Innovate and Stockpile: Respiratory Protection for Essential Workers in a Catastrophic Pandemic

Montazeri, Nadia Xenia; Sandbrink, Jonas B.

doi:10.1089/hs.2022.0126

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a scenario where a pathogen causes sufficiently severe disease such that most people adopt social distancing, essential workers might choose not to work because of fear of infection. Frequent testing of essential workers and people they interact with could dramatically improve their safety (in addition to other important safety measures like effective PPE [36]), and reduce the probability of infecting their family, which could increase the number willing to continue working [37].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhanced testing can substantially improve defence against several types of respiratory virus pandemic

Petrie,

Hay,

Srimokla

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mass testing to identify and isolate infected individuals is a promising approach for reducing harm from the next acute respiratory virus pandemic, potentially avoiding the need for indiscriminate social distancing measures whilst averting hospitalizations and deaths. To understand scenarios where mass testing might or might not be a viable intervention, here we modelled how effectiveness depends both on characteristics of the pathogen (R0, time to peak viral load) and on the testing strategy (limit of detection, testing frequency, test turnaround time, adherence). We base time-dependent test sensitivity and time-dependent infectiousness on an underlying viral load trajectory model. We show that given moderately high public adherence, achievable frequent testing can prevent as many transmissions as more costly interventions such as school or business closures. With very high adherence and fast, frequent, and more sensitive testing, we show that most respiratory virus pandemics could be controlled with mass testing alone.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%