tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
PLoS One
. 2025 Apr 7;20(4):e0310939.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310939. eCollection 2025. Comparison of COVID-19 testing strategies and costs for professional sports teams: A case study of J. League clubs
Masashi Kamo[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Michio Murakami[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Wataru Naito[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Tetsuo Yasutaka[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Seiya Imoto[SUP] 4 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Professional sports teams are entertainment groups that earn income through performances, and they recognize that efforts to prevent the within-team spread of infection that could lead to performance cancellation are important. Infectious disease control involves several costs, some of which are in a trade-off relationship. For example, frequent testing can reduce the spread of infection, but it also leads to increased costs. On the other hand, limiting the number of tests can reduce testing costs, but it increases the revenue loss from players becoming infected and the loss from canceling games. Therefore, a methodology that strikes a reasonable balance between the cost of control measures and the risk of infection is needed. The relationship between infection control measures and the number of infected individuals was investigated through simulations using the susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered (SEIR) model. Two types of testing scenarios as control measures were principally considered: rapid antigen testing or the slower PCR testing (regular-testing scenarios); and regular testing with more frequent, additional testing after the appearance of an infected individual (additional-testing scenarios). Testing fees, revenue loss due to player or staff inactivity as a result of infection, and expenses for postponement or cancelation of matches were considered as costs. Regular antigen testing was found to be more effective than PCR testing in reducing the number of infected individuals and associated costs. There are two main reasons why antigen testing was more efficient: It is less expensive than PCR testing; and the results are available sooner (immediately, versus at least a day of waiting time for the PCR results). This was shown to markedly reduce the number of infected individuals.
. 2025 Apr 7;20(4):e0310939.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310939. eCollection 2025. Comparison of COVID-19 testing strategies and costs for professional sports teams: A case study of J. League clubs
Masashi Kamo[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Michio Murakami[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Wataru Naito[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Tetsuo Yasutaka[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Seiya Imoto[SUP] 4 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 40193361
- DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310939
Professional sports teams are entertainment groups that earn income through performances, and they recognize that efforts to prevent the within-team spread of infection that could lead to performance cancellation are important. Infectious disease control involves several costs, some of which are in a trade-off relationship. For example, frequent testing can reduce the spread of infection, but it also leads to increased costs. On the other hand, limiting the number of tests can reduce testing costs, but it increases the revenue loss from players becoming infected and the loss from canceling games. Therefore, a methodology that strikes a reasonable balance between the cost of control measures and the risk of infection is needed. The relationship between infection control measures and the number of infected individuals was investigated through simulations using the susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered (SEIR) model. Two types of testing scenarios as control measures were principally considered: rapid antigen testing or the slower PCR testing (regular-testing scenarios); and regular testing with more frequent, additional testing after the appearance of an infected individual (additional-testing scenarios). Testing fees, revenue loss due to player or staff inactivity as a result of infection, and expenses for postponement or cancelation of matches were considered as costs. Regular antigen testing was found to be more effective than PCR testing in reducing the number of infected individuals and associated costs. There are two main reasons why antigen testing was more efficient: It is less expensive than PCR testing; and the results are available sooner (immediately, versus at least a day of waiting time for the PCR results). This was shown to markedly reduce the number of infected individuals.