Abstract
Background After moving instruction online for more than a year, many colleges and universities are preparing to reopen and offering fully in-person classes for the Fall 2021 semester. In this paper, we study the impact of weekly testing protocols on college campuses.
Methods An extended susceptible–infectious–removed (SIR) compartmental model was used to simulate COVID-19 spread on a college campus setting. Seven scenarios were evaluated which considered polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and rapid antigen testing kits available at various levels of supply. The infection attack rate (IAR), the number of infections, and the number of tests utilized by the end of the simulation semester are reported and compared.
Results Weekly testing significantly reduces the number of infections compared to when testing is not available. The use of PCR tests results in the lowest infection attack rate and the total number of cases; however, using rapid antigen tests with higher coverage is more effective than using PCR tests with lower coverage.
Conclusions The implementation of COVID-19 testing protocols should be considered and evaluated as using testing allows for identification and isolation of cases which reduces the spread of COVID-19 on college campuses. Even if testing capacity is limited, its partial implementation can be beneficial.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research has been supported in part by Cooperative Agreement number NU38OT000297 from The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and CSTE and does not necessarily represent the views of CDC and CSTE. This research was also supported in part by the William W. George endowment and the following benefactors at Georgia Tech: Andrea Laliberte, Joseph C. Mello, Richard "Rick" E. & Charlene Zalesky, and Claudia & Paul Raines.
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 manuscript uses publicly available information.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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
* Working paper.
Data Availability
The manuscript uses publicly available data.
