Preliminary Research on a COVID-19 Test Strategy to Guide Quarantine Interval in University Students
, Tyler Gayheart 4, Lance Poston 5, Eric Monday 6, Derek Forster 2, Elizabeth Belcher 3, Rani Jaiswal 3, J. Kirsten Turner 5, Donna K. Arnett 7, Eric B. Durbin 2,3, Joseph Monroe 8, Frank Romanelli 1, Susanne M. Arnold 2, C. Darrell Jennings 2, Heidi Weiss 2 and Robert DiPaola 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Very interesting article on the adequacy of the duration of the quarantine and the possibility of shortening it. Undoubtedly, the 14-day period of quarantine is a mentally difficult period for people (especially young, professionally and socially active people) and also carries economic costs for the society.
I have a few comments:
In the description of the research group, the total number of university students can be added, which would give an idea of the scale of COVID incidence in the study unit (741 students seems to be a large number but need to compared with total numer of students). Maybe even data on the development of the epidemic across the state? Did the applied measures of counteraction in the form of quarantine improve the situation?
The final number of participants (101 is given but in Table 1 the numbers add up to 99, for example in the description of the sex of the respondents) is not very large (even when compared to all infected). Perhaps, then, in the title of the work one should add - "preliminary research"?
The nasopharyngeal swab on days 3 or 4, 5, 7, 10 and 14 of the quarantine period is very proper, the students showed good willingness to cooperate.
What was the supervision of the quarantine of students like? One of the co-authors is from the Police Department - was this department involved in upholding quarantine discipline? (Unfortunately, in many countries there are known violations of quarantine requirements).
Despite these comments, I find the work interesting and important in the discussion on COVID-19.
Author Response
Thank-you for your insightful comments which have improved this manuscript.
Reviewer comment 1: Include total number of students
Author response 1: This was included as the first sentance of results
Reviewer comment 2: Development of epidemic across state
Author response comment 2: This would be very interesting to include. Unfortunately we are not able to determine precisely what the pandemic situation was during the time frame studied. No changes were made
Reviewer comment 3: Did this impact quarantine across the state?
Author response 3: Another excellent point. Unfortunately we did not collect that data. No change was made.
Reviewer comment 4: Add preliminary work to the title
Author response 4: revised as suggested
Reviewer comment 5: 101 versus 99 students.
Author response 5: 101 were enrolled but 2 withdrew and we had no data. A footnote was added to Table 1 detailing this
Reviewer comment 6: Role of Capt Ramsey
Author response 6: Quarantines were not enforced by the police department, however the office of police assisted with infrastructure (buildings and personnel) for COVID testing. No changes were made.
Reviewer 2 Report
Congratulations, the subject of this study is very relevant, however, the presentation of the manuscript must be improved. Please, see my comments in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank-you for your comprehensive review of our manuscript.
Reviewer comment 1: Spell out CDC
Author response 1: Revised as suggested
Reviewer comment 1: Spell out CDC
Author response 1: Revised as suggested
Reviewer comment 2: Spell out PCR
Author response 2: Revised as suggested
Reviewer comment 3: Do not say "we"
Author response 3: Revised as suggested
Reviewer comment 4: italicize p values
Author response 4: Revised as suggested
Reviewer comment 5: Add key words
Author response 5: Revised as suggested
Reviewer comment 6: Spell out CDC
Author response 6: Revised as suggested
Reviewer comment 7: Spell clarify dates
Author response 7: Revised as September 24
Reviewer comment 8: change "were" to "was"
Author response 8: we feel "were" is grammatically correct, no change made
Reviewer comment 9: Spell out four
Author response 9: Revised as suggested
Reviewer comment 10: Remove "%"
Author response 10: Revised as suggested
Reviewer comment 11: Spell out START
Author response 11: Revised as suggested
Reviewer comment 12: Spell out IRB
Author response 12: Revised as suggested
Reviewer comment 13: Spell out NAAT
Author response 13: Revised as suggested
Reviewer comment 14: re-format references
Author response 1: Revised as suggested
