Abstract
Background Significant uncertainty exists about the safety of, and best strategies for, reopening colleges and universities while the Covid-19 pandemic is not well-controlled. Little also is known about the effects that on-campus outbreaks may have on local non-student and/or higher-risk communities. Model-based analysis can help inform decision and policy making across a wide range of assumptions and uncertainties.
Objective To evaluate the potential range of campus and community Covid-19 exposures, infections, and mortality due to various university and college reopening plans and precautions.
Methods We developed and calibrated campus-only, community-only, and campus-x-community epidemic models using standard susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered differential equation and agent-based modeling methods. Input parameters for campus and surrounding communities were estimated via published and grey literature, scenario development, expert opinion, Monte Carlo simulation, and accuracy optimization algorithms; models were cross-validated against each other using February-June 2020 county, state, and country data. Campus opening plans (spanning various fully open, hybrid, and fully virtual approaches) were identified from websites, publications, communications, and surveys. All scenarios were simulated assuming 16-week semesters and best/worst case ranges for disease prevalence among community residents and arriving students, precaution compliance, contact frequency, virus attack rates, and tracing and isolation effectiveness. Day-to-day student and community differences in exposures, infections, and mortality were estimated under each scenario as compared to regular and no re-opening; 10% trimmed medians, standard deviations, and probability intervals were computed to omit extreme outlier scenarios. Factorial analyses were conducted to identify inputs with largest and smallest impacts on outcomes.
Results As a base case, predicted 16-week student infections and mortality under normal operaions with no precautions (or no compliance) ranged from 472 to 9,484 (4.7% to 94.8%) and 2 to 61 (0.02% to 0.61%) per 10,000 student population, respectively. In terms of contact tracing and isolation resources, as many as 17 to 1,488 total exposures per 10,000 students could occur on a given day throughout the semester needing to be located, tested, and if warranted quarantined. Attributable total additional predicted community exposures, infections, and mortality ranged from 1 to 187, 13 to 820, and 1 to 21, respectively, assuming the university takes no additional precautions to limit exposure risk. The mean (SD) number of days until 1% and 5% of on-campus students are infected was 11 (3) and 76 (17) days, respectively; 34.8% of replications resulted in more than 10% students infected by semester end. The diffusion first inflection “point of no return” occurred on average on day 84 (+/-20 days, 95% interval). Common re-opening precaution strategies reduced the above consequences by 24% to 26% fewer infections (now 360 to 6,976 per 10,000 students) and 36% to 50% fewer mortalities (now 1 to 39 per 10,000 students). Perfect testing and immediate quarantining of all students on arrival to campus at semester start further reduced infections by 58% to 95% (now 200 to 468 per 10,000 students) and mortalities by 95% to 100% (now 0 to 3 per 10,000 students). Uncertainties in many factors, however, produced tremendous variability in all median estimates, ranging by −67% to +370%.
Conclusions Consequences of re-opening college and university physical campuses on student and community Covid-19 exposures, infections, and mortality are very highly unpredictable, de-pending on a combination of random chance, controllable (e.g. physical layouts), and uncontrollable (e.g. human behavior) factors. Important implications at government and academic institution levels include clear needs for specific criteria to adapt campus operations mid-semester, methods to detect when this is necessary, and well-executed contingency plans for doing so.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation (CMMI-1742521) and National Institute of Drug Abuse (R21DA046776). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not represent official views of the NIH nor NSF.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This was a model-based computational research study.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
No data were used in this study. Source computer code is available from the authors.