Optimizing COVID-19 testing strategies on college campuses: Evaluation of the health and economic costs.

Colleges and universities in the US struggled to provide safe in-person education throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing coupled with isolation is a nimble intervention strategy that can be tailored to mitigate the changing health and economic risks associated with SARS-CoV-2. We developed a decision-support tool to aid in the design of university-based screening strategies using a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Applying this framework to a large public university reopening in the fall of 2021 with a 60% student vaccination rate, we find that the optimal strategy, in terms of health and economic costs, is twice weekly antigen testing of all students. This strategy provides a 95% guarantee that, throughout the fall semester, case counts would not exceed twice the CDC's original high transmission threshold of 100 cases per 100k persons over 7 days. As the virus and our medical armament continue to evolve, testing will remain a flexible tool for managing risks and keeping campuses open. We have implemented this model as an online tool to facilitate the design of testing strategies that adjust for COVID-19 conditions as well as campus-specific populations, resources, and priorities.

Effectiveness of interventions to reduce COVID-19 transmission in schools.

School reopenings in 2021 and 2022 coincided with the rapid emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States. In-school mitigation efforts varied, depending on local COVID-19 mandates and resources. Using a stochastic age-stratified agent-based model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, we estimate the impacts of multiple in-school strategies on both infection rates and absenteeism, relative to a baseline scenario in which only symptomatic cases are tested and positive tests trigger a 10-day isolation of the case and 10-day quarantine of their household and classroom. We find that monthly asymptomatic screening coupled with the 10-day isolation and quarantine period is expected to avert 55.4% of infections while increasing absenteeism by 104.3%. Replacing quarantine with test-to-stay would reduce absenteeism by 66.3% (while hardly impacting infection rates), but would require roughly 10-fold more testing resources. Alternatively, vaccination or mask wearing by 50% of the student body is expected to avert 54.1% or 43.1% of infections while decreasing absenteeism by 34.1% or 27.4%, respectively. Separating students into classrooms based on mask usage is expected to reduce infection risks among those who wear masks (by 23.1%), exacerbate risks among those who do not (by 27.8%), but have little impact on overall risk. A combined strategy of monthly screening, household and classroom quarantine, a 50% vaccination rate, and a 50% masking rate (in mixed classrooms) is expected to avert 81.7% of infections while increasing absenteeism by 90.6%. During future public health emergencies, such analyses can inform the rapid design of resource-constrained strategies that mitigate both public health and educational risks.