Controlling SARS-CoV-2 in schools using repetitive testing strategies

  1. Andrea Torneri
  2. Lander Willem
  3. Vittoria Colizza
  4. Cécile Kremer
  5. Christelle Meuris
  6. Gilles Darcis
  7. Niel Hens
  8. Pieter JK Libin

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

SARS-CoV-2 remains a worldwide emergency. While vaccines have been approved and are widely administered, there is an ongoing debate whether children should be vaccinated or prioritized for vaccination. Therefore, in order to mitigate the spread of more transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants among children, the use of non-pharmaceutical interventions is still warranted. We investigate the impact of different testing strategies on the SARS-CoV-2 infection dynamics in a primary school environment, using an individual-based modelling approach. Specifically, we consider three testing strategies: (1) symptomatic isolation , where we test symptomatic individuals and isolate them when they test positive, (2) reactive screening , where a class is screened once one symptomatic individual was identified, and (3) repetitive screening , where the school in its entirety is screened on regular time intervals. Through this analysis, we demonstrate that repetitive testing strategies can significantly reduce the attack rate in schools, contrary to a reactive screening or a symptomatic isolation approach. However, when a repetitive testing strategy is in place, more cases will be detected and class and school closures are more easily triggered, leading to a higher number of school days lost per child. While maintaining the epidemic under control with a repetitive testing strategy, we show that absenteeism can be reduced by relaxing class and school closure thresholds.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.7554/elife.75593 on eLife
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.15.21266187: (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: Thank you for sharing your code.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.11.15.21266187v1 on medRxiv