Abstract
The world has been facing the SARS-CoV-2, a.k.a. COVID-19, pandemic with different preventive methods including social distancing, face masking, screening tests (a.k.a. active surveillance), and vaccination. There are many publications and studies on the efficacy of each of these preventive methods for the last couple of years. Not all methods are readily available in each country and not all methods are accepted by all people in each society.
In this study, we explore the interaction of the three preventive methods: face masking, vaccinations, and screening tests. We study a confined space to represent schools, businesses, or healthcare facilities and we model the spread of the COVID-19 virus for a 60-day period among a sample population while varying the percentage of people adopting one or more of the three preventive methods.
To interpret the simulation results, we define a (Health Goal) target, for example achieving <5% infection rate, i.e., protecting 95% or more of the sample population. We then construct a (Decision Tree) that depicts all valid combinations that achieve this goal. Multiple scenarios are derived from the decision tree to guide decision makers in drawing effective policies to contain the virus spread. We demonstrate a ramping vaccination rate scenario, a removal of the face-masking mandate scenario, and a cost-minimizing goal scenario.
The study highlights the efficacy of combining the three prevention methods to constrain the virus spread among the sample population. For example, results show that a combination of 0% vaccination rate, 6% daily screening test rate, and 80% face masking rate will achieve the target ≥95 protection rate, which can represent a scenario in which vaccination is not yet readily available. As the vaccination rate ramps up to 80% among the sample population, the screening test rate can be 0%, while the face masking rate can be as low as 5% to still achieve the health target. Many other scenarios are derived from this study to meet the defined health target, which represents the flexibility afforded to policy and decision makers when trying to adopt a combination of these preventive methods to contain virus spread.
The study also reveals the higher efficiency of either the vaccination or screening test over face masking under the assumed virus transmissibility rates in the study.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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 produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors