The risk of introducing SARS-CoV-2 to the UK via international travel in August 2020

  1. Rachel A. Taylor
  2. Catherine McCarthy
  3. Virag Patel
  4. Ruth Moir
  5. Louise A Kelly
  6. Emma L Snary

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

International travel poses substantial risks for continued introduction of SARS-CoV-2. As of the 17 th August 2020, travellers from 12 of the top 25 countries flying into the UK are required to self-isolate for 14 days. We estimate that 895 (CI: 834–958) infectious travellers arrive in a single week, of which 87% (779, CI: 722–837) originate from countries on the UK quarantine list. We compare alternative measures to the 14 day self-isolation (78.0% effective CI: 74.4–81.6) which could be more feasible long-term. A single RT-PCR taken upon arrival at the airport is 39.6% (CI: 35.2–43.7) effective, or equivalently, it would only detect 2 in 5 infectious passengers. Alternatively, testing four days after arrival is 64.3% (CI: 60.0–68.3) effective whereas a test at the airport plus additional test four days later is 68.9% (CI: 64.9–73.0) effective. Rapidly implementing control measures for travellers from risky countries is vital to protect public health; this methodology can be quickly updated to assess the impact of any further changes to international travel policy or disease occurrence.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.09.20190454: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.09.09.20190454v1 on medRxiv