Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown, contact clustering in social bubbles may allow extending contacts beyond the household at minimal additional risk and hence has been considered as part of modified lockdown policy or a gradual lockdown exit strategy. We estimated the impact of such strategies on epidemic and mortality risk using the UK as a case study. Methods: We used an individual based model for a synthetic population similar to the UK, stratified into transmission risks from the community, within the household and from other households in the same social bubble. The base case considers a situation where non-essential shops and schools are closed, the secondary household attack rate is 20% and the initial reproduction number is 0.8. We simulate social bubble strategies (where two households form an exclusive pair) for households including children, for single occupancy households, and for all households. We test the sensitivity of results to a range of alternative model assumptions and parameters. Results: Clustering contacts outside the household into exclusive bubbles is an effective strategy of increasing contacts while limiting the associated increase in epidemic risk. In the base case, social bubbles reduced fatalities by 42% compared to an unclustered increase of contacts. We find that if all households were to form social bubbles the reproduction number would likely increase to above the epidemic threshold of R=1. Strategies allowing households with young children or single occupancy households to form social bubbles increased the reproduction number by less than 11%. The corresponding increase in mortality is proportional to the increase in the epidemic risk but is focussed in older adults irrespective of inclusion in social bubbles. Conclusions: If managed appropriately, social bubbles can be an effective way of extending contacts beyond the household while limiting the increase in epidemic risk. Copyright:
Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown, contact clustering in social bubbles may allow extending contacts beyond the household at minimal additional risk and hence has been considered as part of modified lockdown policy or a gradual lockdown exit strategy. We estimated the impact of such strategies on epidemic and mortality risk using the UK as a case study. Methods: We used an individual based model for a synthetic population similar to the UK, stratified into transmission risks from the community, within the household and from other households in the same social bubble. The base case considers a situation where non-essential shops and schools are closed, the secondary household attack rate is 20% and the initial reproduction number is 0.8. We simulate social bubble strategies (where two households form an exclusive pair) for households including children, for single occupancy households, and for all households. We test the sensitivity of results to a range of alternative model assumptions and parameters. Results: Clustering contacts outside the household into exclusive bubbles is an effective strategy of increasing contacts while limiting the associated increase in epidemic risk. In the base case, social bubbles reduced fatalities by 42% compared to an unclustered increase of contacts. We find that if all households were to form social bubbles the reproduction number would likely increase to above the epidemic threshold of R=1. Strategies allowing households with young children or single occupancy households to form social bubbles increased the reproduction number by less than 11%. The corresponding increase in mortality is proportional to the increase in the epidemic risk but is focussed in older adults irrespective of inclusion in social bubbles. Conclusions: If managed appropriately, social bubbles can be an effective way of extending contacts beyond the household while limiting the increase in epidemic risk. Copyright:
Authors: Per Block; Marion Hoffman; Isabel J Raabe; Jennifer Beam Dowd; Charles Rahal; Ridhi Kashyap; Melinda C Mills Journal: Nat Hum Behav Date: 2020-06-04
Authors: Samuel Clifford; Carl A B Pearson; Petra Klepac; Kevin Van Zandvoort; Billy J Quilty; Rosalind M Eggo; Stefan Flasche Journal: J Travel Med Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 8.490
Authors: Robert Verity; Lucy C Okell; Ilaria Dorigatti; Peter Winskill; Charles Whittaker; Natsuko Imai; Gina Cuomo-Dannenburg; Hayley Thompson; Patrick G T Walker; Han Fu; Amy Dighe; Jamie T Griffin; Marc Baguelin; Sangeeta Bhatia; Adhiratha Boonyasiri; Anne Cori; Zulma Cucunubá; Rich FitzJohn; Katy Gaythorpe; Will Green; Arran Hamlet; Wes Hinsley; Daniel Laydon; Gemma Nedjati-Gilani; Steven Riley; Sabine van Elsland; Erik Volz; Haowei Wang; Yuanrong Wang; Xiaoyue Xi; Christl A Donnelly; Azra C Ghani; Neil M Ferguson Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2020-03-30 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Catherine M Clase; Edouard L Fu; Meera Joseph; Rupert C L Beale; Myrna B Dolovich; Meg Jardine; Johannes F E Mann; Roberto Pecoits-Filho; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Juan J Carrero Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2020-05-22 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Anjalika Nande; Justin Sheen; Emma L Walters; Brennan Klein; Matteo Chinazzi; Andrei H Gheorghe; Ben Adlam; Julianna Shinnick; Maria Florencia Tejeda; Samuel V Scarpino; Alessandro Vespignani; Andrew J Greenlee; Daniel Schneider; Michael Z Levy; Alison L Hill Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2021-04-15 Impact factor: 17.694