s probability of transmission. In particular, an infected individual’s probability of transmission is set to zero when they are directed to isolate (i.e., assuming 100% compliance). The time at which this occurs is taken from a distribution of times from infection to isolation, described in full in [17]. We use two different distributions, termed ‘optimal’ and ‘partial’ TTIQ. These distributions were estimated from two distinct epidemiological contexts in two Australian jurisdictions during 2020–2021. The optimal delays were estimated where caseloads were relatively low (tens of cases per day) and TTIQ was clearly suppressing transmission, whereas the partial distribution was estimated where caseloads were considerably higher (hundreds of cases per day) and contact tracing systems were reported as under stress [17]. The median delays from infection to isolation are approximately 3.44 days (optimal) and 8.95 days (partial) — full distributions are shown in Supplementary Figure S2.
Simulated scenarios
In the following, we consider two different settings in which the arrivals are introduced — one where there is no existing transmission, and one where there are relatively low levels of existing transmission — termed ‘no existing transmission’ and ‘existing transmission’ herein. The level of PHSMs and TTIQ were assumed to differ in these settings. Australian jurisdictions that had experienced substantial outbreaks at the time this work was completed were anticipating some level of PHSMs to persist during the reopening phase. In contrast, jurisdictions that had largely avoided substantial outbreaks were less inclined to impose these measures during the reopening phase, particularly as they had previously not experienced such measures for any significant period of time. Further, we expected that settings with no existing transmission (i.e., starting with no cases to manage) were more likely to maintain ‘optimal’ TTIQ [18], whereby the distribution of time from infection to isolation was relatively short. Where there was existing transmission, we assumed that only ‘partial’ TTIQ was sustainable given the case loads requiring management. While the ability to maintain these TTIQ efficiencies is dependent on the number of cases a public health unit is managing at a given time, we did not incorporate this dynamic feedback in the model. Instead, we assumed that the TTIQ efficiences were maintained throughout, and describe the expected differences where they would not be expected to be sustained (i.e., when daily new infections were high) or where improved performance was likely (i.e., daily new infections were low).
We compare the 7- and 14-day home and hotel quarantine strategies against two reference scenarios — no quarantine (but testing on days 1 and 5) and a 14-day hotel quarantine scenario where all individuals are unvaccinated, representing the state of the system prior to the national reopening plan. We collectively refer to the quarantine type and duration as the ‘arrival pathway’ herein. Given variable infection prevalance and exposure risk across source countries, and mandated pre-embarkation testing requirements, we assumed a fixed 1% likelihood that any unvaccinated traveller would arrive infected, having not been detected in the origin country pre-departure or having acquired infection in transit. Vaccination was assumed to provide 80% protection against infection given exposure, reducing the proportion of infected vaccinated arrivals to 0.2%.
In each case, vaccination coverage in the community is fixed at 80%. To explore the impact of vaccination coverage on transmission in each setting, we consider breaches from one arrival pathway (7-day home quarantine with 90% compliance) where community vaccination coverage is 70%, 80% and 90%, on the basis that the relative ordering of the arrival pathways will be consistent.
To consider the implications of increasing arrivals, future projections were benchmarked against pre-pandemic (i.e., 2019) travel volumes of Australian citizens and permanent residents, who were the highest priority returns, including the proportion of children. The number of arrivals into the communities was informed by arrival volumes into the Australian states of New South Wales and Western Australia, as representative large- and moderate-sized jurisdictions, with their corresponding population size (approximately 8 and 2.6 million, respectively). As a result of these demographic differences, the magnitude of results should not be compared across these settings. The number of arrivals into the communities was fixed at 40% of the average weekly pre-pandemic arrivals (i.e., using total arrivals from 2019). This corresponds to approximately 10,000 weekly arrivals in the setting with no existing transmission, and 33,000 weekly arrivals in the setting with existing transmission. Arrivals are initiated at day 40 in scenarios where there is existing transmission, and day 0 otherwise. The impact of increasing arrival volumes from 40% to 80% of pre-pandemic baseline is explored in the context of one arrival pathway, shown in Supplementary Material S2. For each scenario, we generate 200 simulations, each with a time horizon of 500 days.
Results
Relative efficacy of different arrival pathways
The average characteristics of breach events per week for 7- and 14-day home and hotel quarantine with a fixed number of arrivals are presented in Figure 2. The home quarantine pathway produces consistently more breaches than hotel quarantine. However, breaches from hotel quarantine correspond to a greater average number of secondary infections (larger points), with the average infectiousness of individuals being greater than 1 more frequently (black outline). The increased infectiousness of individuals from hotel quarantine is a result of: the potential for transmission from travellers to workers, who may then spend time in the community early in their infectious period before being detected, and; transmission between traveller groups within the hotel system, with the risk of undetected infected individuals being subsequently released from hotel quarantine relatively early in their infectious period.
Number of breaches from the quarantine system and the average number of secondary infections caused by the breaches by week for one year, for one simulation from the 7- and 14-day duration for home and hotel quarantine. Weeks where the average secondary infections across all breaches was greater than 1 have a solid black outline. These results assume 40% pre-COVID arrival volume into a larger jurisdiction (New South Wales).
Whether the increased number of breaches from the home quarantine system, or the heightened infectiousness (average secondary infections) of breaches from the hotel quarantine system has a greater impact on community level infection dynamics is explored via the community transmission model.
Transmission in context of existing epidemiology
The impact of these breaches on the overall infection dynamics is highly dependent on the state of the system at the time of the breach. For example, if transmission is well established, then the introduction of a few infectious individuals in the community may have little impact on the system dynamics. However, if there is little or no ongoing transmission in the community, then even a few breaches may have a substantial impact. Further, the level of vaccination coverage in the community, stringency of public health and social measures (PHSMs), efficiency of the test-trace-isolate-quarantine (TTIQ) system, and the characteristics of the breach events resulting from the different arrival pathways will impact the community-level infection dynamics. Herein, we present the results for each scenario, considering these differences.
Arrivals into a setting with no existing transmission
Figure 3 shows the daily number of new infections in a community with no existing transmission for each arrivals pathway. It is assumed that ‘low’ PHSMs were in place in the community and, given the absence of ongoing transmission, that optimal TTIQ was maintained (i.e., the shortest average delay between infection and notification). The results show that both forms of quarantine result in fewer infections than no quarantine in this context, across the same time frame. The least stringent quarantine, 7-day home, performs comparably, albeit marginally worse, than the 14-day hotel quarantine of unvaccinated arrivals. For all quarantine pathways, there are frequent incursions into the community which would require a sufficient public health response to re-establish elimination, or reduce infections to a level manageable by the jurisdictions public health units and healthcare system. However, the time frame of these simulations (500 days) is sufficiently long, and growth is sufficiently slow, that if such a scenario were to occur in reality, ongoing situational assessment would enable such a public health response.
Daily new infections in a community with no existing transmission as a result of breaches via 7- or 14-day home or hotel quarantine (top panel). No quarantine or 14-day hotel quarantine (all arrivals unvaccinated) are shown in the bottom panel. Baseline PHSMs and optimal TTIQ are in place in the community, and vaccination coverage is fixed at 80%. All infections in the community are seeded by breaches from the arrival pathways. Dark and light ribbons represent 50% and 90% intervals, respectively.
Figure 4 shows the impact of reintroducing arrivals via the 7-day home quarantine pathway (90% compliance) where vaccination coverage in the community is 70%, 80% or 90%, in the presence of low PHSMs. These show that a substantial outbreak would likely occur in such a population should individuals start entering the community when vaccination coverage was only 70%, peaking at around 2,500–4,500 daily infections. Further, it is unlikely that optimal TTIQ would be maintained with infections at this level, and thus daily infections would likely peak higher, and with longer epidemics, than those shown here. Delaying the reintroduction of arrivals until 80% or 90% vaccination coverage were achieved results in drastically smaller, more manageable, outbreaks.
Daily new infections as a result of imported infections via 7-day home quarantine into a community with no existing transmission with low PHSMs, where community vaccination coverage is 70% (left), 80% (middle) or 90% (right). Arrival volumes are 40% of 2019 levels. Baseline PHSMs and optimal TTIQ are in place in the community. All infections in the community are seeded by breaches from the arrival pathways. Dark and light ribbons represent 50% and 90% intervals, respectively. Note that the 80% coverage results shown here are the same as those shown above in Figure 3
The impact of increasing arrival volumes from 40% of pre-pandemic baseline to 80% via 7-day home quarantine (90% compliance) in the presence of low PHSMs is shown in Supplementary Figure S8 (top). As expected, increasing arrival volumes marginally increases the daily number of infections by increasing the number of seeding events. However, ongoing transmission chains that were initially seeded by imports begin to contribute substantially to daily infections later in the epidemics, and so the increase in infections is not linear with the arrival volumes.
Arrivals into a setting with existing transmission
Figures 5 and 6 show the daily number of new infections in a community with existing transmission where baseline or low PHSMs are in place (respectively) for each arrivals pathway. In each scenario, partial TTIQ is assumed to be maintained throughout the duration of the simulations. Given the two sources of infection (arrivals and local) these figures distinguish the daily new infections by the source of the transmission chain (red and blue, respectively), and show the 90% intervals for the total daily infections (black dashed lines).
Daily new infections in a community with existing transmission as a result of infections imported via 7- or 14-day home or hotel quarantine (top panel). No quarantine and 14-day hotel quarantine for unvaccinated arrivals are shown in the bottom panel. Baseline PHSMs and partial TTIQ are in place in the community, and vaccination coverage is fixed at 80%. Colour represents whether the outbreak was seeded by a locally derived infection, or an imported infection. Dark and light ribbons represent 50% and 90% intervals, respectively. The dashed black lines represent the 90% intervals for the total infections (i.e., the sum of infections seeded by local and imported infections). Arrivals initiate on day 40.
Daily new infections in a community with existing transmission as a result of infections imported via 7- or 14-day home or hotel quarantine (top panel). No quarantine and 14-day hotel quarantine for unvaccinated arrivals are shown in the bottom panel. Low PHSMs and partial TTIQ are in place in the community, and vaccination coverage is fixed at 80%. Colour represents whether the outbreak was seeded by a locally derived infection, or an imported infection. Dark and light ribbons represent 50% and 90% intervals, respectively. The dashed black lines represent the 90% intervals for the total infections (i.e., the sum of infections seeded by local and imported infections). Arrivals initiate on day 40.
In the presence of baseline PHSMs (Figure 5), there are negligible differences in the total infections across quarantine pathway and duration. This is due to the fact that the number of incursions (and thus new chains of transmission) is very low relative to the established community transmission. The difference between the source of daily infections (arrival or local) is smaller in the absence of quarantine. Supplementary Figure S7 show boxplots of the total number of infections over the time horizon, and those from transmission chains initiated by each of arrivals or local infections. These further demonstrate that similar infection characteristics are observed under each quarantine mode and duration, even if the source of the infection (i.e., local or arrival) differs between the settings. Similar figures are not shown for low PHSMs, since epidemics have not resolved by the end of the time horizon.
With low PHSMs in place, local transmission can effectively be eliminated (Figure 6). The only driver of infection is incursions from arrivals — the low PHSMs are sufficient to mitigate the relatively low number of secondary infections from each infectious arrival — resulting in a stable number of daily infections over the time horizon. It should be noted that this constant level of daily new infections is not from a single incursion that continues over time. Rather, it is frequent, short chains of transmission that become extinct, only to be replaced by new chains of transmission seeded by infected arrivals. The low PHSMs in place here maintain daily infections at relatively low numbers compared to when baseline PHSMs are in place. In this case, the reduced burden on the public health system would likely correspond to improved TTIQ performance than the assumed partial TTIQ distribution.
The relatively small contribution of arrivals is consistent across population vaccination coverage. Figure 7 shows how epidemic dynamics in the community with either baseline (top) or low (bottom) PHSMs would change were arrivals introduced (via 7-day home quarantine with 90% compliance) at 70%, 80% or 90% vaccination coverage. As expected, higher vaccination coverage results in a substantial decrease in the number of daily infections, though the pattern of sustained transmission vs frequent imports remains the same. In particular, with baseline PHSMs in place, the number of infections seeded by arrivals remains relatively low as local transmission dominates infection dynamics. With low PHSMs in place, vaccination regulates the magnitude of the equilibrium level of infections reached over this time horizon.
Daily new infections as a result of infections imported via 7-day home quarantine into a community with existing transmission under baseline (top) or low (bottom) PHSMs, where community vaccination coverage is 70% (left), 80% (middle) or 90% (right). Arrival volumes are 40% of 2019 levels, and partial TTIQ is in place throughout. Colour represents whether outbreak was seeded by a local or imported infection. Dark and light ribbons represent 50% and 90% intervals, respectively. The dashed black lines represent the 90% intervals for the total infections (i.e., the sum of infections seeded by local and imported infections). Arrivals to the quarantine system initiate on day 40. Note that the results for 80% vaccination coverage shown here are the same as those in Figures 5 and 6 above.
Supplementary Figure S8 shows the impact of increasing arrival volumes from 40% of pre-pandemic baseline to 80% in the community with baseline (middle) or low (bottom) PHSMs, via the 7-day home quarantine (90% compliance) pathway. As expected, the arrival volume has a minimal impact on the infection dynamics by increasing the number of seeding events which are otherwise dominated by local transmission. When low PHSMs are in place, the arrival volume directly moderates the equilibrium daily infections over the time horizon.
Discussion
We developed a model framework to quantify the risk of an arriving international traveller entering the community while infectious, and the potential impact of such an event. This risk assessment was a key source of information used to support decisions on quarantine and border policy in the context of the Australian government’s national reopening plan in late 2021.
Our modelling study demonstrated the need for high vaccination coverage thresholds (i.e., 80% of the eligible population) to maintain SARS-CoV-2 infections at manageable levels following the introduction of a large volume of arriving travellers. This result held regardless of whether there was existing transmission in the community when borders were reopened. At lower levels of vaccine coverage (e.g., 70% of the eligible population), the ongoing use of more stringent PHSMs would be required to maintain infections at manageable levels (Figure 7). In conjunction with other analyses [10, 16], this work directly informed vaccination coverage targets as part of Australia’s national reopening plan [19].
We found that the impact of quarantine varied depending on the epidemiological characteristics of the jurisdiction. In communities that were free of SARS-CoV-2 and had only baseline PHSMs in place, our analyses showed that the arrivals pathway could have a meaningful impact on infection dynamics in the community following reopening (Figure 3). As expected, a longer quarantine duration corresponds to reduced infections and a later peak, as quarantine breaches occur less frequently and involve less infectious travellers (Figure 2). In contrast, ongoing quarantine have minimal impact on infection dynamics when there is existing community transmission and only baseline PHSMs (Figure 5). In this scenario, transmission is sustained as a consequence of existing local cases, and potential quarantine breaches have little impact. We found that the total number of infections over the course of an outbreak were near-identical for each quarantine pathway, with only the source of the transmission chains differing according to the force of infection from the quarantine pathway (Supplementary Figure S7). Similar conclusions hold for the communities with existing transmission and low PHSMs. In this case, the combination of vaccination coverage and PHSMs maintain the reproduction number below the critical threshold of 1 from early in the simulated period such that transmission is not sustained in the community from local or imported infections. The magnitude of the sustained daily infections is proportional to the force of infection arising from the quarantine pathway, where more effective strategies (e.g., 14-day hotel quarantine) result in lower sustained daily infections than less effective strategies (e.g., no quarantine).
As expected, increasing arrival volumes generally leads to an increase in the number of breach events and subsequent community infections (Supplementary Figure S8), except where existing local transmission dominates infection dynamics in the presence of baseline PHSMs (middle panel). In that scenario, ongoing transmission chains have a greater impact than the scale of arrivals and breach events as the increase in infections from breach events is linear, but growth from transmission within the community is exponential.
This work contributed key information to Australian national policy on international travel requirements, with the removal of the national mandate on quarantine for overseas Australian residents returning to Australia removed from 1 November 2021 [20]. However, the exact timing the quarantine requirements were removed differed by jurisdiction. New South Wales (NSW) was one jurisdiction in late 2021 with ongoing community transmission and stringent PHSMs in place (e.g., [21], [22]). Cases in NSW were on the decline into October, as 80% two-dose vaccination coverage was reached on 16 October 2021 [23] and the state was onboard with reinitiating international travel from 1 November [24]. In contrast, Western Australia, which had experienced relatively little local transmission since the beginning of the pandemic, favoured higher vaccination coverage – targeting 90% – prior to reopening [25]. The state initially announced in December 2021 that they would reopen borders to fully vaccinated arrivals from interstate and overseas on 5 February 2022 [26], though this was ultimately delayed in January 2022 following concerns about Omicron [27].
Quarantine breaches are low probability events with the potential for substantial community consequences. To explore both the frequency and scale of outbreaks arising from arriving travellers, our model framework represented both quarantine and community transmission in a consistent, unified framework. The quarantine model included a detailed representation of time-varying infectiousness and test sensitivity within individuals, enabling a precise characterisation of both the probability of a traveller leaving quarantine while still infectious, and their level of infectiousness at that time. The community transmission model reflected the heterogeneity in vaccination coverage, arrival volumes, and PHSM and TTIQ settings that were present across Australian jurisdictions.
Several other studies have separately explored components of the pathway: the risk of importation through different quarantine pathways, duration, and in the presence of different testing strategies [7, 28–30], or the risk of outbreaks per infected arrival introduced to a community [29, 31, 32].
Our findings are consistent with those reported in Leung et al. [33] and Vattiato et al. [34], who similarly explore the impact of infected arrivals introduced to a community, and the impact of PHSMs and TTIQ in the presence of varying vaccination coverage. Leung et al. [33] explored vaccination coverage thresholds that would be required to avoid an outbreak for a range of vaccination efficacy assumptions. Quarantine and testing of international arrivals consisted of testing on arrival with the test result indicating isolation, or quarantine ranging from 1–14 days. The risk of transmission amongst travellers and to workers, and the isolation of infected travellers detected while in quarantine, was not considered. They showed, consistent with our analyses, that imposition of some control measures would be required to supplement achievable vaccination coverage targets, and that maintaining quarantine and testing of arrivals would be necessary to reduce the risk of outbreaks until high vaccination coverage in the community was achieved. Similarly, Vattiato et al. [34] explored dynamic management strategies in order to maintain health system capacity within defined limits, and quantify the anticipated amount of time with different levels of restrictions similar to the static analysis conducted in Australia [16]. With a focus on the community level implications of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and restrictions required to maintain health capacity rather than specific border policies, reasonable simplifying assumptions were made regarding infected overseas arrivals — fixed numbers of infected arrivals per year and efficacy of quarantine that acted on each infected arrival independently. The results of this analysis are also consistent with those presented here, concluding that infected arrival volumes had negligible impact on health burden once a high vaccination coverage was achieved and community transmission was widespread.
As with any modelling study, the work here is subject to limitations based on knowledge at the time of the analysis, and necessary simplifying assumptions. The transmission rate and vaccine efficacy parameters were specific to the Delta variant, which was the most prevalent variant globally at the time of analysis in September–October 2021 — prior to the emergence of Omicron.
The risk assessment reported here was conducted in conjunction with related model-based analyses of vaccination allocation strategy and target thresholds in the Australian context [10, 16]. In contrast to [10], which estimated clinical and mortality outcomes in the context of the Delta variant for all of Australia, the present analysis focused on the relative differences in infection dynamics between vaccination thresholds and quarantine pathways. For further context regarding the anticipated clinical or mortality burden associated with the scale of infections presented here, we direct the reader to [10], or jurisdiction-specific analyses conducted at the time in [35].
As in other model-based analyses of borders and quarantine (e.g., [32]), we assumed static vaccination coverage to simplify the interpretation of observed differences in our simulation results. As explored in more detail in [10], the vaccination program continued to rollout rapidly across Australia during late 2021 and into 2022, but with substantial variability across jurisdictions. Having reached 80% two-dose coverage in 16+ year olds on 16 October, NSW crossed 90% coverage three weeks later on 8 November. At the same times, WA had only 55.6% and 67.4% coverage. Australia’s national coverage reached 80% on 5 November [36], and crossed 88% one month later on 5 December [37], days after the first community cases of Omicron were detected [38]. Our results indicate a substantial impact of increasing vaccination coverage from 70% to 80% and 90%. Considering the rate of the vaccine rollout that eventuated in Australian jurisdictions, the increase from 70% to 80% and to 90% coverage would have occurred in the first few weeks of the simulations had a dynamic rollout been implemented.
We assumed in this analysis that infected individuals recover with complete protection from re-infection. At the time of these analyses, limited evidence was available on waning of immunity, particularly that induced by vaccination. A study of healthcare workers in England showed that reinfection was possible, with an estimated median interval between infections more than 200 days [14]. As this duration was of a similar magnitude to our simulated model scenarios, we did not expect waning immunity over this timeframe to alter our conclusions about relative differences between arrival pathways and vaccination thresholds. The reduced impact of vaccination against infection with the Omicron variant, however, would necessitate further analyses.
For simplicity, we considered two settings for the volume of arriving travellers following reopening equivalent to 40% and 80% of pre-COVID volumes. These values were used for all quarantine pathways and durations, despite the fact that each would have different resourcing requirements. While this enabled straightforward comparison of various scenarios, a more nuanced analysis could also consider the resources required to facilitate quarantine of arriving travellers, particularly in the context of hotel quarantine.
A related simplification used in the analyses reported here was that all arriving travellers follow a single arrival pathway. A pragmatic alternative might involve filtering arrivals into different quarantine pathways according to their pre-arrival risk. For example, arrivals who test negative upon departure/arrival from a country with a high prevalence and/or low vaccine coverage (high-risk) may be directed to a longer duration or more stringent quarantine, while arrivals from a highly vaccinated country with low prevalence and high-testing coverage (low-risk) could quarantine for a shorter duration or at home. Different numbers of arrivals could then be filtered through each pathway accordingly, and corresponding arrivals linelists that combine arrival volumes and pathways can be simply generated from our linking model to feed into the community transmission model. The modelling pipeline presented here can be flexibly adapted to such scenarios and thus provides a useful framework to generate timely risk assessments in the event of future pandemics.
While effective at limiting importation of infection, border controls and quarantine measures can have a profound social [39] and economic [40] impact on populations. Modelling is therefore critical to ensure that such measures are proportionate to the benefit they provide. Reopening international borders during a pandemic when infection is still circulating globally requires careful evaluation and management of importation and outbreak risks. We have demonstrated how a model-based analysis can be used to assess how importation and outbreak risks vary with travel volume, arrival and quarantine pathways, and the epidemiological characteristics of the community.
Conclusion
Our framework integrates detailed models of quarantine pathways and of the community, providing a useful tool for future evaluation of border management policies. The efficiency and simplicity of our linking model allowed us to explore a wide range of scenarios in a relatively short timeframe — a critical feature where such evaluations are often required rapidly to inform policy. Our study highlights the importance of a comprehensive and context-specific approach to pandemic response efforts, including quarantine and border measures in the presence of varying PHSMs, TTIQ, and vaccination coverage.
Data Availability
No new datasets are presented in this research. Code to perform the analyses is available at
https://github.com/aus-covid-modelling/NationalCabinetModelling-OctNov21
Supplementary Material
S1 Supplementary Methods
The following provides results showing the vaccination coverage and distribution of time from infection to isolation, as referenced in Section.
In late August 2021, the Australian Technical Advisory Group for Immunisation (ATAGI) recommended vaccination for 12–15 year olds. At the time this work was completed in late-October 2021, 16–29 year olds had just been made eligible for vaccination within the age-based vaccination rollout (from 11 October 2021). Further, vaccination was not approved for individuals under 12 years of age, and so the coverage in that group is assumed to be zero. The ChAdOx1 vaccine was restricted for use only in individuals aged over 60 early in Australia’s vaccination rollout, leading to high proportions of coverage with that vaccine in older individuals, while the Comirnaty vaccine was used in younger individuals. The Spikevax vaccine was not used until very late in Australia’s vaccine rollout, hence the low prevalence of that vaccine in the population.
Modelled two-dose coverage by age group and vaccine product, at 70%, 80% and 90% vaccination coverage. Used to define the community characteristics in the community model at the specified vaccination coverage.
Distribution of time from infection to isolation. Used to incorporate the effects of the test-trace-isolate-quarantine systems in the community, by modifying an individual’s probability of transmission at a given time.
S1.1 Quarantine Pathways
In this study we compare two different quarantine pathways, one in which arriving travellers stay within dedicated quarantine hotels, and another in which they quarantine within private dwellings. These two pathways both implement screening and case isolation, subject to the constraint that children remain in the company of at least one adult. This section provides additional details regarding the structural features of the different quarantine pathways, screening strategies, and response to case detection.
Screening and Isolation
Travellers arriving into quarantine are assumed to be either uninfected, pre-symptomatic, or asymptomatic, and arrive in groups of 4 close contacts. After arrival into quarantine, travellers are tested on days 1, 5, and 13 (14-day quarantine) or on days 1 and 5 (7-day quarantine). If a traveller tests positive or presents symptomatic illness, they are put into case isolation for a period of 10 days, and subsequently released from quarantine. The quarantine period for their close contacts is extended by 14 days and the testing schedule is reset (test on days 1, 5, and 13 of the extension period). If a traveller in extended quarantine tests positive or presents symptoms, they are subject to 10-days of case isolation, but the quarantine period of their close contacts is not extended further. The testing, case isolation, and quarantine extension response rules are depicted in Figure S3.
Schematic of the infection screening and response process for a single group of travellers moving through home quarantine. Case detection triggers a 10-day isolation period for travellers who test positive. Detection also triggers the transfer of close contacts from the home into a “medi-hotel” for a period of 14 days. Travellers are allowed to enter the community after these extended quarantine periods end, regardless of infection status (release does not require a negative test).
Family Groups in Quarantine Case Isolation
When simulating family units in quarantine, travelling groups of 4 close contacts are assumed to contain two adults and two children. The strategy for splitting family groups to isolate known cases is shown in Figure S4. Depending on which members of the group test positive (or present symptoms), the group is split so as to minimise the potential for other members to become infected, while also ensuring that each child remains in the company of an adult.
Hotel Quarantine
Structurally, the hotel quarantine system has three compartments: the quarantine hotel compartment, the “medi-hotel” compartment, and the case isolation compartment. In the hotel compartment, there is potential for transmission between different groups of close contacts, and between travellers and hotel workers. In the “medi-hotel”, transmission may only occur between close contact groups, and in case isolation, no transmission is possible. In the hotel quarantine compartment, infectious contacts between travellers in different groups are subject to reduced force of infection (by a factor of 0.01 relative to same-group contacts), with the same factor applied to contacts between travellers and workers. On the other hand, infectious contacts between workers are reduced by a factor of 0.1 relative to unmitigated contact between travellers in the same group, to simulate the reduction in transmission potential from judicious use of personal protective equipment by workers. A schematic of the hotel quarantine pathway is shown in Figure S5.
Home Quarantine
The home quarantine pathway is similar to that of hotel quarantine, with two main differences. The first is that contacts are not allowed between different groups of travellers (and no workers are present in the home environment). The second key difference is that, due to imperfect compliance, travellers in quarantine have intermittent contact with the outside community. The amount of contact is determined by the compliance parameter which takes a value between 0 and 1, and is equivalent to the probability that an individual will not make contact with members of the outside community on a given day. A schematic of the home quarantine pathway is shown in Figure S6.
Schematic of case isolation strategies for family groups containing children accompanied by adults. The “infections detected” column illustrates the potential combinations of infected individuals within a family group (children are represented as smaller in size). For each configuration of infected individuals, the second column illustrates how the group is split in order to minimise transmission potential while ensuring children remain in the company of an adult during case isolation.
Schematic of hotel quarantine for arriving travellers. After arrival, groups of close contacts are housed in hotel rooms. Contact between travellers in the same groups is unmitigated, while contact rates between groups of travellers is reduced. The quarantined groups are also in contact with the hotel workforce, with reduced transmission potential. Detected infections are placed into isolation, with their close contacts placed into a “medi-hotel” extension which eliminates transmission potential outside of close contact groups. After the quarantine period ends, travellers enter the community where any who remain infected may generate outbreaks of community transmission. While in hotel quarantine, infected travellers may contribute to community transmission by infecting quarantine workers who maintain continued community interactions.
Schematic of home quarantine for arriving travellers. After arrival, travellers remain in private dwellings during their quarantine period. While case response is handled in the same manner as for hotel quarantine (case isolation and extension for contacts), travellers quarantining at home have intermittent direct contact with the community due to sporadic non-compliance.
S1.2 Community transmission model
The following table contains key parameters specified within the community transmission model.
S2 Supplementary Results
Box plots of the total number of infections (purple), and those generated through transmission chains initiated by an arrival (red) or a local case (blue) for each quarantine strategy in the setting with existing transmission and baseline PHSMs. All quarantine strategies result in similar levels of total infection, except where there is no quarantine, though the increase in total infections is very small.
Daily new infections as a result of imported infections via 7-day home quarantine into a community with no existing transmission (top), or existing transmission with baseline (middle) or low (bottom) PHSMs, where arrival volumes are 40% (left) or 80% (right) of 2019 levels. Community vaccination is 80%. In the community with existing transmission, colour represents whether outbreak was seeded by a locally derived case, or an imported case. All infections in the community with no existing transmission are seeded by imported infections. Dark and light ribbons represent 50% and 90% intervals, respectively. Arrivals initiate on day 40.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing Office of Health Protection. Additional support was provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia through its Centres of Research Excellence (SPECTRUM, GNT1170960) and Investigator Grant Schemes (J.M. Principal Research Fellowship, GNT1117140; F.M.S. Emerging Leader Fellowship, 2021/GNT2010051). We would like to thank Nancy Shi for helping to generate the workflow schematic. Computations were supported by use of the Nectar Research Cloud, a collaborative Australian research platform supported by the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS); MASSIVE HPC facility (www.massive.org.au); and The University of Melbourne’s Research Computing Services.
References
