ABSTRACT
Purpose Post-secondary students have higher than average contacts than the general population due to congregate living, use of public transit, high-density academic and social activities, and employment in the services sector. We evaluated the impact of a large student population returning to a mid-sized city currently experiencing a low rate of COVID-19 on community health outcomes. We consider whether targeted routine or one-time screening in this population can mitigate community COVID-19 impacts.
Methods We developed a dynamic transmission model of COVID-19 subdivided into three interacting populations: general population, university students, and long-term care residents. We parameterized the model using the medical literature and expert opinion. We calibrated the model to the observed outcomes in a mid-sized Canadian city between March 1 and August 15, 2020 prior to the arrival of a relatively large post-secondary student population. We evaluated the impact of the student population (20,000 people arriving on September 1) on cumulative COVID-19 infections over the fall semester, the timing of peak infections, the timing and peak level of critical care occupancy, and the timing of re-engaged social and economic restrictions. We consider multiple scenarios with different student and general population COVID-19 prevention behaviours as well as different COVID-19 screening strategies in students.
Results In a city with low levels of COVID-19 activity, the return of a relatively large student population substantially increases the total number of COVID-19 infections in the community. In a scenario in which students immediately engage in a 24% contact reduction compared to pre-COVID levels, the total number of infections in the community increases by 87% (from 3,900 without the students to 7,299 infections with the students), with 71% of the incremental infections occurring in the general population, causing social and economic restrictions to be re-engaged 3 weeks earlier and an incremental 17 COVID-19 deaths. Scenarios in which students have an initial, short-term increase in contacts with other students before engaging in contact reduction behaviours can increase infections in the community by 150% or more. In such scenarios, screening asymptomatic students every 5 days reduces the number of infections attributable to the introduction of the university student population by 42% and delays the re-engagement of social and economic restrictions by 1 week. Compared to screening every 5 days, one-time mass screening of students prevents fewer infections, but is highly efficient in terms of infections prevented per screening test performed.
Discussion University students are highly inter-connected with the city communities in which they live and go to school, and they have a higher number of contacts than the general population. High density living environments, enthusiasm for the new school year, and relatively high rates of asymptomatic presentation may decrease their self-protective behaviours and contribute to increased community transmission of COVID-19 affecting at-risk members of the city community. Screening targeted at this population provides significant public health benefits to the community through averted infections, critical care admissions, and COVID-19 deaths.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported in part by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation through Grant GBMF9634 to Johns Hopkins University to support the work of the Society for Medical Decision Making COVID-19 Decision Modeling Initiative (co-PIs: Cipriano and Enns) and by a Western University Catalyst Research Grant (PI: Cipriano). LEC is supported by the David G. Burgoyne Faculty Fellowship. GSZ is supported by the J. Allyn Taylor and Arthur H. Mingay Chair in Management Science.
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:
Institutional ethics review was not required for this modeling study as human subjects were not involved.
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
Footnotes
Funding: This work was supported in part by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation through Grant GBMF9634 to Johns Hopkins University to support the work of the Society for Medical Decision Making COVID-19 Decision Modeling Initiative (co-PIs: Cipriano and Enns) and by a Western University Catalyst Research Grant (PI: Cipriano). LEC is supported by the David G. Burgoyne Faculty Fellowship. GSZ is supported by the J. Allyn Taylor and Arthur H. Mingay Chair in Management Science.
Data Availability
Input data are largely publicly available and references with links are provided. Contact authors for any additional information.
