Abstract
Returning universities to full on-campus operations while the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing has been a controversial discussion in many countries. The risk of large outbreaks in dense course settings is contrasted by the benefits of in-person teaching. Transmission risk depends on a range of parameters, such as vaccination coverage, number of contacts and adoption of non-pharmaceutical intervention measures (NPIs). Due to the generalised academic freedom in Europe, many universities are asked to autonomously decide on and implement intervention measures and regulate on-campus operations. In the context of rapidly changing vaccination coverage and parameters of the virus, universities often lack the scientific facts to base these decisions on. To address this problem, we analyse a calibrated, data-driven simulation of transmission dynamics of 10755 students and 974 faculty in a medium-sized university. We use a co-location network reconstructed from student enrolment data and calibrate transmission risk based on outbreak size distributions in other Austrian education institutions. We focus on actionable interventions that are part of the already existing decision-making process of universities to provide guidance for concrete policy decisions. Here we show that with the vaccination coverage of about 80% recently reported for students in Austria, universities can be safely reopened if they either mandate masks or reduce lecture hall occupancy to 50%. Our results indicate that relaxing NPIs within an organisation based on the vaccination coverage of its sub-population can be a way towards limited normalcy, even if nation wide vaccination coverage is not sufficient to prevent large outbreaks yet.
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I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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
Footnotes
JL developed the research idea, implemented the simulation and wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. TH helped acquire the relevant data to construct the university contact network and defined scenarios relevant for university policy. DG provided guidance on the research questions and statistical analysis of simulation outcomes. All authors have read and edited the final manuscript.
The authors declare no competing interests.
↵* We use the implementation of the algorithm provided by the Python networkx package: https://networkx.org/documentation/stable/reference/algorithms/generated/networkx.algorithms.community.quality.modularity.html
Data Availability
All data produced are available online at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UPX7R
