An imperfect tool: COVID-19 ‘test & trace’ success relies on minimising the impact of false negatives and continuation of physical distancing.

Background: Following a consistent decline in COVID-19-related deaths in the UK throughout May 2020, it is recognised that contact tracing will be vital to relaxing physical distancing measures. The increasingly evident role of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission means testing is central to control, but test sensitivity estimates are as low as 65%. Methods: We extend an existing UK-focused branching process model for contact tracing, adding diagnostic testing and reﬁning parameter estimates to demonstrate the impact of poor test sensitivity and suggest mitigation methods. We also investigate the role of super-spreading events, providing estimates of the relationship between infections, cases detected and hospital-∗

May. 10 Currently, testing of asymptomatic individuals is limited to workers and patients in NHS and social care facilities, 11 but from the 28th of May 20 the UK Government rolled out the initial stages of their 'test & trace' con-21 tact tracing programme to the general population. This new approach was 22 initiated with contact tracing of just over 2,000 confirmed cases. Crucially, 23 the current strategy only tests symptomatic contacts and notifies individuals 24 that they no longer need to isolate following a negative test. However, there 25 are critical limitations to the diagnostic test, with poor sensitivity (current 26 estimates imply close to 65% 12,13 ), especially in community-based settings, initial study was that highly effective contact tracing would be sufficient to 42 control an initial outbreak of COVID-19 in the UK, however substantial new 43 evidence supports much higher pre-and asymptomatic transmission rates 44 than had initially been considered. 16,17,18 The focus on rapid testing in the 45 UK contact tracing programme also requires a detailed assessment of the 46 associated trade-offs through mechanistic modelling of the testing process.
Up-to-date modelling studies are needed to investigate the feasibility of con-48 tact tracing and the conditions under which it is effective. 49 We use improved incubation period and serial interval estimates, 19,20 im-50 perfect self-reporting and tracing rates, as well as simulating the use of diag-51 nostic tests both for detection and tracing of asymptomatic infection chains. 52 We also simulate decision-making regarding quarantine procedures for traced 53 individuals, and then explore the trade-offs introduced by poor test sensitiv-54 ity, particularly when negative test results are used to advise individuals to 55 cease self-isolation. 56 3 . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

57
In this extension of a previous COVID-19 branching process model, 3 the 58 number of potential secondary cases generated by an index case and the  CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 13, 2020.  period is fixed at 40%. 16,17 The full infection profile is shown in Figure 2.  where an individual self-reports with a probability of 10% or 50%. The con-95 7 . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 13, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.09.20124008 doi: medRxiv preprint tacts of that individual are then traced with 40%-100% coverage. If a contact 96 is successfully traced they will always isolate. The time taken to trace and 97 isolate a contact is either one day or drawn from a Uniform distribution of 1-    This is simulated by reducing the case reporting proportion to 0·06, reflecting 126 the hospitalisation rate in the UK. 24 Time from symptom onset to hospitali-127 sation is drawn from an Exponential distribution with mean 5·954 days (fitted 128 to published data. 24 ) We then defined the undetected outbreak size as the 129 number of cases that were exposed prior to the first hospitalisation, given an 130 8 . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 13, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.09.20124008 doi: medRxiv preprint initial seeding of 5 index cases at t = 0. We also consider a special case of 131 100 index cases to represent a large super-spreading event.

143
We found that where a test sensitivity of 65% was assumed, the impact releasing false negative cases is mitigated by using a precautionary seven-day 151 quarantine period, which reduced the risk of a large outbreak from 27·2% to 152 15·3% for R S = 1·5, and from 12·6% to 2·7% for R S = 1·3, all with 80% 153 contact tracing ( Figure 3A).

154
The negative consequences of early quarantine cessation for false negative 155 cases are further demonstrated by the fact that a two day delay in carrying 156 out the tests also led to a decrease in the probability of a large outbreak, from 157 27·2% to 20·4% for R S of 1·5 and 12·6% to 5·4% for R S of 1·3. Combining the 158 two-day delay in testing and the seven-day precautionary quarantine reduced 159 the risk of a large outbreak further. The risk of a large outbreak was reduced 160 from 27·2% to 13·1% for R S = 1·5 and from 12·6% to 1·9% for R S = 1·3, 161 both with 80% contact tracing coverage.

162
In the case of instant testing and an immediate end to quarantine if the 163 test is negative, there was a comparatively small benefit from scaling up 164 of contact tracing coverage from 40% to 100%, implying that much of the 165 9 . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 13, 2020.

10
. CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

Limitations of contact tracing
To assess at what point during an epidemic contact tracing would be un-  is 24·1% and by 500 cases this increases to 36·8%. This is compared to the 188 initial probability of 2·3% for these parameter values given 5 initial cases.

189
With R S = 1·5 the risk of a large outbreak increased faster. At 250 cases 190 the risk of a large outbreak is already 78·2% and by 500 cases it is 88·5%, 191 compared to an initial risk of 15·5% when starting with 5 initial cases.  Figure S1). With 80% contact tracing coverage, a four-day contact tracing 195 delay increased the probability of a large outbreak, relative to a one day delay, 196 from 13·1% to 17·3% for R S = 1·5 and from 1·9% to 4·0% for R S = 1·3.  For a cluster of 5 new cases the median total outbreak size before the first 214 case is hospitalised is 13 cases for R S = 1·3 and 18 cases for R S = 1·5, which 215 translates to 4·1% and 30·1% probability of a large outbreak respectively if 216 11 . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 13, 2020.  Figure 4: A) Comparing probability of outbreak by total number of cases so far. Sensitivity = 65%, self-reporting proportion = 0·5, individuals testing negative are isolated for a minimum of 7 days, time to test from isolation = 2 days. B) The proportion of cases detected with 100% contact trace and 50% or 100% self-reporting for 65% and 95% sensitivity tests. C) Total cases occurring before first hospitalisation in a population with no active tracing or case detection from one super-spreading event (5 new cases). D) Total cases occurring before first hospitalisation in a population with no active tracing or case detection from one super-spreading event (100 new cases). is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
For R S = 1·1 there is a 5·37% chance of seeing at least 200 cases in all 223 scenarios, even with slower tracing (up to four days' delay) and only 40% 224 of contacts traced. Comparatively, for R S = 1·3 there is a greater than 225 5% chance of seeing 800 or more cases unless 100% contact tracing, or 80% 226 contact tracing with a 1-day trace delay is achieved. For R S = 1·5 even 100% 227 tracing with a one-day delay won't bring the probability of a large outbreak 228 under 5%, but increasing tracing from 40% to 100% brings this probability 229 down from 22·5% to 6·8%.  Figure 5: Outbreak size, with risk of exceeding that number of cases i.e. seeing an outbreak of at least that size for contact tracing coverages of 40% to 100% (left to right) and one or four days maximum trace delay (top to bottom). Grey dashed lines represent 5% risk of seeing an outbreak of at least that size.

Resource usage 231
We also found that higher contact tracing coverage results in a lower 232 overall number of individuals which are traced, tested and quarantined, due 233 13 . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 13, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.09.20124008 doi: medRxiv preprint to the lower outbreak size (see Supplementary Figure S2). This means that 234 achieving greater efficacy in tracing will ultimately require fewer resources. 235 However, these resources are likely to be needed in a more condensed period  CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 13, 2020. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 13, 2020.
realistic, although symptomatic individuals will perhaps be more cautious.
However, this could also have repercussions on assuming that contact-traced 309 individuals will self-isolate when asked to do so, particularly asymptomatic   CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 13, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.09.20124008 doi: medRxiv preprint Contact tracing, incorporating diagnostic testing, is a well-established 376 method for controlling novel infectious disease outbreaks but has had vari- Greater clarity in understanding of SARS-CoV-2 biology has allowed 399 more targeted analysis of contact tracing feasibility for COVID-19 control. 400 We find that success is highly dependent on targeting testing towards finding  18 . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 13, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.09.20124008 doi: medRxiv preprint contribution of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections to transmissiona model-based analysis of the Diamond Princess outbreak, medRxiv