ABSTRACT
Background Effective vaccines, improved testing technologies, and declines in COVID-19 incidence prompt an examination of the choices available to college administrators to safely resume in-person campus activities in fall 2021.
Objective To develop a decision support tool that assists college administrators in designing and evaluating customized COVID vaccination, screening, and prevention plans.
Design Decision analysis linked to a compartmental epidemic model, quantifying the interaction of policy instruments (e.g., vaccination promotion, asymptomatic testing, physical distancing, and other non-pharmaceutical interventions), institutional priorities (e.g., risk tolerance, desire to resume activities), and assumptions about vaccine performance and background epidemic severity.
Participants Hypothetical cohort of 5000 individuals (students, faculty, and staff) living and working in the close environs of a residential college campus.
Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s) Cumulative infections over a 120-day semester.
Results Under Base Case assumptions, if 90% coverage with an 85%-effective vaccine can be attained, the model finds that campus activities can be fully resumed while holding cumulative cases below 5% of the population without the need for routine, asymptomatic testing. With 50% population coverage using such a vaccine, a similar “return to normalcy” would require daily asymptomatic testing of unvaccinated individuals. The effectiveness of vaccination in reducing susceptibility to infection is a critical uncertainty.
Conclusions & Relevance Vaccination coverage is the most powerful tool available to college administrators to achieve a safe return to pre-pandemic operations this fall. Given the breadth of potential outcomes in the face of uncontrollable and uncertain factors, even colleges that achieve high vaccination coverage should be prepared to reinstitute testing and distancing policies on short notice.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (R37 DA015612) of the National Institutes of Health. The funding sources had no role in any of the following: design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Institutional Review Board of the Yale School of Medicine reviewed this study (protocol ID# 2000030998) and assigned a determination of Not Human Research.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data used in this analysis were obtained from published, publicly available sources, which we have cited in the manuscript references.
