Frequency of surveillance testing necessary to reduce transmission of the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
We estimate the reduction in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 achievable by surveillance testing of a susceptible population at different frequencies, comparing the cases of both the original Wuhan strain and the Delta variant. We estimate the viral dynamics using viral copy number at first detection combined with considerations arising from aerosol transmission. We take into account the recent findings that infected vaccinated adults may have live viral loads at the same level as infected unvaccinated adults. Our estimates suggest that twice weekly testing, which was adequate for the original strains of SARS-CoV-2 will be insufficient on its own to contain the spread of the Delta variant of concern. We exclude consideration of contact tracing since the rapidity of the onset of viral titre in the case of the Delta variant suggests that unless contact tracing and quarantine are performed very rapidly (ie. much less than a day), these mitigations will be of minimal impact in reducing transmission. These crude estimates do not take into account heterogeneity of susceptibility, social activity, and compliance, nor do they include the additional reduction in transmission that could be achieved by masking and social distancing. In the setting of a large public university, these considerations suggest that risk-targeted testing of vaccinated students, staff and faculty combined with surveillance testing of all unvaccinated individuals is the most efficient way to reduce transmission of COVID-19.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.01.21262806: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not 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:…
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.01.21262806: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not 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.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-
