The Impact of COVID-19 Testing on College Campuses*
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
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.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.16.21262153: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.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…
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.16.21262153: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.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.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-
