Abstract
Background Multiple COVID-19 outbreaks have occurred in homeless shelters across the US, highlighting an urgent need to identify the most effective infection control strategy to prevent future outbreaks.
Objective To estimate the probability of averting outbreaks in homeless shelters under different infection control strategies.
Design Microsimulation model of COVID-19 transmission in a representative homeless shelter over 30 days under different infection control strategies, including daily symptom-based screening, twice-weekly polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) testing and universal mask wearing.
Setting A shelter of 250 residents and 50 staff.
Patients Residents and staff of homeless shelters in the US. Model calibrated to data from cross-sectional PCR surveys during COVID-19 outbreaks in five shelters in three US cities.
Measurements Probability of averting a COVID-19 outbreak (≥3 infections in 14 days).
Results Basic reproduction number (R0) estimates for the observed outbreaks ranged from 2.9 to 6.2. The probability of averting an outbreak diminished with higher transmissibility (R0) within the simulated shelter and increasing transmission intensity in the local community. With moderate transmission intensity in the local community, the estimated probabilities of averting an outbreak in a low-risk (R0=1.5), moderate-risk (R0=2.9), and high-risk (R0=6.2) shelter were: 0.33, 0.11 and 0.03 for daily symptom-based screening; 0.52, 0.27, and 0.04 for twice-weekly PCR testing; 0.47, 0.20 and 0.06 for universal masking; and 0.68, 0.40 and 0.08 for these strategies combined.
Limitations R0 values calibrated to reported outbreaks may be higher than for average shelter due to smaller outbreaks going unreported.
Conclusion In high-risk homeless shelter environments and locations with high community incidence of COVID-19 most infection control strategies are unlikely to prevent outbreaks. In lower-risk environments, combined interventions should be adopted to reduce outbreak risk.
Primary Funding Source University of California, San Francisco; UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative.
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic caused by infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) poses great risk to people experiencing homelessness. Across the United States (US), the estimated 568,000 people who experience homelessness nightly (1) are likely to suffer a disproportionate disease burden and need for hospitalization (2,3). People experiencing homelessness are on average older and have a high prevalence of comorbidities that are risk factors for severe COVID-19 (2). Multiple outbreaks in homeless shelters have occurred in several cities including San Francisco, Boston, Seattle and Atlanta with alarming attack rates of up to 67% (4–7). Homeless shelters have had to remain open in most cities despite high incidence of infection in the community, concern about the risk of further outbreaks, and uncertainty over the effectiveness of different infection control strategies. There is an immediate need to identify the best infection control strategy to reduce the risk of outbreaks and assess the safety of keeping shelters open where transmission in the community is high.
The role of shelters and associated infection control practices in transmission of COVID-19 among people experiencing homelessness is still poorly understood. Given current understanding that SARS-CoV-2 virus is transmitted predominantly through respiratory droplets (with some possible airborne and fomite transmission) (8), there is a need to consider policies to limit transmission within high-density congregate living environments. Different infection control strategies are currently recommended based on the level of transmission in the external community (9). These include routine symptom screening and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, universal mask wearing, and relocation of individuals at high risk of severe disease to non-congregate settings (10). There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of strategies to reduce transmission in congregate settings, and thus further research is urgently needed to guide city-level policy across the US.
The goal of this study is to identify the most effective infection control strategy to slow the spread of COVID-19 among people experiencing homelessness who reside in shelters. We address this pressing question by estimating comparative health outcomes of key infection control strategies using a simulation model calibrated to data on recent homeless shelter outbreaks.
Methods
Data
We calibrated a microsimulation model to aggregate data from PCR testing conducted between March 28, 2020 and April 10, 2020, during COVID-19 outbreaks in five shelters in three US cities: San Francisco (n=1), Boston (n=1) and Seattle (n=3) (4,6,7). We obtained de-identified individual-level data from the outbreak in the San Francisco shelter, which is fully described elsewhere (5), from the San Francisco Department of Public Health (see Supplement and Supplement Table 1 for details). As of April 10, 2020, a total of 89 individuals (84 residents, 5 staff) of 175 tested (130 residents, 45 staff) in the shelter were PCR-positive. We used aggregate data from the outbreaks in the Boston and Seattle shelters, where identified COVID-19 cases triggered mass testing events (4,6,7). In the Boston shelter, 147 of 408 residents and 15 of 50 staff were PCR-positive during testing conducted April 2–3, 2020. The numbers of residents and staff tested and positive in the three Seattle shelters (shelters A, B and C) at two testing events conducted March 30–April 1 and April 7–8, 2020 are given in Supplement Table 2.
Microsimulation
We developed an individual-level stochastic susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered (SEIR) model (11) to simulate transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a congregate shelter population (Supplement Figure 1). The model defines individuals as susceptible, exposed, infected, or immune to SARS-CoV-2 (Supplement Table 3). We constructed the model to include important aspects of the natural history of COVID-19, including sub-clinical infection, pre-symptomatic transmission, and age-specific differences in risk of severe symptoms. In the model, susceptible individuals become infected with SARS-CoV-2 at a rate proportional to the prevalence of infectious individuals inside the shelter and their infectiousness (assuming homogeneous mixing), plus a static force of infection based on the background infection incidence in the community outside the shelter. Upon infection, individuals enter a latent infection stage in which they incubate the virus but are not infectious. They then progress to become infectious and contribute to ongoing transmission. An age-dependent fraction of infected individuals develop clinical symptoms with associated risk of hospitalization and death (Supplement Table 4), while the remainder have sub-clinical infection. Individuals who recover from infection are assumed to remain immune. For the San Francisco shelter, we used daily census data to inform the shelter population size, which decayed over time, and risk stratification (Supplement Figure 2). For the other shelters, we assumed a constant population size over time.
We calibrated the model to aggregate numbers of individuals PCR-positive and negative for each shelter using approximate Bayesian computation techniques (see Supplement). We fitted the following parameters: (i) the basic reproduction number R0 (the average number of secondary infections generated by the average infectious individual in an entirely susceptible shelter population), (ii) the number of latently infected individuals who initially entered the shelter E0, and (iii) the number of days before the first case was identified that these individuals entered the shelter D (Table 1). The remaining parameters were sourced from literature on natural history and epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 (Table 1 and Supplement Table 5). The model structure and calibration followed a pre-specified analysis plan (https://github.com/NathanLo3/Publication-codes/blob/master/Pre-analysis plan-COVID homeless shelter FINAL.pdf).
Infection control strategies
We simulated six infection control strategies (Supplement Table 6), selected via informal consultation with public health experts. 1) Daily symptom-based screening: daily screening of all individuals in the shelter involving a temperature and symptom survey. Individuals who screened positive were PCR tested, with 80% compliance, and isolated for 1 day pending the test result; if negative, they returned to the population. We used published data on the sensitivity of symptom-based screening with time since infection (12), which suggests that close to 100% of symptomatic cases (a subset of all true cases) would eventually be detected under repeated daily screening based on the definition of being symptomatic, even with low sensitivity of symptom screening on any one occasion (here assumed to be 40%). Despite reports of low specificity of symptom screening (13,14), a high specificity of 90% was assumed to prevent unrealistic levels of PCR testing and isolation of symptom-positive individuals awaiting test results. We assumed a minimum of 3 days between repeat PCR tests for the same individual. 2) Routine PCR testing: twice-weekly PCR testing of residents and staff based on prior literature analyzing reduction in transmission and cost-effectiveness under different testing frequencies (15–17). We assumed 75% sensitivity and 100% specificity of PCR testing based on published literature (18–21), a mean duration of detectable viral load (starting prior to development of symptoms) of 20 days (Supplement Figure 3) (22–27), and 80% compliance with testing. We assumed test results were returned in 1 day, after which time individuals who tested PCR-positive were removed from the shelter population. 3) Universal mask wearing: wearing of surgical masks by all persons within the shelter. We assumed that surgical mask wearing reduced the amount of infectious SARS-CoV-2 material breathed into the air by infected individuals by 30% based on literature estimates from household studies assuming high compliance and recent experimental studies(28–33), and that 80% of individuals adhered to mask wearing. 4) Relocation of “high-risk” individuals: moving high-risk individuals (defined as those ≥60 years and/or with co-morbidities) to single hotel rooms, modelled by replacing such individuals with lower-risk individuals. 5) Routine PCR testing of staff only: twice-weekly testing of staff only, assuming 80% compliance. 6) Combination strategy: strategies 1–4 combined. Daily symptom screening (strategy 1) was included in all strategies.
Prediction of impact of infection control strategies
For each intervention strategy we simulated transmission within a shelter of 250 residents and 50 staff (based on an average shelter size) over 30 days starting with one latently infected individual 1000 times (to account for stochastic uncertainty). The time period was chosen to capture the trajectory of an outbreak and differential benefits of strategies. The primary outcome of the study was the probability of averting an outbreak (defined as 3 or more infections originating within the shelter in any 14-day period (34,35)) under each strategy, with secondary outcomes of the proportional reductions in the total numbers of COVID-19 infections and clinical cases, and total numbers of hospitalizations, deaths and PCR tests used. Only individuals who tested positive were removed from the shelter population. The initial population was chosen to have the same composition in terms of proportions in different risk groups (by age and co-morbidity status) as the San Francisco shelter. We estimated the probability of averting an outbreak under each intervention strategy (compared with no interventions) for each calibrated R0 value for a range of different background infection rates estimated from recent incidence of confirmed cases in Seattle, Boston and San Francisco (see Supplement for details). To account for potential upward bias in the estimated R0 range due to fitting to data from shelters with high attack rates, we performed the same simulations for a shelter environment with a low R0 of 1.5. The analyses were conducted in R version 4.0.0 (36) and the data and model code are available at https://github.com/LloydChapman/COVID_homeless_modelling. This study was considered exempt non-human subject research based on use of de-identified secondary data by the University of California, San Francisco Institutional Review Board.
Sensitivity analysis
We conducted a multi-way sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of uncertainty in key natural history and intervention parameters (relative infectiousness of subclinical infection and the early infectious stage, sensitivities and specificities of symptom screening and PCR tests, testing and masking compliances, and mask effectiveness) on the results (Table 1). We explored the impact of the frequency of universal PCR testing on the probability of averting an outbreak by varying the PCR testing frequency in strategy 2 from daily to monthly.
Role of the funding source
This study was funded by the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, preparation of the manuscript, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Results
Model calibration
The model reproduced the numbers of PCR-positive individuals in the cross-sectional surveys in the Seattle and Boston shelters (Supplement Figure 4) and the observed numbers of PCR-positive individuals and symptomatic cases over time for the outbreak in the San Francisco shelter (Supplement Figures 4 and 5). The estimated R0 values ranged from 2.9 (95% CI 1.1–6.7) for Seattle shelter B to 6.2 (95% CI 4.0–7.9) for the San Francisco shelter (Supplement Table 7), with corresponding estimated cumulative infection incidences at the end of the testing period of 14% (95% CI 1–41%) and 83% (95% CI 72–92%) (Supplement Table 8). The median estimated number of infections initially introduced was 3 for all shelters (95% CI 1–5). The estimated date of introduction of infection ranged from 10 days (95% CI 7–14 days) before the first case was identified for Seattle shelter B to 21 days (95% CI 17–26 days) before for San Francisco.
Impact of infection control strategies
Table 2 shows the projected impact of the six infection control strategies considered for different transmission environments. Daily symptom screening performed poorly across different transmissibilities (probability of averting an outbreak = 0.03 for San Francisco R0 = 6.2, and probability = 0.33 for R0 = 1.5). Relocating individuals at high-risk of clinical symptoms combined with symptom screening performed similarly to symptom screening alone (probability of averting an outbreak = 0.03–0.33 for R0 = 6.2–1.5). Twice-weekly PCR testing of staff provided some additional benefit over daily symptom screening at lower transmissibilities (probability of averting an outbreak = 0.03–0.40 for R0 = 6.2–1.5). Universal masking and twice-weekly PCR testing of all individuals yielded higher probabilities of averting an outbreak of 0.06–0.47 and 0.04–0.52 for R0 = 6.2–1.5. The combination strategy involving daily symptom screening, twice-weekly PCR testing of all individuals, universal masking, and removal of high-risk individuals gave the highest probability of averting an outbreak (0.08–0.68 for R0 = 6.2–1.5), but still prevented a minority of outbreaks in all but the lowest-risk setting.
The probability of averting an outbreak under each intervention strategy decreased with increasing transmission potential (R0) inside the shelter and with increasing infection incidence in the community outside the shelter (Figure 1). Even under the combination strategy, the probability of averting an outbreak in an average-transmission-potential shelter (R0 = 2.9) decreased from 0.58 to 0.07 as the background infection rate increased from 0 to 439 cases per 1 million person-days (the estimated background infection rate in San Francisco between June 27 and July 10, 2020).
SF = San Francisco.
The relative reduction in infection incidence under the different infection control strategies followed the same pattern as the probability of averting an outbreak (Supplement Table 10 and Figure 2).
Solid lines show mean daily numbers of new infections and shaded areas show minimum and maximum daily numbers over 1000 simulations. SF = San Francisco.
PCR test requirements were approximately three times higher (at an average of 6.6 tests per person per month) under twice-weekly PCR testing of all individuals than when only testing individuals identified as symptomatic in daily symptom screening (2.0 tests/person/month), and approximately two times higher than when only testing staff twice-a-week (2.8 tests/person/month) (Supplement Table 11).
Sensitivity analysis
The probability of averting an outbreak was most sensitive to uncertainty in mask effectiveness and relative infectiousness of the early infectious stage, followed by PCR sensitivity and masking and testing compliances (Supplement Figure 9). Decreasing the frequency of PCR testing from daily to monthly decreased the probability of averting an outbreak for R0 = 1.5, 2.9 and 3.9 from 0.70 to 0.35, 0.27 to 0.12, and 0.23 to 0.08 respectively, but had little impact on the already low probability of averting an outbreak for R0 = 6.2 (Supplement Figure 10).
Discussion
Several outbreaks of COVID-19 with high attack rates have occurred in homeless shelters across the US, and there remains uncertainty over the best infection control strategies to reduce outbreak risk in shelters. In this study, we applied a simulation analysis to identify infection control strategies to prevent future outbreaks. We found that in high-risk shelters that are unable to maximize basic infection control practices that sufficiently reduce the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 (e.g. social distancing, reduced living density), no additional infection control strategy is likely to prevent outbreaks. In contrast, in lower-risk shelters with low background community incidence, the implementation of strategies such as symptom screening, routine PCR testing, and masking would help reduce outbreak risk.
We found a wide range of transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 based on the observed outbreaks in homeless shelters, which greatly affects intervention impact. We estimated basic reproduction numbers (R0) of 2.9–6.2 from aggregate PCR test data from outbreaks in five shelters in Seattle, Boston and San Francisco. This range of R0 values is at the high end of those reported in the literature (37–40), and likely reflects a high degree of heterogeneity in infectiousness between individuals (39,41–44) and a highly conducive environment for transmission within these shelters due to lack of existing infection control practices and high living density. These R0 values are also likely not entirely representative of general transmission potential in shelters as non-outbreaks and smaller outbreaks are undetected or less likely to be reported, and some shelters have reported only low numbers of infections (4,45). For these R0 values and current background infection rates, we found that the infection control strategies considered are unlikely to prevent outbreaks (probability < 40%), even when combined. Nevertheless, they do reduce incidence of infection and clinical disease and slow the growth of the outbreak (Figure 2).
In a lower transmissibility setting, with R0 = 1.5, e.g. where staff and clients are able to socially distance, the considered intervention strategies are more likely to prevent outbreaks (probability up to nearly 70% under combined interventions, for a moderate background infection rate equivalent to that in Boston in early July of 122/1,000,000/day).
A key remaining issue is identifying the characteristics that distinguish low-risk shelters that can be safely operated with implementation of infection control strategies. Data is limited, but available evidence suggests that social distancing and reductions in super-spreading are likely to be key factors (39,41,46–48). Strategies that may achieve these goals include reducing living density, spacing bedding, reducing communal activities, and adopting staffing models that limit social contacts.
The background infection rate in the community greatly affects the probability of COVID-19 outbreaks and intervention impact. For example, even with combined interventions, the probability of averting an outbreak in a shelter decreases significantly with increasing background infection rate (to less than 40% for R0 > 1.5 for the estimated background rate for San Francisco for early July), due to the increase in the risk of introduction of infection into the shelter. Our findings therefore support considering alternative arrangements for housing people experiencing homelessness in locations in which community incidence is moderate to high – 100–500 infections/1,000,000/day, equivalent to a confirmed incidence of 25–125 cases/1,000,000/day (i.e. current San Francisco incidence) assuming four-fold underreporting (see Supplement) – unless infection control practices are maximized. In lower background incidence settings, our results suggest that a combination of daily symptom-based screening, twice-weekly PCR testing, universal masking and relocation of high-risk individuals to non-congregate settings would reduce outbreak risk, and limit incidence of infection and severe disease if outbreaks do occur.
Each infection control strategy is limited in some aspect (22,49–53). Symptom-based screening has very low sensitivity to detect infections early in the clinical course (when people are most infectious), and poor specificity (12–14,54). The impact of routine PCR testing is limited by imperfect PCR sensitivity (∼75%), especially early in the infection course (19), as well as need for frequent testing and missing onset of infectiousness between testing periods. Other analyses support our finding that testing less than once or twice weekly leaves a high risk of outbreaks (e.g. testing once every two weeks gives a 30% lower probability of averting an outbreak than twice-weekly testing, Supplement Figure 10) (15–17). However, once- or twice-weekly testing may be financially and logistically infeasible. Similarly, relocation of high-risk persons to independent housing is resource intensive. Frequent testing and universal masking also suffer issues with adherence, which constrains their effectiveness.
This study has a number of limitations. Due to limited data availability, we only calibrated the model to a small number of shelter outbreaks, the R0 estimates for which are likely to be higher than for the average shelter due to larger outbreaks being more likely to be reported. The cross-sectional aggregate nature of the majority of the data also led to wide uncertainty intervals around the fitted parameters, without independent identifiability between them (Supplement Figure 11). Our estimate of the impact of masking is highly sensitive to the assumed effectiveness of masking, which has mixed evidence (28,29,31). Many uncertainties in the biology of SARS-CoV-2 transmission remain, particularly regarding differential infectiousness over time and by severity of illness, and the relationship of PCR positivity and infectiousness (22,55,56). Our assumption of equal infectiousness for different individuals means that our model is unlikely to fully reproduce super-spreading events (39,41). We made several simplifying assumptions in modelling transmission within the shelter and from the surrounding community, namely: homogenous mixing within the shelter population, no entry of new people, a stable background infection rate over time and full immunity upon recovery from infection given the short duration of the simulation. We assumed homogeneous mixing due to a lack of contact data for the shelter outbreaks, which meant that we were not able to consider cohorting and contact tracing as interventions.
This study defines conditions that would support safely operating homeless shelters with lower risk of COVID-19 outbreaks and estimates the impact of various interventions on outbreak risk. Our findings demonstrate the need for combined interventions (symptom-based screening, PCR testing, and masking) and regular testing to protect persons experiencing homelessness from COVID-19, while highlighting the limitations of these interventions in preventing outbreaks.
Data Availability
All data and code used for the analysis are available at: https://github.com/LloydChapman/COVID_homeless_modelling
Disclosures
The authors declare no conflicts of interest or disclosures. NCL has received funding from the World Health Organization for unrelated work.
Author Contributions
Drs. Lloyd A.C. Chapman and Nathan C. Lo had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Conception and design: NCL, LACC
Analysis and interpretation of the data: LACC, NCL Drafting of the article: LACC, NCL
Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: All authors
Final approval of the article: All authors
Obtaining of funding: NCL, MK
Administrative, technical or logistic support: SNC, AS, CC, TN, EI
Collection and assembly of data: LACC, SNC, AS, CC, TN, EI, NCL
Acknowledgement
We sincerely appreciate the hard work and public health efforts of all those involved in the collection of the data used in this article. LACC would like to thank Renata Retkute, Amanda Minter, Simon Spencer and TJ McKinley for helpful discussions regarding Approximate Bayesian Computation.
Footnotes
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.