Quantifying the effect of isolation and negative certification on COVID-19 transmission

  1. Jun-ichi Takeshita
  2. Michio Murakami
  3. Masashi Kamo
  4. Wataru Naito
  5. Tetsuo Yasutaka
  6. Seiya Imoto

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background: Isolation of close contact people and negative test certification are used to manage the spread of new coronavirus infections worldwide. These effectively prevent the spread of infection in advance, but they can lead to a decline in socioeconomic activity. Thus, the present study quantified the extent to which isolation and negative test certification respectively reduce the risk of infection. Methods: A discrete-time SEIR model was used as the infectious disease model, and equations for calculating the conditional probability of non-infection status given negative test results on two different days were derived. Results: The respective non-infection probabilities with two negative PCR test results, and with one negative PCR test result and one antigen test result, were quantified. By substituting initial parameters of the SEIR model into these probabilities, the present study revealed the following: (1) isolating close contact individuals can reduce by 80% the risk of infection during the first five days, but five more days are needed to reduce the risk 10% more, and seven more days to reduce the risk 20% more; and (2) if an individual with a negative PCR test result has a negative antigen test result the next day, then his or her infection probability is between 0.6% and 0.7%. Conclusions: Five-day isolation has a proportionally greater effect on risk reduction, compared to longer isolation; and thus, if an isolation period of longer than five days is contemplated, both the risk reduction and the negative effects from such increased isolation should be considered. Regarding negative test certification, our results provide those in managerial positions, who must decide whether to accept the risk and hold mass-gathering events, with quantitative information that may be useful in their decision-making. Trial registrations: Not applicable

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1379481/v1 on Research Square
  2. Version published to 10.1038/s41598-023-37872-w
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.02.20.22270449v2 on medRxiv
  4. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.20.22270449: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot 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.

    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.

  5. Version published to 10.1101/2022.02.20.22270449v1 on medRxiv