Ashleigh R Tuite1, David N Fisman2, Amy L Greer2. 1. Dalla Lana School of Public Health (Tuite, Fisman), University of Toronto, Ont.; Department of Population Medicine (Greer), University of Guelph, Guelph, Ont. ashleigh.tuite@utoronto.ca. 2. Dalla Lana School of Public Health (Tuite, Fisman), University of Toronto, Ont.; Department of Population Medicine (Greer), University of Guelph, Guelph, Ont.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical-distancing interventions are being used in Canada to slow the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, but it is not clear how effective they will be. We evaluated how different nonpharmaceutical interventions could be used to control the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and reduce the burden on the health care system. METHODS: We used an age-structured compartmental model of COVID-19 transmission in the population of Ontario, Canada. We compared a base case with limited testing, isolation and quarantine to scenarios with the following: enhanced case finding, restrictive physical-distancing measures, or a combination of enhanced case finding and less restrictive physical distancing. Interventions were either implemented for fixed durations or dynamically cycled on and off, based on projected occupancy of intensive care unit (ICU) beds. We present medians and credible intervals from 100 replicates per scenario using a 2-year time horizon. RESULTS: We estimated that 56% (95% credible interval 42%-63%) of the Ontario population would be infected over the course of the epidemic in the base case. At the epidemic peak, we projected 107 000 (95% credible interval 60 760-149 000) cases in hospital (non-ICU) and 55 500 (95% credible interval 32 700-75 200) cases in ICU. For fixed-duration scenarios, all interventions were projected to delay and reduce the height of the epidemic peak relative to the base case, with restrictive physical distancing estimated to have the greatest effect. Longer duration interventions were more effective. Dynamic interventions were projected to reduce the proportion of the population infected at the end of the 2-year period and could reduce the median number of cases in ICU below current estimates of Ontario's ICU capacity. INTERPRETATION: Without substantial physical distancing or a combination of moderate physical distancing with enhanced case finding, we project that ICU resources would be overwhelmed. Dynamic physical distancing could maintain health-system capacity and also allow periodic psychological and economic respite for populations.
BACKGROUND: Physical-distancing interventions are being used in Canada to slow the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, but it is not clear how effective they will be. We evaluated how different nonpharmaceutical interventions could be used to control the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and reduce the burden on the health care system. METHODS: We used an age-structured compartmental model of COVID-19 transmission in the population of Ontario, Canada. We compared a base case with limited testing, isolation and quarantine to scenarios with the following: enhanced case finding, restrictive physical-distancing measures, or a combination of enhanced case finding and less restrictive physical distancing. Interventions were either implemented for fixed durations or dynamically cycled on and off, based on projected occupancy of intensive care unit (ICU) beds. We present medians and credible intervals from 100 replicates per scenario using a 2-year time horizon. RESULTS: We estimated that 56% (95% credible interval 42%-63%) of the Ontario population would be infected over the course of the epidemic in the base case. At the epidemic peak, we projected 107 000 (95% credible interval 60 760-149 000) cases in hospital (non-ICU) and 55 500 (95% credible interval 32 700-75 200) cases in ICU. For fixed-duration scenarios, all interventions were projected to delay and reduce the height of the epidemic peak relative to the base case, with restrictive physical distancing estimated to have the greatest effect. Longer duration interventions were more effective. Dynamic interventions were projected to reduce the proportion of the population infected at the end of the 2-year period and could reduce the median number of cases in ICU below current estimates of Ontario's ICU capacity. INTERPRETATION: Without substantial physical distancing or a combination of moderate physical distancing with enhanced case finding, we project that ICU resources would be overwhelmed. Dynamic physical distancing could maintain health-system capacity and also allow periodic psychological and economic respite for populations.
Authors: Marc Lipsitch; Ted Cohen; Ben Cooper; James M Robins; Stefan Ma; Lyn James; Gowri Gopalakrishna; Suok Kai Chew; Chorh Chuan Tan; Matthew H Samore; David Fisman; Megan Murray Journal: Science Date: 2003-05-23 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Neil M Ferguson; Derek A T Cummings; Christophe Fraser; James C Cajka; Philip C Cooley; Donald S Burke Journal: Nature Date: 2006-04-26 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Stephen M Kissler; Christine Tedijanto; Yonatan H Grad; Marc Lipsitch; Edward Goldstein Journal: Science Date: 2020-04-14 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Joel R Koo; Alex R Cook; Minah Park; Yinxiaohe Sun; Haoyang Sun; Jue Tao Lim; Clarence Tam; Borame L Dickens Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2020-03-23 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Adam J Kucharski; Timothy W Russell; Charlie Diamond; Yang Liu; John Edmunds; Sebastian Funk; Rosalind M Eggo Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2020-03-11 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Nick H Ogden; Aamir Fazil; Julien Arino; Philippe Berthiaume; David N Fisman; Amy L Greer; Antoinette Ludwig; Victoria Ng; Ashleigh R Tuite; Patricia Turgeon; Lisa A Waddell; Jianhong Wu Journal: Can Commun Dis Rep Date: 2020-06-04
Authors: Victoria Ng; Aamir Fazil; Lisa A Waddell; Christina Bancej; Patricia Turgeon; Ainsley Otten; Nicole Atchessi; Nicholas H Ogden Journal: CMAJ Date: 2020-08-09 Impact factor: 8.262