Community vaccination can shorten the COVID-19 isolation period: an individual-based modeling approach

Background: Isolation of infected individuals and quarantine of their contacts are usually employed to mitigate the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. While 14-day isolation of infected individuals could effectively reduce the risk of subsequence transmission, it also significantly impacts the patient's financial, psychological, and emotional well-being. It is, therefore, vital to investigate how the isolation duration could be shortened when effective vaccines are available and in what circumstances we can live with COVID-19 without isolation and quarantine. Methods: An individual-based modeling approach was employed to estimate the likelihood of secondary infections and the likelihood of an outbreak following the isolation of an index case for a range of isolation periods. Our individual-based model integrates the viral load and infectiousness profiles of vaccinated and unvaccinated infected individuals. The effects of waning vaccine-induced immunity against Delta and Omicron variant transmission were also investigated. Results: In the baseline scenario in which all individuals are unvaccinated, and no nonpharmaceutical interventions are employed, there is a chance of about 3% that an unvaccinated index case will make at least one secondary infection after being isolated for 14 days, and a sustained chain of transmission can occur with a chance of less than 1%. We found that at the outbreak risk equivalent to that of 14-day isolation in the baseline scenario, the isolation duration can be shortened to 7.33 days (95% CI 6.68-7.98) if 75% of people in the community are fully vaccinated during the last three months. In the best-case scenario in which all individuals in the community are fully vaccinated, isolation of infected individuals may no longer be necessary, at least during the first three months after being fully vaccinated, indicating that booster vaccination may be required after being fully vaccinated for three to four months. Finally, our simulations showed that the reduced vaccine effectiveness against Omicron variant transmission does not much affect the risk of an outbreak if the vaccine effectiveness against infection is maintained at a high level via booster vaccination. Conclusions: The isolation duration of a vaccine breakthrough infector could be safely shortened if a majority of people in the community are immune to SARS-CoV-2 infection. A booster vaccination may be necessary three months after full vaccination to keep the outbreak risk low.

is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 9, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.08.22270668 doi: medRxiv preprint 3 55 Background 56 SARS-CoV-2 spreads rapidly throughout the world, causing over 288.23 million 57 infections and 5.48 million deaths by the end of 2021 [1]. During the early phase of 58 transmission, when vaccines were unavailable, nonpharmaceutical interventions have been 59 frontline measures to mitigate the transmission [2,3]. Isolation, i.e., separation and limitation 60 of mobility of infected people, is a critical strategy widely employed to break the transmission 61 chain. Institution-based isolation of confirmed cases has been shown in a modeling study to 62 delay the epidemic's peak and reduce the epidemic's size by approximately 57% [4]. Isolation, 63 however, will be effective only if it can be promptly employed to prevent presymptomatic and 64 asymptomatic transmission [5]. In addition, the isolation period should also be long enough to 65 ensure that the infected individuals do not spread the disease after the isolation. However, while 66 prolonged confinement may reduce the risk of transmission more effectively, it may have a 67 significant impact on the patient's financial, psychological, and emotional well-being [6][7][8]. 68 COVID-19 vaccines were first made available in the last month of 2020 [9], and they 69 have been shown to be effective at preventing infection and transmission [10][11][12]. Despite the 70 fact that infections can occur even after being fully vaccinated, a faster viral clearance was seen 71 in the breakthrough infections, resulting in a shorter duration of infectiousness [13,14]. As a 72 result, it suggests that those who have been vaccinated may require a shorter period for 73 isolation. It is vital to comprehend how the isolation duration could be reduced based on 74 vaccine effectiveness, particularly when we want to return to normalcy and live with COVID-75 19 without quarantine and isolation measures. 76 In this study, we used an individual-based modeling approach to assess the likelihood 77 of secondary infections and the likelihood of an outbreak following isolation of a vaccinated 78 index case for a range of isolation periods. Our individual-based model accounts for 79 transmission heterogeneity, variation in the course of infection, and the disease's infectivity 80 profile. The effects of waning vaccine-induced immunity and the delay in isolating infected 81 individuals in the community were also examined. 82 83 84 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint but the viral load is cleared faster in vaccine breakthrough infection than in the unvaccinated 92 group [13,14]. The disease infectiousness (F) prior to the peak of both vaccinated and 93 unvaccinated infectors was therefore assumed to follow a gamma distribution, as described in 94 [15]. After the peak period, data on Ct values collected in Singapore [13] were used to 95 determine the infectiousness profile. The infectiousness was considered to be directly 96 proportional to the viral load (V) that exceeds a threshold of 10 6 copies, i.e., is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 9, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.08.22270668 doi: medRxiv preprint 5 subscripts V and S, as shown in Figure 1 is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 9, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.08.22270668 doi: medRxiv preprint 6 period is a time duration from exposure to symptom onset. The inset shows the infectiousness 125 profiles of unvaccinated (UV) and vaccinated (V) individuals. 126

127
The number of secondary infections caused by a single primary case, Z, for each 128 infected individual is estimated from a negative binomial distribution with a mean equal to the 129 reproduction number (R0) and dispersion parameter (k) (Figure 1(B)). Because of the lower 130 infectivity of asymptomatic infectors, they contribute fewer infections; the mean number of 131 secondary cases made by an asymptomatic individual was reduced by a factor r. For the vaccine 132 breakthrough infectors, the mean of the distribution is also reduced due to the efficiency against 133 transmission (eI) of vaccines. 134 An example of the transmission events is illustrated in Figure 1(C). The incubation 135 period, time from exposure to symptom onset, is assumed to follow the Gamma distribution 136 with a mean of 5.8 days [15]. The time of each new infection is drawn from a random number 137 distribution that is distributed according to the infectiousness profile of the infectors. 138 Transmission can take place before symptoms start. As a result of the vaccine's effectiveness 139 against infection, vaccinated persons are less likely to become infected. The effective infectious 140 period was determined by whether or not they were isolated. If infectors are isolated, they will 141 be contagious until they are isolated. Although transmission can be prevented during the 142 isolation period, post-isolation infections are still possible. The generation time between 143 infection of a primary case and one of its subsequent secondary cases is dependent on both the 144 incubation period and the infection time. In our study, the primary index case is assumed to be 145 isolated immediately after becoming infected, whereas other subsequent infected individuals 146 in the community are isolated with a delay of 6.8 days. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 9, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.08.22270668 doi: medRxiv preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 9, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.08.22270668 doi: medRxiv preprint 157 We explored the probability of a primary infected individual making at least one 158 secondary infection and the probability of a successful outbreak, i.e., having a sustained chain 159 of transmission, after being released from isolation. In the baseline scenario in which the 160 primary case and all other individuals in the community are unvaccinated, we found that there 161 is a chance of about 3% that the unvaccinated index case will make at least one secondary 162 infection after being isolated for 14 days, and a sustained chain of transmission can occur with 163 a chance of less than 1% (left bars in 164 isolation is equivalent to 14-day isolation of unvaccinated index case (red lines and red symbols 167 in Figure 2). 168

Impact of vaccination on post-isolation transmission
Vaccinating people in the community can further reduce the likelihood of secondary 169 infection and the probability of a successful outbreak. It was found that higher community 170 vaccine coverages decrease the chance of secondary infection following the isolation of the 171 vaccinated index case more, especially when the isolation periods are short. In addition, when 172 the isolation period is longer than 12 days, there is no apparent difference between different 173 vaccination coverages. At the outbreak risk equivalent to that of 14-day isolation in the baseline 174 scenario, the isolation duration of the primary vaccinated infector can be shortened to 9.33 days 175 (95% CI 8.68-9.98) if 50% of people in the community are vaccinated. When 75% of people 176 in the community are vaccinated, the isolation period can be further shortened to 7.33 days 177 (95% CI 6.68-7.98). Finally, we found that in the extreme limit in which all individuals are 178 vaccinated, although post-isolation infections are still possible for the isolation period of 179 shorter than 6 days, the chance of sustained chain of transmission to occur is extremely rare. 180 In this case, isolation may no longer be necessary (Figure 2 (D)). 181 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 9, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.08.22270668 doi: medRxiv preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 9, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.08.22270668 doi: medRxiv preprint Effect of waning vaccine-induced immunity 193 As the vaccine effectiveness decreases over time [21], we evaluated its effect on the 194 probability of secondary infection and the probability of a successful outbreak following 195 isolation. We found that for a low level of immunization (< 25% coverage), both the post-196 isolation transmission probability and the successful outbreak probability are not significantly 197 affected by the waning of vaccine effectiveness ( even there is no isolation. 198 We also investigated how the change in vaccine effectiveness against transmission 199 would influence the likelihood of secondary infection and the probability of a successful 200 outbreak. In this part, we considered the vaccine effectiveness against transmission (eI) ranges 201 from 0% to 40%, and the vaccine effectiveness against infection (eS) of 0.9 and 0.5, 202 corresponding to the effectiveness against infection after being fully vaccinated for one month 203 and four months, respectively. We found that during the first four months after complete 204 vaccination, when the vaccine effectiveness against infection is high, the vaccine effectiveness 205 against transmission had only a minor effect on the transmission, especially when the isolation 206 period is long (Figure 4). 207 Figure 3 A and D). However, for higher vaccine coverage, the effect of the decline in 208 the vaccine effectiveness is more pronounced, especially when the isolation durations are short. 209 Note, however, that although at high vaccination coverage (> 75% coverage), there is a more 210 significant effect of immunity waning across a range of isolation periods, the probability of an 211 outbreak is still lower than that in the case when 25% of the population are vaccinated. With 212 the vaccine coverage of 75%, for example, after 4 months of vaccination, the outbreak risk 213 climbs from 0.9% to 4.2% for 3-day isolation and increases from 1.3% to 7.7% for no isolation. 214 When all individuals in the community are vaccinated, despite a substantial decrease in vaccine 215 effectiveness after four months, the chance of a successful outbreak is still lower than 4% even 216 there is no isolation. 217 We also investigated how the change in vaccine effectiveness against transmission 218 would influence the likelihood of secondary infection and the probability of a successful 219 outbreak. In this part, we considered the vaccine effectiveness against transmission (eI) ranges 220 from 0% to 40%, and the vaccine effectiveness against infection (eS) of 0.9 and 0.5, 221 corresponding to the effectiveness against infection after being fully vaccinated for one month 222 and four months, respectively. We found that during the first four months after complete 223 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 9, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.08.22270668 doi: medRxiv preprint vaccination, when the vaccine effectiveness against infection is high, the vaccine effectiveness 224 against transmission had only a minor effect on the transmission, especially when the isolation 225 period is long (Figure 4). 226 is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 9, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.08.22270668 doi: medRxiv preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 9, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.08.22270668 doi: medRxiv preprint 240 We next evaluated the impact of time delay from infection to the isolation of infected 241 individuals in the community on the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Our results indicated that the 242 outbreak would be less likely to occur if case isolation is performed with a shorter delay ( 243 Figure 5). For example, under the vaccine coverage of 75%, the outbreak risk could be 244 suppressed to low than 1% if the isolation can be performed within 3 days after infections. To 245 maintain the same level of an outbreak risk, a longer duration of the isolation is needed for the 246 isolation with longer delays. For instance, for a 5-day delay, at least 5 days of isolation may be 247 required, and for a 7-day delay, at least 7 days of isolation may be needed. When only 25% of 248 individuals are vaccinated, isolation may be required for at least 10 days, regardless of how 249 quickly infected individuals are isolated. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

Impact of community case-isolation and other control measures
The copyright holder for this this version posted February 9, 2022. ;https://doi.org/10.1101https://doi.org/10. /2022 14 The effective reproduction number (R) is commonly used to measure the disease 260 transmissivity under different control measures. To consider the effects of other control 261 measures, a sensitivity analysis on the effective reproduction number has been performed. In 262 combination with other non-pharmaceutical interventions, we found that community 263 vaccination could further shorten the isolation period (Figure 6). For instance, in the absence 264 of any non-pharmaceutical interventions and the vaccine coverage is only 25%, case isolation 265 may be required for at least 12 days to reduce the outbreak risk to 1%. However, if other control 266 measures are concurrently implemented at a level that could reduce the effective reproduction 267 number to 3.2, only one week of isolation is sufficient. Importantly, in this case, isolation will 268 be no longer necessary if the community vaccination level reaches 75%. 269 is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 9, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.08.22270668 doi: medRxiv preprint

279
In this work, we evaluated the likelihood of at least one secondary infection and the 280 likelihood of an outbreak following the isolation of a vaccine breakthrough infector for a 281 specified period of time. Our modeling results indicated that vaccines play a critical role in 282 reducing the likelihood of post-isolation transmission. We discovered that the duration of 283 isolation for an infected individual who has already been vaccinated could be reduced as 284 opposed to the 14-day duration of isolation for unvaccinated individuals. When considering the effect of delay in isolation of infected individuals in the 308 community, we found that a shorter delay to isolation can further shorten the isolation period, 309 especially in the high vaccine coverage settings. In addition, we found that while an outbreak 310 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 9, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.08.22270668 doi: medRxiv preprint may still occur in the absence of isolation in the community with low vaccination coverage, 311 the risk could be minimized when additional control measures such as contact tracing and 312 quarantine of their contacts, as well as testing, are implemented (Figure 6). is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 9, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.08.22270668 doi: medRxiv preprint