Effectiveness of quarantine and testing to prevent COVID-19 transmission from arriving travelers

  1. W. Alton Russell
  2. David L. Buckeridge

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objective

To assess the efficacy of policies designed to reduce the risk of international travelers importing SARS-CoV-2 into a country.

Method

We developed a simulation model and compared mandatory quarantine, testing, and combined quarantine and testing. We assessed the sensitivity of policy effectiveness to the timing of testing, compliance with quarantine and isolation, and other factors.

Results

In the base scenario, a 2-day quarantine reduced more risk than testing alone. The effectiveness of a 5-day quarantine requirement with perfect compliance was similar to a 14-day quarantine with moderate compliance. Testing 72h before arrival reduced less than 10% of in-country transmission risk across all scenarios. The addition of testing to quarantine added value for shorter quarantine lengths, when testing compliance was enforced, and when testing was performed near the end of quarantine.

Conclusions

Quarantine is more effective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission from arriving travelers than testing alone, but testing combined with quarantine can add value if longer quarantine requirements are infeasible. Enforcing compliance with quarantine and isolation is critical. Requiring a negative test up to 72h before arrival may have limited effectiveness.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1101/2020.11.02.20224568v2 on medRxiv
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.02.20224568: (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: Thank you for sharing your data.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.11.02.20224568v1 on medRxiv