Systematic Nomination of COVID-19 Quarantine Facilities

Abstract

This short communication explains the need for a clear method for the selection of COVID-19 quarantine hotels. It also lists available systematic methods that are usable for this aim.

Nomination of COVID-19 Quarantine Facilities

As of 4:18 p.m. CEST on 16 September 2021, there had been 226,236,577 confirmed cases of COVID-19 reported to the World Health Organization, with 4,654,548 deaths [1]. Still, quarantine is a means to limit infection transmission [2,3]. If individuals suspect to have the disease or have recently returned from a risk area, they should stay in quarantine to limit the spread of the virus [4]. However, Masoodi et al. [5] is alarming the global lack of enough skills to establish successful national quarantine facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the time of the outbreak, people have reduced their travels, whether obligatory or voluntary, but still, some visits cannot be fully stopped due to the importance and/or urgency of the traveling motives. Masoodi et al. [5] provide a checklist for quarantine decisions for these inbound travelers, as well as individuals in the community with a probable or verified disease but without a self-isolation possibility, though they missed providing a systematic way for the selection and nomination of these quarantine facilities.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, very few alternative scientific documents on this topic have been published. Quarantine facility is a new practice, mostly government-authorized hotels. They are mandatory places for those who need to stop over for a couple of days before they are allowed to enter the public, though their existence may also be attributable to other direct or indirect objectives, such as research-related concerns. The accommodation charge, if any, should be affordable for all users, also their offered services should be flexible in a considerable domain to satisfy different classes of users. Additionally, since these facilities host people with a likelihood of COVID-19 infection, they need to have essential medical aids plus fast and easy access to hospitals. Their hygiene, isolation, and layout are also important, so the cross-infection becomes minimal. Different countries may have a few other criteria to nominate these places, though very few authorities, if any, have explained their selecting methodology. It can be due to political, economic, and other concerns that some countries kept their COVID-19 quarantine selection process private. The selection of COVID-19 quarantine hotels is a very new concept, and it is still difficult to find relevant empirical studies exploring or even suggesting possible methodologies.

Nonetheless, because the hospitality-related industries are in such a state as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, being recognized as a quarantine hotel is a sure way to revitalize the business. Undoubtedly, in a lack of clear systematic methodologies, there are considerable risks of ineffectiveness, frauds, misuses, and unfairness. Thus, this letter tries to suggest a systematic approach for this listing goal. A mathematical prioritization capable of dealing with conflicting criteria is a solution. In operations research, alternative selection with multi-criteria is the chief aim of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods [6]. They are designed for listing, selection, or filtering sub-standard alternatives with consideration of multiple decision criteria to reach multiple decision objectives [7]. MCDM is concerned with a broad class of issues, including a variety of attributes, criteria, and objectives, as presented with Figure 1 for the case of quarantine facilities selection and with x decision objectives, y decision criteria, and z decision options. While comparable in their ultimate goal of aiding with the final decision-making process, multiple criteria, multiple attribute, and multiple objective analyses diverge in their procedure.

Practitioners divide MCDMs into two multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) and multi-objective decision-making (MODM) categories. Kazimieras et al. [8] explain MADMs focus on problems with discrete decision spaces, and they are in practice connected with issues where a set of decision options exist. The decision-maker must prioritize or select a limited number of options. On the other hand, MODMs naturally involve several competing objectives that must be adapted synchronously, but they may be connected with situations in which the decision options are not predefined.

In fact, MCDMs offer the particular benefit of utilizing many criteria or characteristics to produce a unified statement outcome, even with conflicting decision objectives [9]. MCDMs in complex situations perform better with a panel of decision-making [10,11], even if a group with unbalanced expertise needs to be utilized [11]. This is called group MCDM. Besides, in dealing with decision-making uncertainties, the Fuzzy MCDM is suggested to be used to assess the synthetic performance for the wisest choice alternative solutions, in order to manage subjective and qualitative criteria that are impossible to articulate in discrete values or are with some uncertainty, thus strengthening the generalisability and rationality of the decision-making methodology [12].

Additionally, multiple actors were also given attention in the subsequent development of MCDMs, which was seen to be crucial in its progress. This was later referred to as multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA) [13]. In MAMCA perspectives of different stakeholders should be included in the decision-making mechanism. As a result, for a better outcome, committees composed of at least government representatives, hospitality specialists, scientists, and medical professionals, and psychologists may even be proposed to balance and integrate the various dimensions for dealing with the quarantine facilities selection issue. Hence, fuzzy group MAMCDA (including both MODM and MADM viewpoints) might be capable of proposing the closest facility selection outcome to the ideal. Figure 2 is an improved version of Figure 1 to show a hierarchical structure of the formulated MAMCDA with n panels of actor (where each panel may have different group members, like A, B, C, etc.).

However, because of the nature of this essay, practitioners should perform a supplementary investigation in order to select an accurate technique. An MCDM-related method choice may be influenced by accessible data, decision-making mechanisms, acceptable uncertainty, or other considerations [14]. Nonetheless, a lighter version with the inclusion of the most essential objective, but multi-alternative group decision-making, gives a more user-friendly decision-making process for an urgent decision like quarantine facility selection. MADM methods, such as TOPSIS, VIKOR, ELECTRE, SAW [9], use a trustable systematic procedure of decision-making for rating quarantine facilities while considering a set of defined criteria. The chief objective of the nomination of quarantine facilities is assumed to be the minimization of COVID-19 infection transmission. Within the above approach, and based on the availability of experts, countries may choose their MADM method that relates to systematically assessing and listing preferential hotels for quarantine purposes.

Using MADM methods for decision-making, as explained by Shao et al. [3], typically consists of a few major phases, however, in practice, these phases may not be in this sequence or may crossover. The initial phase is deciding on criteria. This step is a crucial and complicated qualitative process of gathering and setting the criteria that have a particular influence on the nomination of quarantine facilities. Besides, in the second phase, for using MADM methods, governments may announce their facility selection criteria for public awareness. Moreover, all available/alternative hotels and facilities need to be listed. Authorities may develop their own standards and procedures to facilitate a faster decision-making process for phase 1.

The gathering and standardization of data on the criteria is the next phase. These starting data are generated from factual quantifies or/and the decision panel viewpoints. They were, therefore, normalized using such a mathematical normalization procedure before being utilized in numerical computations. When solving real-world issues, the criteria do not have the same level of relevance. Hence, in the next phase, the effect of the various criteria must be defined using suitable weight coefficients. The normalized weights of the criterion are calculated using weighting techniques. Then, after calculations based on the selected MCDM method, the ranking result is further reviewed in the final phase. If the confirmation reveals that the results are valid, the list of nominated quarantine facilities will be announced.

Last but not least, to conclude, this paper could be the start of a future initiative that could have significant societal and economic benefits. However, because this paper is a commentary, facts and arguments are presented here, and they should be expanded upon as the topic progresses.