Multimodal surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 at a university enables development of a robust outbreak response framework

Universities are particularly vulnerable to infectious disease outbreaks and are also ideal environments to study transmission dynamics and evaluate mitigation and surveillance measures when outbreaks occur. Here, we introduce a SARS-CoV-2 surveillance and response framework based on high-resolution, multimodal data collected during the 2020-2021 academic year at Colorado Mesa University. We analyzed epidemiological and sociobehavioral data (demographics, contact tracing, and wifi-based co-location data) alongside pathogen surveillance data (wastewater, random, and reflexive diagnostic testing; and viral genomic sequencing of wastewater and clinical specimens) to characterize outbreak dynamics and inform policy decisions. We quantified group attributes that increased disease risk, and highlighted parallels between traditional and wifi-based contact tracing. We additionally used clinical and environmental viral sequencing to identify cryptic transmission, cluster overdispersion, and novel lineages or mutations. Ultimately, we used distinct data types to identify information that may help shape institutional policy and to develop a model of pathogen surveillance suitable for the future of outbreak preparedness.

The Case for Altruism in Institutional Diagnostic Testing

Amid COVID-19, many institutions deployed vast resources to test their members regularly for safe reopening. This self-focused approach, however, not only overlooks surrounding communities but also remains blind to community transmission that could breach the institution. To test the relative merits of a more altruistic strategy, we built an epidemiological model that assesses the differential impact on case counts when institutions instead allocate a proportion of their tests to members close contacts in the larger community. We found that testing outside the institution benefits the institution in all plausible circumstances, with the optimal proportion of tests to use externally landing at 45% under baseline model parameters. Our results were robust to local prevalence, secondary attack rate, testing capacity, and contact reporting level, yielding a range of optimal community testing proportions from 18% to 58%. The model performed best under the assumption that community contacts are known to the institution; however, it still demonstrated a significant benefit even without complete knowledge of the contact network.