Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

A prototype for decision support tool to help decision-makers with the strategy of handling the COVID-19 UK epidemic

View ORCID ProfileAnatoly Zhigljavsky, View ORCID ProfileIvan Fesenko, View ORCID ProfileHenry Wynn, View ORCID ProfileRoger Whitaker, View ORCID ProfileKobi Kremnizer, Jack Noonan, View ORCID ProfileJonathan Gillard
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.24.20077818
Anatoly Zhigljavsky
*Cardiff University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Anatoly Zhigljavsky
  • For correspondence: zhigljavskyaa@cardiff.ac.uk
Ivan Fesenko
†University of Nottingham
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Ivan Fesenko
Henry Wynn
‡LSE and Alan Turing Institute
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Henry Wynn
Roger Whitaker
*Cardiff University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Roger Whitaker
Kobi Kremnizer
§University of Oxford
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Kobi Kremnizer
Jack Noonan
*Cardiff University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jonathan Gillard
*Cardiff University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jonathan Gillard
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Summary

The primary objective of this work is to model and compare different exit scenarios from the lock-down for the COVID-19 UK epidemic. In doing so we provide an additional modelling basis for laying out the strategy options for the decision-makers. The main results are illustrated and discussed in Part I. In Part II, we describe the stochastic model that we have developed for modelling this epidemic. As argued in Part II, the developed model is more flexible than the SEIR/SEIRS models and can be used for modelling the scenarios which may be difficult or impossible to model with the SEIR/SEIRS models. To compare different scenarios for exiting from the lock-down, in Part III we provide our previous report on the same topic where similar (although not as detailed) scenarios were considered. As the possible exit dates, we have chosen May 4, May 11, May 18 and May 25.

We model differently the regions with high initial reproductive number chosen to be R0 = 2.5, medium R0 = 2.3 and low R0 = 2. The numbers for the whole of the UK can be obtained by appropriate averaging of the numbers given in the report. Typical figures are given in Section 4. For each scenario considered, we plot the expected proportion of infected at time t and the expected number of deaths at time t. To compute the expected numbers of deaths we used the total mortality rate 0.66%. Many recent studies suggest lower values and therefore the numbers in our projections should be considered as rather pessimistic. Our analysis suggests a value around 0.5% for the mortality rate.

In the model, we assume that the isolation of older and vulnerable people continues and the public carries on certain level of isolation until the end of 2020; also we assume that immunity is kept for at least a year and there is no international travel influence. Our main conclusions are:

  • In regions with higher initial reproductive number 2.5 the proportion of susceptible at the start of the lock-down should be not smaller than 0.95, the epidemic curve in such regions is in the fast monotonic decline irrespectively of the date of the lock-down lift;

  • In regions with lower initial reproductive number 2.0 the second mild wave can be expected, the difference between the expected mortality rates is very small for all May 2020 lifting lock-down dates;

  • In regions with initial reproductive number 2.3, a mild second wave can be expected in the case of large proportion of susceptible at the start of the lock-down, but its severity and resulting mortality depend very little on the date of lifting the lock-down;

  • For the overall UK epidemic, even for rather pessimistic scenarios considered, the second wave is much less pronounced (in terms of the expected mortality rate) than the first one, and the total numbers of expected deaths are within 2% for all May 2020 dates of lifting the lock-down. Moreover, by keeping R0-value after lifting the lock-down below 1.75 is likely to lead to the avoidance of a UK-wide second wave, see Section 4.

We believe that the model build in this work can be considered as an important decision support tool to help decision-makers with the strategy of handling the epidemic. We invite other scholars to participate in an open discussion of the strategy options. We feel that this kind of models should be used in the short and long term management of the disease. We recommend the development of a permanent and modularised modelling suite for COVID-19 management to which additional modules can be added as anti-viral drugs and vaccination are introduced, extending the options. We trust that this work makes a start in that direction and demonstrates the advantages of a heterogeneous demographic refinement, which can only improve targeting role out of treatments.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

No external funding was received

Author Declarations

All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.

Yes

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

No data used. Only simulation based.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted April 29, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A prototype for decision support tool to help decision-makers with the strategy of handling the COVID-19 UK epidemic
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
A prototype for decision support tool to help decision-makers with the strategy of handling the COVID-19 UK epidemic
Anatoly Zhigljavsky, Ivan Fesenko, Henry Wynn, Roger Whitaker, Kobi Kremnizer, Jack Noonan, Jonathan Gillard
medRxiv 2020.04.24.20077818; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.24.20077818
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
A prototype for decision support tool to help decision-makers with the strategy of handling the COVID-19 UK epidemic
Anatoly Zhigljavsky, Ivan Fesenko, Henry Wynn, Roger Whitaker, Kobi Kremnizer, Jack Noonan, Jonathan Gillard
medRxiv 2020.04.24.20077818; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.24.20077818

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Epidemiology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (62)
  • Allergy and Immunology (142)
  • Anesthesia (46)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (415)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (70)
  • Dermatology (48)
  • Emergency Medicine (144)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (171)
  • Epidemiology (4861)
  • Forensic Medicine (3)
  • Gastroenterology (183)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (676)
  • Geriatric Medicine (70)
  • Health Economics (192)
  • Health Informatics (630)
  • Health Policy (321)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (206)
  • Hematology (85)
  • HIV/AIDS (156)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (5343)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (331)
  • Medical Education (93)
  • Medical Ethics (24)
  • Nephrology (75)
  • Neurology (686)
  • Nursing (42)
  • Nutrition (115)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (126)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (208)
  • Oncology (440)
  • Ophthalmology (140)
  • Orthopedics (36)
  • Otolaryngology (90)
  • Pain Medicine (35)
  • Palliative Medicine (16)
  • Pathology (129)
  • Pediatrics (194)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (131)
  • Primary Care Research (84)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (781)
  • Public and Global Health (1817)
  • Radiology and Imaging (325)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (138)
  • Respiratory Medicine (255)
  • Rheumatology (86)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (69)
  • Sports Medicine (62)
  • Surgery (100)
  • Toxicology (23)
  • Transplantation (29)
  • Urology (37)