Yang Liu1, Christian Morgenstern2, James Kelly2, Rachel Lowe1,3, Mark Jit4. 1. Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. 2. IPM Informed Portfolio Management, London, UK. 3. Centre on Climate Change and Planetary Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. 4. Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. mark.jit@lshtm.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are used to reduce transmission of SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, empirical evidence of the effectiveness of specific NPIs has been inconsistent. We assessed the effectiveness of NPIs around internal containment and closure, international travel restrictions, economic measures, and health system actions on SARS-CoV-2 transmission in 130 countries and territories. METHODS: We used panel (longitudinal) regression to estimate the effectiveness of 13 categories of NPIs in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission using data from January to June 2020. First, we examined the temporal association between NPIs using hierarchical cluster analyses. We then regressed the time-varying reproduction number (Rt) of COVID-19 against different NPIs. We examined different model specifications to account for the temporal lag between NPIs and changes in Rt, levels of NPI intensity, time-varying changes in NPI effect, and variable selection criteria. Results were interpreted taking into account both the range of model specifications and temporal clustering of NPIs. RESULTS: There was strong evidence for an association between two NPIs (school closure, internal movement restrictions) and reduced Rt. Another three NPIs (workplace closure, income support, and debt/contract relief) had strong evidence of effectiveness when ignoring their level of intensity, while two NPIs (public events cancellation, restriction on gatherings) had strong evidence of their effectiveness only when evaluating their implementation at maximum capacity (e.g. restrictions on 1000+ people gathering were not effective, restrictions on < 10 people gathering were). Evidence about the effectiveness of the remaining NPIs (stay-at-home requirements, public information campaigns, public transport closure, international travel controls, testing, contact tracing) was inconsistent and inconclusive. We found temporal clustering between many of the NPIs. Effect sizes varied depending on whether or not we included data after peak NPI intensity. CONCLUSION: Understanding the impact that specific NPIs have had on SARS-CoV-2 transmission is complicated by temporal clustering, time-dependent variation in effects, and differences in NPI intensity. However, the effectiveness of school closure and internal movement restrictions appears robust across different model specifications, with some evidence that other NPIs may also be effective under particular conditions. This provides empirical evidence for the potential effectiveness of many, although not all, actions policy-makers are taking to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.
BACKGROUND: Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are used to reduce transmission of SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, empirical evidence of the effectiveness of specific NPIs has been inconsistent. We assessed the effectiveness of NPIs around internal containment and closure, international travel restrictions, economic measures, and health system actions on SARS-CoV-2 transmission in 130 countries and territories. METHODS: We used panel (longitudinal) regression to estimate the effectiveness of 13 categories of NPIs in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission using data from January to June 2020. First, we examined the temporal association between NPIs using hierarchical cluster analyses. We then regressed the time-varying reproduction number (Rt) of COVID-19 against different NPIs. We examined different model specifications to account for the temporal lag between NPIs and changes in Rt, levels of NPI intensity, time-varying changes in NPI effect, and variable selection criteria. Results were interpreted taking into account both the range of model specifications and temporal clustering of NPIs. RESULTS: There was strong evidence for an association between two NPIs (school closure, internal movement restrictions) and reduced Rt. Another three NPIs (workplace closure, income support, and debt/contract relief) had strong evidence of effectiveness when ignoring their level of intensity, while two NPIs (public events cancellation, restriction on gatherings) had strong evidence of their effectiveness only when evaluating their implementation at maximum capacity (e.g. restrictions on 1000+ people gathering were not effective, restrictions on < 10 people gathering were). Evidence about the effectiveness of the remaining NPIs (stay-at-home requirements, public information campaigns, public transport closure, international travel controls, testing, contact tracing) was inconsistent and inconclusive. We found temporal clustering between many of the NPIs. Effect sizes varied depending on whether or not we included data after peak NPI intensity. CONCLUSION: Understanding the impact that specific NPIs have had on SARS-CoV-2 transmission is complicated by temporal clustering, time-dependent variation in effects, and differences in NPI intensity. However, the effectiveness of school closure and internal movement restrictions appears robust across different model specifications, with some evidence that other NPIs may also be effective under particular conditions. This provides empirical evidence for the potential effectiveness of many, although not all, actions policy-makers are taking to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Entities:
Keywords:
COVID-19; Health impact assessment; Longitudinal analysis; Non-pharmaceutical interventions; Pandemic; Policy evaluation; Public health intervention; Quantitative; SARS-CoV-2
Authors: Seth Flaxman; Swapnil Mishra; Axel Gandy; H Juliette T Unwin; Thomas A Mellan; Helen Coupland; Charles Whittaker; Harrison Zhu; Tresnia Berah; Jeffrey W Eaton; Mélodie Monod; Azra C Ghani; Christl A Donnelly; Steven Riley; Michaela A C Vollmer; Neil M Ferguson; Lucy C Okell; Samir Bhatt Journal: Nature Date: 2020-06-08 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Andrea L Bertozzi; Elisa Franco; George Mohler; Martin B Short; Daniel Sledge Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2020-07-02 Impact factor: 11.205
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: Joel Hellewell; Sam Abbott; Amy Gimma; Nikos I Bosse; Christopher I Jarvis; Timothy W Russell; James D Munday; Adam J Kucharski; W John Edmunds; Sebastian Funk; Rosalind M Eggo Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2020-02-28 Impact factor: 26.763
Authors: Po Yang; Jun Qi; Shuhao Zhang; Xulong Wang; Gaoshan Bi; Yun Yang; Bin Sheng; Geng Yang Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-08-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Francesco Sera; Ben Armstrong; Sam Abbott; Sophie Meakin; Kathleen O'Reilly; Rosa von Borries; Rochelle Schneider; Dominic Royé; Masahiro Hashizume; Mathilde Pascal; Aurelio Tobias; Ana Maria Vicedo-Cabrera; Antonio Gasparrini; Rachel Lowe Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2021-10-13 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Christopher J Banks; Ewan Colman; Thomas Doherty; Oliver Tearne; Mark Arnold; Katherine E Atkins; Daniel Balaz; Gaël Beaunée; Paul R Bessell; Jessica Enright; Adam Kleczkowski; Gianluigi Rossi; Anne-Sophie Ruget; Rowland R Kao Journal: Wellcome Open Res Date: 2022-05-26
Authors: Bingyi Yang; Angkana T Huang; Bernardo Garcia-Carreras; William E Hart; Andrea Staid; Matt D T Hitchings; Elizabeth C Lee; Chanelle J Howe; Kyra H Grantz; Amy Wesolowksi; Joseph Chadi Lemaitre; Susan Rattigan; Carlos Moreno; Brooke A Borgert; Celeste Dale; Nicole Quigley; Andrew Cummings; Alizée McLorg; Kaelene LoMonaco; Sarah Schlossberg; Drew Barron-Kraus; Harrison Shrock; Justin Lessler; Carl D Laird; Derek A T Cummings Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2021-06-11 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Yonghong Liu; Zengmiao Wang; Benjamin Rader; Bingying Li; Chieh-Hsi Wu; Jason D Whittington; Pai Zheng; Nils Chr Stenseth; Ottar N Bjornstad; John S Brownstein; Huaiyu Tian Journal: Lancet Digit Health Date: 2021-06
Authors: Andreas C Chrysostomou; Bram Vrancken; George Koumbaris; George Themistokleous; Antonia Aristokleous; Christina Masia; Christina Eleftheriou; Costakis Iοannou; Dora C Stylianou; Marios Ioannides; Panagiotis Petrou; Vasilis Georgiou; Amalia Hatziyianni; Philippe Lemey; Anne-Mieke Vandamme; Philippos P Patsalis; Leondios G Kostrikis Journal: Viruses Date: 2021-06-09 Impact factor: 5.048