Assessing required SARS-CoV-2 blanket testing rates for possible control of the outbreak in the epicentre Lusaka province of Zambia with consideration for asymptomatic individuals: A simple mathematical modelling study

  1. Joseph Sichone
  2. Musalula Sinkala
  3. Sody Munsaka
  4. Mervis Kikonko
  5. Martin Simuunza

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The novel Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus—2 (SARS-CoV-2), in Africa is characterised by a more substantial proportion of asymptomatic (or mildly symptomatic) individuals thought to be playing a role in the spread of the infection. The exact proportion and degree of infectiousness of asymptomatic individuals remains unclear. Studies however indicate that their management is crucial for control of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Methodology

We developed a simplified deterministic susceptible-exposed-infectious-removed (SEIR) mathematical model to assess the effect of active isolation of SARS-CoV-2 infected but asymptomatic individuals through blanket testing for control of the outbreak in Lusaka Province of Zambia. Here we modelled two scenarios; (1) assuming asymptomatic individuals comprised 70% of all COVID-19 cases and (2) asymptomatic individuals comprised only 50% of the cases. For contrast, the model was assessed first under the assumption that asymptomatic individuals are equally as infectious as symptomatic individuals and then secondly, and more likely, assuming asymptomatic individuals are only half as infectious as symptomatic individuals.

Results

For the model assuming 70% asymptomatic cases, a minimum sustained daily blanket testing rate of ≥ 7911 tests/100000 population was sufficient to control the outbreak if asymptomatic individuals are only half as infectious while if equal infectiousness was assumed then a testing rate of ≥ 10028 tests/ 100000 population would be required. For 50% asymptomatic, minimum blanket testing rates of ≥ 4540 tests/ 100000 population was sufficient to control the outbreak at both assumed levels of infectiousness for asymptomatic individuals relative to symptomatic individuals.

Discussion and conclusion

Our model predicts that active isolation of COVID-19 cases, including asymptomatic individuals, through blanket testing can be used as a possible measure for the control of the SARS-Cov-2 transmission in Lusaka, Zambia, but it would come at a high cost.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0249479
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.12.20152124: (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.

    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 10.1101/2020.07.12.20152124v1 on medRxiv