Shengyi Zhong1, Zhe Chen2, Yun Wang3, Pucong Sheng1, Shuxin Shi1, Yongxi Lyu1, Ruobing Bai1, Pengyu Wang1, Jiangjing Dong1, Jianbo Ba4, Xinmiao Qu5, Jian Lu6,7. 1. SJTU - Paristech Institute of Technology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. 2. School of materials science and engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. 3. School of Mechanical Engineering and Automation, Beihang University, Beijing, China. 4. Naval Medical Centre, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China. 5. School of Data Science, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 6. Department of Biomedical Science, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 7. Hong Kong Branch of National Precious Metals Material Engineering Research Center (NPMM), City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Assessing the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and vaccines on controlling the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is key for each government to optimize the anti-contagion policy according to their situation. METHODS: We proposed the Braking Force Model on Virus Transmission to evaluate the validity and efficiency of NPIs and vaccines. This model classified the NPIs and the administration of vaccines at different effectiveness levels and forecasted the duration required to control the pandemic, providing an indication of the future trends of the pandemic wave. RESULTS: This model was applied to study the effectiveness of the most commonly used NPIs according to the historic pandemic waves in different countries and regions. It was found that when facing an outbreak, only strict lockdown would give efficient control of the pandemic; the other NPIs were insufficient to promptly and effectively reduce virus transmission. Meanwhile, our results showed that NPIs would likely only slow down the pandemic's progression and maintain a low transmission level but fail to eradicate the disease. Only vaccination would likely have had a better chance of success in ending the pandemic. DISCUSSION: Based on the Braking Force Model, a pandemic control strategy framework has been devised for policymakers to determine the commencement and duration of appropriate interventions, with the aim of obtaining a balance between public health risk management and economic recovery. Copyright and License information: Editorial Office of CCDCW, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention 2021.
INTRODUCTION: Assessing the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and vaccines on controlling the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is key for each government to optimize the anti-contagion policy according to their situation. METHODS: We proposed the Braking Force Model on Virus Transmission to evaluate the validity and efficiency of NPIs and vaccines. This model classified the NPIs and the administration of vaccines at different effectiveness levels and forecasted the duration required to control the pandemic, providing an indication of the future trends of the pandemic wave. RESULTS: This model was applied to study the effectiveness of the most commonly used NPIs according to the historic pandemic waves in different countries and regions. It was found that when facing an outbreak, only strict lockdown would give efficient control of the pandemic; the other NPIs were insufficient to promptly and effectively reduce virus transmission. Meanwhile, our results showed that NPIs would likely only slow down the pandemic's progression and maintain a low transmission level but fail to eradicate the disease. Only vaccination would likely have had a better chance of success in ending the pandemic. DISCUSSION: Based on the Braking Force Model, a pandemic control strategy framework has been devised for policymakers to determine the commencement and duration of appropriate interventions, with the aim of obtaining a balance between public health risk management and economic recovery. Copyright and License information: Editorial Office of CCDCW, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention 2021.
Authors: Kristian Soltesz; Fredrik Gustafsson; Toomas Timpka; Joakim Jaldén; Carl Jidling; Albin Heimerson; Thomas B Schön; Armin Spreco; Joakim Ekberg; Örjan Dahlström; Fredrik Bagge Carlson; Anna Jöud; Bo Bernhardsson Journal: Nature Date: 2020-12-23 Impact factor: 49.962
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: Huaiyu Tian; Yonghong Liu; Yidan Li; Chieh-Hsi Wu; Bin Chen; Moritz U G Kraemer; Bingying Li; Jun Cai; Bo Xu; Qiqi Yang; Ben Wang; Peng Yang; Yujun Cui; Yimeng Song; Pai Zheng; Quanyi Wang; Ottar N Bjornstad; Ruifu Yang; Bryan T Grenfell; Oliver G Pybus; Christopher Dye Journal: Science Date: 2020-03-31 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Chadi M Saad-Roy; Caroline E Wagner; Rachel E Baker; Sinead E Morris; Jeremy Farrar; Andrea L Graham; Simon A Levin; Michael J Mina; C Jessica E Metcalf; Bryan T Grenfell Journal: Science Date: 2020-09-21 Impact factor: 47.728