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

Evaluation of “stratify and shield” as a policy option for ending the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK

View ORCID ProfilePaul M McKeigue, View ORCID ProfileHelen M Colhoun
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.25.20079913
Paul M McKeigue
1Usher Institute, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Teviot Place, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, Scotland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Paul M McKeigue
  • For correspondence: paul.mckeigue@ed.ac.uk
Helen M Colhoun
2Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital Campus, Crewe Road, Edinburgh EH4 2XUC, Scotland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Helen M Colhoun
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Summary

Although population-wide lockdowns have been successful in slowing the COVID-19 epidemic, there is a consensus among disease modellers that keeping the load on critical care services within manageable limits will require an adaptive social distancing strategy, alternating cycles of relaxation and reimposition until a vaccine is available. An alternative strategy that has been tentatively proposed is to shield the elderly and others at high risk of severe disease, while allowing immunity to build up in those at low risk until the entire population is protected. We examine the performance required from a classifier that uses information from medical records to assign risk status for a such a stratify-and-shield policy to be effective in limiting mortality when social distancing is relaxed.

We show that under plausible assumptions about the level of immunity required for population-level immunity, the proportion shielded is constrained to be no more than 15% of the population. Under varying assumptions about the infection fatality ratio (from 0.1% to 0.4%) and the performance of the classifier (3 to 4.5 bits of information for discrimination), we calculate the expected number of deaths in the unshielded group. We show that with likely values of the performance of a classifier that uses information from age, sex and medical records, at least 80% of those who would die if unshielded would be allocated to the high-risk shielded group comprising 15% of the population. Although the proportion of deaths that would be prevented by effective shielding does not vary much with the infection fatality ratio, the absolute number of deaths in the unshielded varies from less than 10,000 if the infection fatality rate is 0.1% to more than 50,000 if the infection fatality rate is as high as 0.4%.

For projecting the effect of an optimally applied stratify-and-shield policy, studies now under way should help to resolve key uncertainties: the extent to which infection confers immunity, the prevalence of immunity, the infection fatality ratio, and the performance of a classifier constructed using information from medical records. It is time to give serious consideration to a stratify-and-shield policy that could bring the COVID-19 epidemic to an end in a matter of months while restoring economic activity, avoiding overload of critical care services and limiting mortality.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

none

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

All source code is available form the authors on request. Only publicly available data are used.

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-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted April 30, 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.
Evaluation of “stratify and shield” as a policy option for ending the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK
(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
Evaluation of “stratify and shield” as a policy option for ending the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK
Paul M McKeigue, Helen M Colhoun
medRxiv 2020.04.25.20079913; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.25.20079913
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Evaluation of “stratify and shield” as a policy option for ending the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK
Paul M McKeigue, Helen M Colhoun
medRxiv 2020.04.25.20079913; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.25.20079913

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 (280)
  • Allergy and Immunology (579)
  • Anesthesia (140)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1947)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (252)
  • Dermatology (185)
  • Emergency Medicine (333)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (700)
  • Epidemiology (11108)
  • Forensic Medicine (8)
  • Gastroenterology (626)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (3182)
  • Geriatric Medicine (309)
  • Health Economics (563)
  • Health Informatics (2043)
  • Health Policy (863)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (782)
  • Hematology (310)
  • HIV/AIDS (682)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (12729)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (707)
  • Medical Education (317)
  • Medical Ethics (92)
  • Nephrology (336)
  • Neurology (2993)
  • Nursing (164)
  • Nutrition (465)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (589)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (614)
  • Oncology (1556)
  • Ophthalmology (478)
  • Orthopedics (185)
  • Otolaryngology (266)
  • Pain Medicine (202)
  • Palliative Medicine (57)
  • Pathology (403)
  • Pediatrics (914)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (382)
  • Primary Care Research (355)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2789)
  • Public and Global Health (5597)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1095)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (635)
  • Respiratory Medicine (761)
  • Rheumatology (339)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (311)
  • Sports Medicine (289)
  • Surgery (343)
  • Toxicology (48)
  • Transplantation (159)
  • Urology (133)