Mobility restrictions for the control of epidemics: When do they work?

BACKGROUND: Mobility restrictions-trade and travel bans, border closures and, in extreme cases, area quarantines or cordons sanitaires-are among the most widely used measures to control infectious diseases. Restrictions of this kind were important in the response to epidemics of SARS (2003), H1N1 influenza (2009), Ebola (2014) and, currently in the containment of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. However, they do not always work as expected.
METHODS: To determine when mobility restrictions reduce the size of an epidemic, we use a model of disease transmission within and between economically heterogeneous locally connected communities. One community comprises a low-risk, low-density population with access to effective medical resources. The other comprises a high-risk, high-density population without access to effective medical resources.
FINDINGS: Unrestricted mobility between the two risk communities increases the number of secondary cases in the low-risk community but reduces the overall epidemic size. By contrast, the imposition of a cordon sanitaire around the high-risk community reduces the number of secondary infections in the low-risk community but increases the overall epidemic size.
INTERPRETATION: Mobility restrictions may not be an effective policy for controlling the spread of an infectious disease if it is assessed by the overall final epidemic size. Patterns of mobility established through the independent mobility and trade decisions of people in both communities may be sufficient to contain epidemics.

Introduction

The 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic, the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic, the 2014 West African Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) epidemic and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, provide constant reminders that the rapidity and extent of the spread of infectious disease depends on patterns of human mobility. Pre-existing patterns of trade and travel determine the routes along which diseases may potentially spread [1], and set the baseline against which health authorities decide when and where to impose, travel restrictions, to close borders or, in extreme cases, to establish area quarantines cordons sanitaires.

Mobility restrictions have a long history. Examples of the use of cordons sanitaires include measures to stop the bubonic plague (1666) [2], yellow fever (1793, 1821, 1882) [3], and cholera (1830, 1884) [4]. In many such cases, mobility restrictions have involved the deployment of physical barriers secured by armed forces. The implementation of such measures not only infringes the rights of people, but can be both cumbersome and expensive [5, 6]. In some cases, mobility restrictions for disease control have had catastrophic side effects [7, 8].

Nor are mobility restrictions always successful in the control of the disease [9]. One example is the cordon sanitaire implemented during the 2014 EVD epidemic in West Africa, in which 28,600 cases resulted in more than 11,000 deaths, [10]. The cordon sanitaire was applied to the area containing, at the time, more than 70% of the epidemic in an effort to contain the spread of the disease [11]. Travel restrictions produced a humanitarian crisis within the quarantined region. Disruption of the food transportation system led to food shortages, while lack of appropriate health care increased the risk of infection [12]. Lack of mobility and growing levels of infection resulted in an increasing (effective) reproduction number over time, and therefore also in the number of EVD cases. Indeed, the data suggest that mobility restrictions may have accelerated the contagion process, and therefore led to a higher than expected number of cases within the mobility-regulated region [9, 13, 14].

Mobility restrictions both within and between countries have been an important part of the response to the ongoing COVID-19 epidemic [15]. The pandemic started in Wuhan where Chinese authorities identified a new zoonotic disease (initially called 2019-nCoV) as the cause of dozens of pneumonia cases. By January 11, the first fatal victim of COVID-19 was reported in China [16]. A week later, the first cases outside China were reported in Japan, South Korea, Thailand and the US. By January 21, the cities of Wuhan, Huanggang, Shiyan, and Xiaogan, had been officially placed under severe travel restrictions, [17]. A few days later, the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed that COVID-19 is transmissible among humans [18] and, the World Health Organization officially declared a “public health emergency of international concern”. More countries initiated national and international travel restrictions. Despite these efforts, the virus had been transmitted, via international travel, to 13 countries around the world by the end of the month. By February 10, COVID-19 had already caused more than the 900 deaths reported in the SARS outbreak [19]. By the end of May global cases exceeded 5.5 million, the case mortality rate being over 6 percent.

The question we pose in this paper is when mobility restrictions are an effective means of disease control in neighboring communities? Not surprisingly, the answer depends on the dimensions of the epidemic that the restrictions are intended to control. The impact of travel restrictions on disease risk has previously been analyzed both theoretically [20, 21], and empirically (using, for example, data on the impact of international air travel restrictions on disease spread during the 2009 Swine flu pandemic [22, 23] and the 2014 Ebola outbreak [24, 25]). Most studies of travel restrictions have focused on the role of restrictions on the rate of spread, and have shown that travel restrictions can slow the rate at which a disease spreads from the source of infection. Studies of the role of mobility restrictions in controlling other dimensions of epidemics, such as duration, or final size in individuals communities and across communities, are less common. We seek to understand the implications of mobility restrictions for the location of secondary infections relative to the availability and quality of health care. That is, we wish to quantify the role of mobility restrictions in controlling both local and global numbers of secondary cases—both local and global final epidemic sizes. To do this, we develop a two-community model in which the communities are connected through the movement of people. We model the time spent by individuals within each community, and use this to study the dynamics of infectious disease under multiple mobility regimes. The model keeps track of individuals’ place of residency through the incorporation, via a residency time matrix, of the proportion of time spent by the resident in his/her own community (a Lagrangian approach). The balance of the time available is assumed to be spent as a visitor in the second community. Individuals’ place of residency is tracked over time, allowing us to assess the community-specific impact of mobility restrictions on both the global disease dynamics [26]. The approach presumes that the risk of acquiring an infectious disease in a particular location is proportional to the time spent there, weighted by a location-specific infection likelihood. Since residency times are measurable, Lagrangian models may be estimated using appropriate data [27, 28].

The two communities in our model are assumed to be differentiated by socio-economic conditions such as income, wealth, public health infrastructure, and disease risk. One community faces a high-risk of infection, the other faces a low-risk of infection. We then use the model to assess disease control via mobility restrictions between the two communities. We use COVID-19 as our model disease, but note that our results hold for a range of disease types [13, 29, 30].

We test the effect of differing mobility levels on the final epidemic size, and find that, in some conditions, both “intermediate” and “high” mobility levels may reduce the overall final epidemic size. Indeed, in extreme cases removing all restrictions on mobility levels may be sufficient to control an outbreak. The implication is that tight mobility restrictions can, in some conditions, increase the overall level of infection, while weak mobility restrictions can have the opposite effect. We identify two mobility thresholds. One is the level of mobility needed to do better than the cordon sanitaire. The second is the level of mobility needed to control the disease. We test the sensitivity of our findings to variation in population density ratios, and to community-specific risks of infection.

Methods

Disease dynamics in homogeneous risk communities

We model a single outbreak of COVID-19. We assume that this occurs over a short enough time span that we can ignore demographic processes. While we are ultimately interested in the impact of mobility controls on disease spread, and mortality, we first consider disease dynamics in a single community. The population of interest is structured by individuals’ health states: susceptible (S), exposed and possibly infectious individuals (E), symptomatic infectious and undiagnosed individuals (I), diagnosed cases (J), disease-induced deaths (D) and recovered individuals (R). Susceptible individuals move to the exposed compartment at rate through “effective” contacts with either infected individuals, exposed individuals at a reduced transmission q < 1 and, diagnosed individuals at a limited transmission l < 1. Exposed individuals spend on average days on the latency state. After the latency period, individuals become infectious (I) and either, recovers after days, are diagnosed on average after days or dies after days. Fig 1 shows a schematic representation of System (1), which mathematically describes population transitions through the COVID-19 disease states with Table 1 collecting the parameter descriptions and values used in simulations. We calibrate our model with parameters extracted from the literature. Where particular parameters are unavailable, we apply parameters estimated for the 2003 SARS outbreak [31] as COVID-19 proxies.

Fig 1

Single community COVID-19 disease dynamics.

The rates associated with the pathways are included in Table 1.

Table 1

Parameters of the single community COVID-19 model.

Parameter	Description	Value	Ref
β	Transmission rate per day	0.6	[32, 33]
κ	Progression rate to symptomatic infectious	1/5	[34]
α	Progression rate from infectious to quarantine	1/3	[31]
γ1	Infectious individuals recovery rate	1/8	[31]
γ2	Diagnosed individuals recovery rate	1/5	[31]
q	Reduced infectiousness for the exposed class E	0.1	[31]
l	Reduced infectiousness for diagnosed cases J	0.38	[31]
δ	COVID-19-induced mortality per day	0.02	[35]

Disease dynamics in heterogeneous communities a Lagrangian approach

Now consider disease dynamics involving two communities. We employ a Lagrangian approach, which uses a residency time matrix to track mobility between the two communities. The model incorporates the average proportion of time that individuals spend in each community as elements of the matrix , where p ≥ 0 are assumed to be constant over time. The Lagrangian perspective allows us to assess the impact of population mobility on overall disease dynamics, [13, 26, 27].

The global population of interest comprises the two linked communities, each of which is assumed to face distinct levels of COVID-19 infection risk. Differences in infection risk are captured by a single parameter (β) acting on the community effective population size. We recognize that human behavior is an important determinant of disease dynamics, and that behavior differs across environments, either ameliorating or exacerbating the impact of the local risk of infection on visitors. Moreover, we also recognize that the risk of infection is strongly influenced by community-specific characteristics that alter local and global disease dynamics. It is assumed that the community-specific infection risk reflects community attributes that include income, education, health-care access, cultural practices, and so on. In the absence of mobility, the high-risk community (HRC) is assumed to be capable of sustaining the disease () while the low-risk community (LRC) is assumed to be capable of effectively eradicating the disease in isolation, (). The model is calibrated by extracting parameters from the literature, including some of the parameters in [31] as a proxy for the COVID-19 disease dynamics. The detailed model formulation, computation of the community-specific and global basic reproductive numbers obtained using the next generation approach [36, 37], and calculation of the final size of community-specific and global epidemics, can be found in the S1 Appendix.

Results: Disease control through mobility restrictions

In order to understand the conditions under which mobility restrictions may be effective, we explore the impact of mobility between the two communities, HRC and LRC, on the final epidemic size. We focus on the conditioning effects of differences in population density and infection risk. Intuitively, one would expect that movement of infected and infectious individuals to a region consisting only of susceptible individuals would increase the overall final epidemic size. However, if the infected individuals move to a region having better sanitary conditions, an increase in the number of secondary infections in the LRC may be offset by a reduction in the number of secondary infections in the HRC.

Fig 2A depicts the community-specific and combined final epidemic sizes as a function of the average proportion of time that HRC residents spend in LRC, denoted by t1. The scenario highlighted in Fig 2A corresponds to [32, 38, 39], and . Since individuals from the LRC are assumed to avoid the HRC, we assume that the proportion of time that LRC residents spend in the HRC, (t2), is zero. Taking the final epidemic size corresponding to the most extreme form of mobility restriction, the cordon sanitaire, as a baseline (t1 = 0, dashed gray line), we see that low mobility levels (t1 < 0.4) increase the total final epidemic size relative to the cordon sanitaire, but that moderate mobility levels (t1 > 0.4) reduce the total final epidemic size below the cordon sanitaire. Indeed, “high” levels of mobility in a single direction (t1 > 0.75) can lead to the control of an ongoing outbreak. That is, there exists threshold level of mobility associated with disease persistence condition in the two communities [26].

Fig 2

Patch-specific, global final size and global basic reproductive number in the presence of HRC mobility.

(A) Community specific and total final epidemic size with unidirectional mobility (t2 = 0). (B) Global for different LRC risk scenarios, ( and 0.9), with unidirectional mobility (t2 = 0).

We identify two thresholds: the level of mobility required to reduce the total final size below the cordon sanitaire scenario (), and the level of mobility needed to control a disease outbreak in the whole system (). The second threshold gives the levels of mobility needed for the global basic reproductive number () to fall below 1. Particularly, is seen to capture the trade off between diminishing cases in the HRC and increases in the number of infected individuals in the LRC.

Fig 2B shows the threshold beyond which unidirectional mobility can control the outbreak, as a function of LRC risk of infection. We see that mobility above t1 = 0.72, supports a global less than one, leading to a final epidemic size near zero. It is worth observing that the curves in Fig 2B do not converge to at the extreme value t1 = 1, this is because our two communities model is asymmetric (due, for example, to the local management of diagnosed individuals).

Fig 3 shows the total attack rate (proportion of infected population) under unidirectional mobility, for different LRC risks of infection. Particularly that both empirical thresholds described by and are highly sensitive to the risk of infection in LRC. One might therefore conclude that improvements in LRC sanitary conditions plays a dual role: reducing the overall number of secondary infections, and relaxing the mobility conditions required to manage an epidemic on the overall system (if such a policy can be put in place). It also suggests the possibility of using economic incentives to promote appropriate mobility patterns during health emergencies.

Fig 3

Total attack rate under differential LRC risk levels.

The mobility thresholds and are highly sensitive to , under one-way mobility and .

Fig 4 shows the impact of mobility from the HRC on the effectiveness of a cordon sanitaire given conditions in LRC. The conditions in which the total attack rate increases or decreases with mobility may be summarized as follows:

Fig 4

Cordon Sanitaire effectiveness as a function of LRC risk of infection.

(A) The cordon sanitaire mobility threshold as a function of HRC mobility defines values for which the cordon sanitaire is recommended, conditionally recommended or not recommended. (B) HRC traveling time reduces or increases the total attack rate as a function of the LRC risk of infection, ().

For a “highly safe” LRC, (), all mobility levels from the HRC are beneficial. That is, the total attack rate monotonically decreases as t1 increases. Hence, implementation of a cordon sanitare under this scenario is the worst possible decision.

Given an “intermediately safe” LRC, (), depending on mobility levels, the total attack rate either increases or decreases. Therefore, under these scenarios, the cordon sanitaire is effective provided that mobility levels required to reduce the total attack rate are not attainable. In other words, the cordon sanitaire is recommended whenever mobility from the HRC is below . Fig 4A shows the mobility levels for which the cordon sanitaire is recommended, for same populations densities and .

For an “unsafe” LRC (), all mobility levels increase the total attack rate. In these scenarios, even when LRC is considerably safer than HRC, the reduced risk of infection is not enough to produce an overall benefit in terms of the total number of infections. Therefore, in these scenarios the cordon sanitaire is an effective control strategy.

In short, the cordon sanitaire does not always reduce the overall number of infected individuals, while our simulations suggest that under specific risk and mobility conditions it might have a detrimental effect. In the simplest scenario of two equally dense communities, the cordon sanitaire’s effectiveness is determined by the LRC risk of infection.

Fig 5 shows the curves of the total attack rate at the cordon sanitaire level in the () plane for the community population density ratios given by, . The impact of this ratio is explored when and , corresponding to the regions where the cordon sanitaire conditionally works, which turn out to be sensitive to the ratio of population density in the LRC relative to the HRC. The risk-mobility conditions correspond to regions where the cordon sanitaire is not effective, independent of population density.

Fig 5

Cordon sanitaire level curves for population density ratios and .

The higher the HRC population size, the minimum mobility level required to drop the total attack rate below the cordon sanitaire under unidirectional mobility from the HRC.

It follows that implementation of a cordon sanitaire should depend on the specific attributes of the communities of interest. The state of the health care system in the safer community is critical to the effectiveness of a mobility ban.

The simulations reported in Fig 6 shows that mobility, combined with “good” enough sanitary conditions in the safe community, may be enough to stop an outbreak. For the model calibrated on data from the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan (), we see that “high” mobility by itself can lead to a global basic reproductive number below the critical threshold, even when is slightly greater than one. It is important to observe that in the polar case of a completely safe LRC (), if mobility of the HRC is to control the outbreak, residents of the HRC need to spend at least 60% of their time in the LRC.

Fig 6

Global basic reproductive number level curve in the plane .

Unidirectional mobility from HRC can eradicate a COVID-19 outbreak, ( and, N1 = N2).

We recognize that high levels of mobility also impose costs. Aside from the cost of treating infected non-residents, some fraction of the LRC residents will become infected. High levels of mobility of infected individuals from the HRC would increase morbidity in the LRC, while reducing morbidity for the integrated communities. Symmetrically, low levels of mobility of infected individuals from the HRC would reduce morbidity in the LRC, while increasing morbidity for the integrated communities. Which outcome is preferred depends on the health authority’s objectives. We return to this issue in the discussion.

Discussion and concluding remarks

A common feature of the global response to COVID-19 has been the use of mobility restrictions within and between countries. Mobility restrictions include a wide variety of controls, ranging from partial restrictions on non-commercial cross-border traffic to heavily-policed stay-at-home orders, and strict area quarantines or cordons sanitaires. The research reported in this paper is motivated by the fact that the more extreme mobility restrictions, in addition to imposing high economic costs on the communities affected, have often had undesirable epidemiological consequences. By isolating high-risk from low-risk areas, area quarantines have often increased rather than reduced the final overall epidemic size, [9, 14]. This raises the question of when mobility restrictions are helpful in the management of infectious disease outbreaks.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a great deal of concern has been expressed about the economic costs of disease control—the effect on employment, output, public sector borrowing, trade, and the like. While the costs of disease and disease control are critically important to the identification of an optimal public health response, in this paper we focus on an epidemiological question. Specifically, we consider when mobility restrictions between two neighboring communities increase the final overall epidemic size, and when they do not. In [13], it was shown that cordons sanitaires would not always minimize the total final epidemic size, but the conditions in which this result held were left unexplored. Here we focus on the conditions under which mobility restrictions may be effective in minimizing the overall number of secondary infections in two neighboring highly heterogeneous communities.

We find that the lower the relative mobility of people in the high-risk community, the larger the overall final epidemic size; and the lower the relative mobility of people in the low-risk community, the smaller the overall final epidemic size. In the limiting case, when people in the low-risk community are immobile and people in the high-risk community are mobile, allowing unrestricted mobility from the HRC will lead to the elimination of the disease. Our simulations show that limiting the mobility of people in low-risk communities may or may not increase the expected overall final epidemic size, which is a function of the differences in risk. While there exist scenarios in which the overall production of secondary cases increases with mobility, so increasing the overall final epidemic size, we find that if the low-risk community has a strong enough response to infections, then unrestricted mobility between low- and high-risk communities may reduce and even break transmission chains in the high-risk community. By exporting secondary cases of infection into the low-risk community, the overall production of secondary cases may be reduced. This aspect of the disease risks of mobility control has not previously been studied.

To put these findings into a wider health policy context, note that even if mobility between high- and low-risk neighborhoods does reduce the overall final epidemic size, it increases the low-risk community-specific epidemic size, and decreases the high-risk community-specific epidemic size. People moving to the low-risk community generate fewer secondary cases than if they were to remain in the high-risk community, but the total number of secondary cases in the low-risk community goes up. The residence time of non-residents in the low-risk community needed to produce a beneficial effect also depends on relative population densities in the two areas. If population density is higher in the low-risk community, and if the epidemic cannot be contained in that community (), mobility restrictions can be effective. On the other hand, if population density is higher in the high-risk community, then movement from the high-risk to the low-risk community is likely to reduce the final overall epidemic size. The local risks of infection () implicitly define a set of mobility thresholds beyond which an epidemic is mathematically not sustainable, regardless of relative population densities.

The important result here is that, from the perspective of the global community, mobility restrictions may not be the most effective policy for controlling the spread of an infectious disease if it is assessed by the overall final epidemic size. Patterns of mobility established through the independent mobility and trade decisions of people in both communities may be sufficient to contain epidemics. For the particular case considered here—where the two communities are distinguished by health care systems that lead to differences in the level of infection risk—an increase in the mobility of people residing in the high-risk area may lead to epidemics of shorter duration and smaller size. Since this is the natural response of people facing infectious disease risk, it is worth considering why mobility restrictions up to and including area quarantine are so common.

One explanation may be that low-risk communities place a greater weight on containing risk to themselves than on reducing risk overall. That is, the criterion by which they judge the effectiveness of a disease control policy is not the overall final epidemic size, but the community-specific epidemic size. If the high- and low-risk communities are differentiated by jurisdiction, ethnicity, culture, income, and wealth in addition to the quality of health care, they may be less likely to weight risk-reduction the same in both communities. Our findings abstract from differences in the weights attaching to community-specific disease risk. We suppose that there is a single health authority whose aim is to minimize overall disease risk. But if there are multiple health authorities, each representing a different community, or a different jurisdiction, this is not realistic. Nor is it realistic if there is a single health authority, but it is more responsive to one community than another.

The evidence suggests that COVID-19 is overwhelmingly being addressed from the perspective of area-specific risk. Disease control measures are aimed less at reducing the final epidemic size than at containing the disease in particular areas. Our results hold at scales where the traveling population size is comparable to the community population—we address disease dynamics exhibited at the scale of inter-community transmission. Within individual countries there are examples of regions governed by a single health authority but including dramatic differences in living conditions. The Brazilian communities in Rio de Janeiro also known as the “favelas”; the Primrose area neighboring the Makause settlement in Johannesburg, South Africa; the slum populations of Mumbai, India; the Santa Fe neighborhood in Mexico City, Mexico; and the New York neighborhoods of Queens, Brooklyn and Manhattan in the USA are all examples of areas where dramatic differences in living conditions coexist within a single public health area. In such cases, disease control might be motivated by the final epidemic size across communities. Internationally, however, it is clear that disease control is aimed at the final epidemic size within and not across nation states. In such cases, while the use of mobility restrictions to control disease in particular jurisdictions might increase the overall final epidemic size, it can still lower the country-specific final epidemic size.

Making informed decisions on the efficacy of mobility restrictions up to and including cordons sanitaires depends on our ability to estimate infection risk in different areas, but it also requires clarity on the question of risk to whom. Where we are able to assess the risks in different areas and different constituencies [28], a Lagrangian approach to the analysis of mobility between them can lead to more effective use of mobility as a disease control mechanism.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

12 May 2020

PONE-D-20-09885

Mobility restrictions for the control of epidemics: When do they work?

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Espinoza,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 26 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Chris T. Bauch, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please upload a copy of Figures 1 to 4, to which you refer in your text. If the figures are no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to them within the text.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: First, the figures need to be made according to the standards of PLOS one. For instance, some figures have no axis-labels and not tick labels. Please revise all graphs.

Second, while the supporting information are not part of the main text, but they provide an important part of the manuscript and I find it replete of mathematical typos that makes it difficult to read and might affect the quality of the paper. Please revise it carefully.

While the results of the manuscript are computationally sound, I find the authors mention sanitation, trade and culture difference in many places in the manuscript while they are not explicitly incorporated in the model. Lack of their incorporation leads me to find that the results are not surprising to some degree. The reason is that the authors, assume that when an individual from one community spends some time in the other community,he/she will have the undergo the transmission rate of the new community. That is counter to the statement of the influence of personal sanitation (since it is face-to-face transmission) and culture influence as they will not change over small periods of time and if they do, they will be carried over to the other community. Thus, that would lead mathematically to a force of infection on those individuals and, for instance, smaller size of epidemics in the HRC's. More explicit modeling might be required to clear that up.

Reviewer #2: Please find comments to the author attached.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: PaperReview_tex.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

3 Jun 2020

We carefully reviewed each of the comments made by the reviewers and made edits to the manuscript. The

comments and suggestions made by the reviewers addressed key aspects of our study, we feel that our manuscript

is much improved now and we thank the reviewers for their helpful comments. We have addressed each point and

made changes to our manuscript in blue. The reviewer’s comments are addressed below.

- Comments from journal:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE’s style requirements, including those for file

naming.

Response: Thank you. We made edits to the manuscript to ensure that it holds PLOS ONE’s journal

standards.

2. Please upload a copy of Figures 1 to 4, to which you refer in your text. If the figures are no longer to

be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to them within the text.

Response: Thank you. We have edited all the figures according to the PLOS ONE’s journal standards.

- Comments from reviewer #1:

1. First, the figures need to be made according to the standards of PLOS one. For instance, some figures

have no axis-labels and not tick labels. Please revise all graphs.

Response: Thank you. We have edited all the figures according to the PLOS ONE’s journal standards.

2. Second, while the supporting information are not part of the main text, but they provide an important

part of the manuscript and I find it replete of mathematical typos that makes it difficult to read and

might affect the quality of the paper. Please revise it carefully.

Response: Thank you for the comment. We have reviewed the formulas and fixed the typos in the

SI Appendix. In addition we decided to move the section “Disease Dynamics in Homogeneous Risk

Communities” to the body of the manuscript since we think the it complements the structure of the

main text.

3. While the results of the manuscript are computationally sound, I find the authors mention sanitation,

trade and culture difference in many places in the manuscript while they are not explicitly incorporated

in the model. Lack of their incorporation leads me to find that the results are not surprising to some

degree. The reason is that the authors, assume that when an individual from one community spends

some time in the other community, he/she will have the undergo the transmission rate of the new community.

That is counter to the statement of the influence of personal sanitation (since it is face-to-face

transmission) and culture influence as they will not change over small periods of time and if they do,

they will be carried over to the other community. Thus, that would lead mathematically to a force of

infection on those individuals and, for instance, smaller size of epidemics in the HRC’s. More explicit

modeling might be required to clear that up.

Response: Thank you. We recognize human behavior as an important factor driving disease dynamics

and, that it differs on distinct environments, modifying the local risk of infection on visitors. Although

it is not explicitly formulated in the manuscript, community components - sanitation, trade and culture,

income, education, health-care access, cultural practices, and so on - are assumed to produce differences

in the community-specific risk of infection (\\beta_i). Therefore, impacting the community-specific

disease dynamics and, in the presence of mobility, the global disease dynamics and the final epidemic size. In other words, we recognize the risk of infection is highly affected by the community-specific

characteristics. For instance, we assume that an individual visiting the New York’s neighborhoods of

Queens or Brooklyn, experiences a high COVID-19 risk of infection during the visiting time. The proposed

model takes in account this former component, envisioning a likelihood of infection tied to the

community-specific characteristics. For clarification, we included in the manuscript the following sentence:

“We recognize that human behavior is an important determinant of disease dynamics, and that

behavior differs across environments, either ameliorating or exacerbating the impact of the local risk

of infection on visitors. Moreover, we also recognize that the risk of infection is strongly influenced

by community-specific characteristics that alter local and global disease dynamics. It is assumed that

the community-specific infection risk reflects community attributes that include income, education,

health-care access, cultural practices, and so on.” Lines 121-127.

- Comments from reviewer #2:

1. The Lagrangian approach used for modeling the movement between two populations results in entire

population of high-risk community spending sometime in low risk community. This seems very unlikely

and limits the applicability of their results. For example, authors discuss how at least across

national boundaries, epidemics are addressed in a area-specific manner. While it is true, I do not think

that their results shed any light on that in current form. Even when there is high mobility across two

nations, only a proportion of population will travel and spend time.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree our results hold whenever the traveling population

size is comparable to the community population size. Moreover, we agree that such an scenario is

very unlikely to occur at the population size of countries. Consequently, we added some lines to clarify

that our results are limited to smaller geographical scales. In order to address this comment we replaced

the lines discussing about how epidemics are addressed across national boundaries with the following

: “The evidence suggests that COVID-19 is overwhelmingly being addressed from the perspective of

area-specific risk. Disease control measures are aimed less at reducing the final epidemic size than at

containing the disease in particular areas. Our results hold at scales where the traveling population size

is comparable to the community population - we address disease dynamics exhibited at the scale of

inter-community transmission.” (Lines 293-297) and, “Internationally, however, it is clear that disease

control is aimed at the final epidemic size within and not across nation states. In such cases, while the

use of mobility restrictions to control disease in particular jurisdictions might increase the overall final

epidemic size, it can still lower the country-specific final epidemic size.” (Lines 306-310).

2. It would be great for readers if authors give examples of situations where scenarios illustrated by authors

in the manuscript can arise. For example, interactions between richer and poorer regions within

a city, such that people from poorer region spend a lot of time in richer region for employment etc.

Response: Thank you for suggest this. To complement our manuscript addressing this comment, we

have added the following lines: “ Within individual countries there are examples of regions governed

by a single health authority but including dramatic differences in living conditions. The Brazilian communities

in Rio de Janeiro also known as the “favelas”; the Primrose area neighboring the Makause

settlement in Johannesburg, South Africa; the slum populations of Mumbai, India; the Santa Fe neighborhood

in Mexico City, Mexico; and the New York neighborhoods of Queens, Brooklyn and Manhattan

in the USA are all examples of areas where dramatic differences in living conditions coexist within a single public health area. In such cases, disease control might be motivated by the final epidemic

size across communities.” (Lines 298-306).

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

23 Jun 2020

Mobility restrictions for the control of epidemics: When do they work?

PONE-D-20-09885R1

Dear Dr. Espinoza,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Chris T. Bauch, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thanks for addressing the comment and points I made. Just one small change that might be trivial, on line 95 it would be better to say "health states" rather than "epidemiological states."

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

26 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-09885R1

Mobility restrictions for the control of epidemics: When do they work?

Dear Dr. Espinoza:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Chris T. Bauch

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE