Yapeng Cui1,2,3, Shunjiang Ni4,5,6, Shifei Shen1,2,3. 1. Institute of Public Safety Research, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. 2. Department of Engineering Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. 3. Beijing Key Laboratory of City Integrated Emergency Response Science, Beijing, China. 4. Institute of Public Safety Research, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. sjni@tsinghua.edu.cn. 5. Department of Engineering Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. sjni@tsinghua.edu.cn. 6. Beijing Key Laboratory of City Integrated Emergency Response Science, Beijing, China. sjni@tsinghua.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Testing is one of the most effective means to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is an upper bound on daily testing volume because of limited healthcare staff and working hours, as well as different testing methods, such as random testing and contact-tracking testing. In this study, a network-based epidemic transmission model combined with a testing mechanism was proposed to study the role of testing in epidemic control. The aim of this study was to determine how testing affects the spread of epidemics and the daily testing volume needed to control infectious diseases. METHODS: We simulated the epidemic spread process on complex networks and introduced testing preferences to describe different testing strategies. Different networks were generated to represent social contact between individuals. An extended susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered (SEIR) epidemic model was adopted to simulate the spread of epidemics in these networks. The model establishes a testing preference of between 0 and 1; the larger the testing preference, the higher the testing priority for people in close contact with confirmed cases. RESULTS: The numerical simulations revealed that the higher the priority for testing individuals in close contact with confirmed cases, the smaller the infection scale. In addition, the infection peak decreased with an increase in daily testing volume and increased as the testing start time was delayed. We also discovered that when testing and other measures were adopted, the daily testing volume required to keep the infection scale below 5% was reduced by more than 40% even if other measures only reduced individuals' infection probability by 10%. The proposed model was validated using COVID-19 testing data. CONCLUSIONS: Although testing could effectively inhibit the spread of infectious diseases and epidemics, our results indicated that it requires a huge daily testing volume. Thus, it is highly recommended that testing be adopted in combination with measures such as wearing masks and social distancing to better manage infectious diseases. Our research contributes to understanding the role of testing in epidemic control and provides useful suggestions for the government and individuals in responding to epidemics.
BACKGROUND: Testing is one of the most effective means to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is an upper bound on daily testing volume because of limited healthcare staff and working hours, as well as different testing methods, such as random testing and contact-tracking testing. In this study, a network-based epidemic transmission model combined with a testing mechanism was proposed to study the role of testing in epidemic control. The aim of this study was to determine how testing affects the spread of epidemics and the daily testing volume needed to control infectious diseases. METHODS: We simulated the epidemic spread process on complex networks and introduced testing preferences to describe different testing strategies. Different networks were generated to represent social contact between individuals. An extended susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered (SEIR) epidemic model was adopted to simulate the spread of epidemics in these networks. The model establishes a testing preference of between 0 and 1; the larger the testing preference, the higher the testing priority for people in close contact with confirmed cases. RESULTS: The numerical simulations revealed that the higher the priority for testing individuals in close contact with confirmed cases, the smaller the infection scale. In addition, the infection peak decreased with an increase in daily testing volume and increased as the testing start time was delayed. We also discovered that when testing and other measures were adopted, the daily testing volume required to keep the infection scale below 5% was reduced by more than 40% even if other measures only reduced individuals' infection probability by 10%. The proposed model was validated using COVID-19 testing data. CONCLUSIONS: Although testing could effectively inhibit the spread of infectious diseases and epidemics, our results indicated that it requires a huge daily testing volume. Thus, it is highly recommended that testing be adopted in combination with measures such as wearing masks and social distancing to better manage infectious diseases. Our research contributes to understanding the role of testing in epidemic control and provides useful suggestions for the government and individuals in responding to epidemics.
Authors: Beatriz Grinsztejn; Mina C Hosseinipour; Heather J Ribaudo; Susan Swindells; Joseph Eron; Ying Q Chen; Lei Wang; San-San Ou; Maija Anderson; Marybeth McCauley; Theresa Gamble; Nagalingeshwaran Kumarasamy; James G Hakim; Johnstone Kumwenda; Jose H S Pilotto; Sheela V Godbole; Suwat Chariyalertsak; Marineide Gonçalves de Melo; Kenneth H Mayer; Susan H Eshleman; Estelle Piwowar-Manning; Joseph Makhema; Lisa A Mills; Ravindre Panchia; Ian Sanne; Joel Gallant; Irving Hoffman; Taha E Taha; Karin Nielsen-Saines; David Celentano; Max Essex; Diane Havlir; Myron S Cohen Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2014-03-04 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Kamini Mendis; Aafje Rietveld; Marian Warsame; Andrea Bosman; Brian Greenwood; Walther H Wernsdorfer Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2009-05-26 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: Myron S Cohen; Ying Q Chen; Marybeth McCauley; Theresa Gamble; Mina C Hosseinipour; Nagalingeswaran Kumarasamy; James G Hakim; Johnstone Kumwenda; Beatriz Grinsztejn; Jose H S Pilotto; Sheela V Godbole; Suwat Chariyalertsak; Breno R Santos; Kenneth H Mayer; Irving F Hoffman; Susan H Eshleman; Estelle Piwowar-Manning; Leslie Cottle; Xinyi C Zhang; Joseph Makhema; Lisa A Mills; Ravindre Panchia; Sharlaa Faesen; Joseph Eron; Joel Gallant; Diane Havlir; Susan Swindells; Vanessa Elharrar; David Burns; Taha E Taha; Karin Nielsen-Saines; David D Celentano; Max Essex; Sarah E Hudelson; Andrew D Redd; Thomas R Fleming Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mark D Perkins; Christopher Dye; Manica Balasegaram; Christian Bréchot; Jean-Vivien Mombouli; John-Arne Røttingen; Marcel Tanner; Catharina C Boehme Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-05-31 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Richard J Hayes; Deborah Donnell; Sian Floyd; Nomtha Mandla; Justin Bwalya; Kalpana Sabapathy; Blia Yang; Mwelwa Phiri; Ab Schaap; Susan H Eshleman; Estelle Piwowar-Manning; Barry Kosloff; Anelet James; Timothy Skalland; Ethan Wilson; Lynda Emel; David Macleod; Rory Dunbar; Musonda Simwinga; Nozizwe Makola; Virginia Bond; Graeme Hoddinott; Ayana Moore; Sam Griffith; Nirupama Deshmane Sista; Sten H Vermund; Wafaa El-Sadr; David N Burns; James R Hargreaves; Katharina Hauck; Christophe Fraser; Kwame Shanaube; Peter Bock; Nulda Beyers; Helen Ayles; Sarah Fidler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: Siddharth Sridhar; Kelvin K W To; Jasper F W Chan; Susanna K P Lau; Patrick C Y Woo; Kwok-Yung Yuen Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2015-03-04 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Jasper F W Chan; Siddharth Sridhar; Cyril C Y Yip; Susanna K P Lau; Patrick C Y Woo Journal: J Microbiol Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 3.422
Authors: Trystan Leng; Edward M Hill; Robin N Thompson; Michael J Tildesley; Matt J Keeling; Louise Dyson Journal: PLoS Comput Biol Date: 2022-05-27 Impact factor: 4.779
Authors: Ryusuke Ae; Yoshihide Shibata; Toshiki Furuno; Teppei Sasahara; Yosikazu Nakamura; Hiromichi Hamada Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-06 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Mohammad Masum; M A Masud; Muhaiminul Islam Adnan; Hossain Shahriar; Sangil Kim Journal: Socioecon Plann Sci Date: 2022-01-29 Impact factor: 4.641