Xiaoshuang Liu1, Xiao Xu1, Guanqiao Li2, Xian Xu1, Yuyao Sun1, Fei Wang3, Xuanling Shi2, Xiang Li4, Guotong Xie5,6,7, Linqi Zhang8. 1. Ping An Healthcare Technology, Beijing, China. 2. Center for Global Health and Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. 3. Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medicine, Cornell University, New York, USA. 4. Ping An Healthcare Technology, Beijing, China. leeshore05@hotmail.com. 5. Ping An Healthcare Technology, Beijing, China. xieguotong@pingan.com.cn. 6. Ping An Health Cloud Company Limited, Beijing, China. xieguotong@pingan.com.cn. 7. Ping An International Smart City Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, China. xieguotong@pingan.com.cn. 8. Center for Global Health and Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. zhanglinqi@tsinghua.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The widespread pandemic of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) poses an unprecedented global health crisis. In the United States (US), different state governments have adopted various combinations of non-pharmaceutical public health interventions (NPIs), such as non-essential business closures and gathering bans, to mitigate the epidemic from February to April, 2020. Quantitative assessment on the effectiveness of NPIs is greatly needed to assist in guiding individualized decision making for adjustment of interventions in the US and around the world. However, the impacts of these approaches remain uncertain. METHODS: Based on the reported cases, the effective reproduction number (Rt) of COVID-19 epidemic for 50 states in the US was estimated. Measurements on the effectiveness of nine different NPIs were conducted by assessing risk ratios (RRs) between Rt and NPIs through a generalized linear model (GLM). RESULTS: Different NPIs were found to have led to different levels of reduction in Rt. Stay-at-home contributed approximately 51% (95% CI 46-57%), wearing (face) masks 29% (15-42%), gathering ban (more than 10 people) 19% (14-24%), non-essential business closure 16% (10-21%), declaration of emergency 13% (8-17%), interstate travel restriction 11% (5-16%), school closure 10% (7-14%), initial business closure 10% (6-14%), and gathering ban (more than 50 people) 7% (2-11%). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective assessment of NPIs on Rt has shown that NPIs played critical roles on epidemic control in the US in the past several months. The quantitative results could guide individualized decision making for future adjustment of NPIs in the US and other countries for COVID-19 and other similar infectious diseases.
BACKGROUND: The widespread pandemic of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) poses an unprecedented global health crisis. In the United States (US), different state governments have adopted various combinations of non-pharmaceutical public health interventions (NPIs), such as non-essential business closures and gathering bans, to mitigate the epidemic from February to April, 2020. Quantitative assessment on the effectiveness of NPIs is greatly needed to assist in guiding individualized decision making for adjustment of interventions in the US and around the world. However, the impacts of these approaches remain uncertain. METHODS: Based on the reported cases, the effective reproduction number (Rt) of COVID-19 epidemic for 50 states in the US was estimated. Measurements on the effectiveness of nine different NPIs were conducted by assessing risk ratios (RRs) between Rt and NPIs through a generalized linear model (GLM). RESULTS: Different NPIs were found to have led to different levels of reduction in Rt. Stay-at-home contributed approximately 51% (95% CI 46-57%), wearing (face) masks 29% (15-42%), gathering ban (more than 10 people) 19% (14-24%), non-essential business closure 16% (10-21%), declaration of emergency 13% (8-17%), interstate travel restriction 11% (5-16%), school closure 10% (7-14%), initial business closure 10% (6-14%), and gathering ban (more than 50 people) 7% (2-11%). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective assessment of NPIs on Rt has shown that NPIs played critical roles on epidemic control in the US in the past several months. The quantitative results could guide individualized decision making for future adjustment of NPIs in the US and other countries for COVID-19 and other similar infectious diseases.
Entities:
Keywords:
COVID-19; Epidemic control; Non-pharmaceutical public health interventions; Reproduction number; The United States
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: R N Thompson; J E Stockwin; R D van Gaalen; J A Polonsky; Z N Kamvar; P A Demarsh; E Dahlqwist; S Li; E Miguel; T Jombart; J Lessler; S Cauchemez; A Cori Journal: Epidemics Date: 2019-08-26 Impact factor: 4.396
Authors: Matteo Chinazzi; Jessica T Davis; Marco Ajelli; Corrado Gioannini; Maria Litvinova; Stefano Merler; Ana Pastore Y Piontti; Kunpeng Mu; Luca Rossi; Kaiyuan Sun; Cécile Viboud; Xinyue Xiong; Hongjie Yu; M Elizabeth Halloran; Ira M Longini; Alessandro Vespignani Journal: Science Date: 2020-03-06 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Moritz U G Kraemer; Chia-Hung Yang; Bernardo Gutierrez; Chieh-Hsi Wu; Brennan Klein; David M Pigott; Louis du Plessis; Nuno R Faria; Ruoran Li; William P Hanage; John S Brownstein; Maylis Layan; Alessandro Vespignani; Huaiyu Tian; Christopher Dye; Oliver G Pybus; Samuel V Scarpino Journal: Science Date: 2020-03-25 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Adriana Milazzo; Lynne Giles; Natalie Parent; Sophie McCarthy; Caroline Laurence Journal: Aust N Z J Public Health Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 3.755
Authors: Nathan Ford; Haley K Holmer; Roger Chou; Paul J Villeneuve; April Baller; Maria Van Kerkhove; Benedetta Allegranzi Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2021-07-19