PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Sarah F. Poole AU - Jessica Gronsbell AU - Dale Winter AU - Stefanie Nickels AU - Roie Levy AU - Bin Fu AU - Maximilien Burq AU - Sohrab Saeb AU - Matthew D. Edwards AU - Michael K. Behr AU - Vignesh Kumaresan AU - Alexander R. Macalalad AU - Sneh Shah AU - Michelle Prevost AU - Nigel Snoad AU - Michael P. Brenner AU - Lance J. Myers AU - Paul Varghese AU - Robert M. Califf AU - Vindell Washington AU - Vivian S. Lee AU - Menachem Fromer TI - A holistic approach for suppression of COVID-19 spread in workplaces and universities AID - 10.1101/2020.12.03.20243626 DP - 2020 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2020.12.03.20243626 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/12/04/2020.12.03.20243626.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/12/04/2020.12.03.20243626.full AB - As society has moved past the initial phase of the COVID-19 crisis that relied on broad-spectrum shutdowns as a stopgap method, industries and institutions have faced the daunting question of how to return to a stabilized state of activities and more fully reopen the economy. A core problem is how to return people to their workplaces and educational institutions in a manner that is safe, ethical, grounded in science, and takes into account the unique factors and needs of each organization and community. In this paper, we introduce an epidemiological model (the “Community-Workplace” model) that accounts for SARS-CoV-2 transmission within the workplace, within the surrounding community, and between them. We use this multi-group deterministic compartmental model to consider various testing strategies that, together with symptom screening, exposure tracking, and nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPI) such as mask wearing and social distancing, aim to reduce disease spread in the workplace. Our framework is designed to be adaptable to a variety of specific workplace environments to support planning efforts as reopenings continue.Using this model, we consider a number of case studies, including an office workplace, a factory floor, and a university campus. Analysis of these cases illustrates that continuous testing can help a workplace avoid an outbreak by reducing undetected infectiousness even in high-contact environments. We find that a university setting, where individuals spend more time on campus and have a higher contact load, requires more testing to remain safe, compared to a factory or office setting. Under the modeling assumptions, we find that maintaining a prevalence below 3% can be achieved in an office setting by testing its workforce every two weeks, whereas achieving this same goal for a university could require as much as fourfold more testing (i.e., testing the entire campus population twice a week). Our model also simulates the dynamics of reduced spread that result from the introduction of mitigation measures when test results reveal the early stages of a workplace outbreak. We use this to show that a vigilant university that has the ability to quickly react to outbreaks can be justified in implementing testing at the same rate as a lower-risk office workplace. Finally, we quantify the devastating impact that an outbreak in a small-town college could have on the surrounding community, which supports the notion that communities can be better protected by supporting their local places of business in preventing onsite spread of disease.Competing Interest StatementAt the time of work, SFP, JG, DW, SN, RL, BF, MB, SS, MDE, MKB, VK, ARM, SS, MP, NS, LJM, PV, RMC, VM, VSL, and MF were employees of and owned equity in Verily Life Sciences. While this manuscript does not explicitly mention Verily's Healthy At Work program, the models presented herein are used in that program.Funding StatementNo external funding was received for this study.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:No IRB oversight was required for this study, as no patient data was utilized.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAny data sources referred to in the manuscript are external and publicly available and linked in the reference section.