Abstract
Following the April 16, 2020 release of the Opening Up America Again guidelines for relaxing COVID-19 social distancing policies, local leaders are concerned about future pandemic waves and lack robust strategies for tracking and suppressing transmission. Here, we present a framework for monitoring COVID-19 hospitalization data to project risks and trigger shelter-in-place orders to prevent overwhelming healthcare surges while minimizing the duration of costly lockdowns. Assuming the relaxation of social distancing increases the risk of infection ten-fold, the optimal strategy for Austin, Texas—the fastest-growing large city in the US—will trigger a total of 135 [90% prediction interval: 126–141] days of sheltering, allow schools to open in the fall, and result in an expected 2929 deaths [90% prediction interval: 2837–3026] by September 2021, which is 29% the annual mortality rate. In the months ahead, policy makers are likely to face difficult choices and the extent of public restraint and cocooning of vulnerable populations may save or cost thousands of lives.
1 Background
As of April 28, 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread worldwide and has claimed at least 211 thousand lives (1). To avert unmanageable surges in COVID-19 hospitalizations, state and local policy makers across the US have implemented shelter-in-place orders to enforce social distancing. For example, the city of Austin, Texas, enacted the Stay Home – Work Safe Order (SHWSO) (2) on March 24, 2020, requiring individuals to stay at home except for certain essential activities. The decision to do so was partially based on model projections provided by the University of Texas at Austin. Three weeks later, a second order was issued, requiring cloth face coverings in public spaces. Under mounting pressures to relieve the economic and societal stresses of shelter-in-place orders, the US White House and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued Opening Up America Again on April 16, 2020, which is a three-phased plan for relaxing such restrictions around the country (3). Texas followed suit, declaring that the state would begin returning to work, entertainment and commerce on May 1, 2020 (4).
In the absence of prophylactic and therapeutic countermeasures, non-pharmaceutical interventions are the only option for mitigating pandemic morbidity and mortality. Measures such as closures of schools and non-essential businesses, prohibitions on public gatherings, requiring social distancing, restricting travel, along with ordering face covering, frequent hand washing, surface cleaning, and staying at home when sick, can reduce both the frequency and risks of contacts between susceptible and infected people. During the early months of the 1918 influenza pandemic— the only comparably severe pandemic in recent history—aggressive social distancing proved critical to reducing mortality in the US (5). Despite the life-saving potential of social distancing measures (6, 7), they are controversial (8) given their potentially large economic (9), societal, and mental health (10) costs. Two recent studies have projected pandemic resurgence if social distancing measures are relaxed prematurely (11, 12), and others recommend the gradual relaxation of social distancing measures only when hospitals are no longer overburdened to balance expected public health risks and economic strain (13–15).
To this end, the goals of this article are threefold. First, we present a conceptual and quantitative framework that clarifies COVID-19 policy options for mitigating risk in the wake of the first pandemic wave. Second, we apply the framework to derive optimal triggers for initiating and relaxing shelter-in-place orders to minimize the number of days of costly social distancing while ensuring that COVID-19 hospitalizations do not exceed local capacity. Finally, we demonstrate the incontrovertible importance of sheltering vulnerable populations to reduce the burden of COVID-19. The impact of future social distancing policies will depend on public adherence, which is highly unpredictable. There are roughly two possible futures. In the first future, the pandemic is held at bay through a combination of public willingness to sustain extreme social distancing despite its costs and a ramping up of testing, contact tracing and isolation to rapidly contain emerging clusters. In the other future, a relaxation in social distancing or insufficient containment resources allow a second pandemic wave to emerge. For a policy maker facing the latter scenario, either intentionally or unintentionally, our framework provides guidance for enacting short-term lock-downs based on trends in local hospitalization data to avert unmanageable hospital surges while minimizing social and economic disruption.
Our new optimization model, detailed in the Supplementary Materials, is designed to guide the relaxation of social distancing, if a policy maker must. To demonstrate, we derive optimal surveillance triggers for enacting and lifting temporary shelter-in-place orders in the Austin-Round Rock Metropolitan Area of Texas (henceforth Austin) with a high-risk population of 547,474 and total population of 2,168,316. The analyses presented herein were requested by the Austin mayor and county judge and are informing ongoing risk assessments, policy planning, and public messaging. We assume that the COVID-19 epidemic began with a single case in Austin on February 15, 2020 and that the March 24th SHWSO will reduce transmission by 95% through May 1st, as estimated from local hospitalization data (16). We project pandemic hospitalizations under various intervention scenarios through September 2021. Schools are assumed to remain closed from March 14 until August 18, 2020. After that, they can be reopened or closed in tandem with shelter-in-place orders (16). After May 1, we assume that the city is either in a relaxed state in which the transmission rate is partially but not fully reduced by limited measures and efforts to test, trace and isolate cases, or a lock-down state in which renewed shelter-in-place orders reduce transmission by 90% relative to baseline. We find simple triggers for issuing sheltering orders and estimate the impact of cocooning vulnerable populations, that is, maintaining a 95% reduction in transmission to high-risk individuals. These findings provide actionable insights for other metropolitan areas where shelter-in-place orders have curbed the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, the framework can incorporate any dynamic model of COVID-19 transmission to support similar planning throughout the US.
2 Results
All of our results are based on simulating variable levels of social distancing using a data-driven model for COVID-19 transmission and healthcare needs in the Austin, Texas metropolitan area (16). Austin can toggle between a relaxed state in which transmission is reduced by 40% relative to the baseline transmission rate estimated prior to schools closing on March 14 and a lock-down state in which transmission is reduced by 90%. The relaxed state does not fully rebound to baseline transmission under the assumption that testing-based containment and voluntary social distancing will partially mitigate risks. Further analyses for other degrees of relaxation, ranging from a 20% to 80% reduction in transmission, are provided in the Supplementary Materials. All projections end in September 2021, which is an optimistic time horizon for the development and distribution of prophylactic or therapeutic medical countermeasures (17).
To evaluate and optimize intervention policies, we compare two outcome measures. First, we measure the total number of days of lock-down (i.e., shelter-in-place) until Sep 30, 2021 as a proxy for the economic and societal costs of the policy, depicted by gray shading in Fig. 1. Second, we determine the probability of exceeding hospital capacity as a proxy for the public health risks of the policy, indicated when the red hospitalization curves surpass the red capacity line in Fig. 1.
We first project COVID-19 hospitalizations in the extreme scenario that the city maintains a 90% reduction in local transmission indefinitely through a combination of aggressive social distancing, transmission-reducing precautions and proactive testing, contact tracing, and isolation (Fig. 1a). The analysis assumes that schools remain closed, and cocooning of high-risk populations reduces their risk of infection by 95% rather than 90%. Under this policy, we would not expect a second wave to emerge during the model horizon (Fig. 1a). Cumulative deaths would be expected to slowly climb to 81 [90% prediction interval: 10–202]. This scenario costs a year and a half (555 days) of lock-down.
In the other extreme, consider the scenario in which Austin permanently relaxes social distancing on May 1st, while continuing to cocoon high-risk populations and opening schools on August 18th (Fig. 1b). While this policy requires a lock-down for only the initial 38-day period prior to May 1st, we would expect a catastrophic surge in hospitalizations that exceeds the local capacity by 80% during July–September 2020, resulting in an expected 23,075 [90% prediction interval: 22,409–23,741] patients not receiving critical care. Without accounting for the excess mortality during this period, which could be considerable, we would expect at least 30-fold higher COVID-19 mortality relative to the indefinite lock-down scenario, with deaths reaching 2957 [90% prediction interval: 2868–3040] by September 2021. Under this policy, we expect two epidemic waves during the model horizon, with the second large wave peaking in the late summer of 2020.
Assuming that the first scenario is unattainable and the second scenario unacceptable, we seek alternative policies that limit the number of days in lock-down while preventing COVID-19 health-care surges beyond local capacity. Based on our decision-support efforts for the city of Austin and potential biases in confirmed case count data across the US, we conjecture that local hospitalization data will be a more reliable indicator of transmission intensity and future hospital surges. Our best policies track daily COVID-19 hospital admissions and daily total hospitalizations across the city and trigger the initiation and relaxation of lock-down periods when admissions cross predetermined thresholds.
Specifically, we formulate and solve a stochastic optimization problem that selects daily hospitalization triggers and recommends reinstatement and relaxation of lock-down periods as follows:
reinstate the lock-down—corresponding to a 90% reduction in transmission—when the seven-day average of daily hospital admissions exceeds the trigger; and
release the lock-down—corresponding to a 40% reduction in transmission—when both: (a) the seven-day average of daily hospital admissions drops below the trigger, and (b) city-wide hospitalizations (heads in beds) are below a fixed factor (60%) of surge capacity for COVID-19.
If randomized testing becomes available at sufficient scale, we could similarly determine triggers based on testing rather than hospitalization data, and thereby gain earlier indications of a rising or declining threat.
To keep estimated hospitalizations within capacity, we use the square-root staffing rule from queueing theory (18). This rule maintains a high probability (we use ≥ 0.9999) that a single arrival in steady state does not have to wait for service, and yet servers are highly utilized. Our “servers” are hospital beds, along with necessary healthcare providers and equipment. We assume that 80% of Austin’s hospital beds are available for COVID-19 patients. We require that the square-root staffing rule hold, under a point forecast for daily COVID-19 hospitalizations. In addition we simulate, and optimize with respect to, 300 sample paths of the epidemic, taking into account both macro- and micro-level stochastics, with details in the Supplementary Materials. We ensure that the probability of exceeding hospital capacity within the time horizon is at most 0.01. With these constraints in place, we select triggers to minimize the expected number of days of lock-down. Minimizing lock-down acknowledges social and economic pressures to relax stringent measures.
Given the hospital capacity in the Austin, Texas metropolitan area we recommended a simple, yet robust, strategy with two fixed thresholds: 80 daily COVID-19 hospital admissions prior to September 30, 2020, and 215 thereafter, as indicated by the blue step function in the right panel of Fig. 1c. We optimized these two values as well as the date of the transition. Under the point forecast for the pandemic, 135 days of lock-down are required and hospitalizations remain safely below capacity. Stochastic simulation yields a mean of 135 days [90% prediction interval: 126–141]. The projected mortality is substantial, with a mean of 2929 deaths [90% prediction interval: 2837–3026], which is again over 30 times larger than the baseline scenario of indefinite lock-down (Fig. 1a). While the other baseline scenario of indefinite relaxation projected similar COVID-19 mortality (Fig. 1b), it produces a catastrophic surge in hospitalizations, and those projections do not account for excess mortality caused by inadequate healthcare resources during the July-September 2020 surge period.
These projections assume an ambitious policy of cocooning vulnerable populations with a 95% level of effectiveness. If cocooning only attains an 80% reduction in transmission risk, then we would expect far greater numbers of hospitalizations and deaths. Under this scenario, the optimal policy requires lower thresholds for enacting lock-downs: 30 daily COVID-19 hospital admissions prior to July 31, 2020 and 110 thereafter (Fig. 1d, Table 1). Leaky cocooning can substantially undermine containment. In this case, the optimal strategy for managing hospital surge requires multiple periods of lock-down totaling about 350 days and more than doubling expected mortality.
We conducted sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness and limitations of the optimized triggers. The proposed triggers are relatively robust to weaker social distancing during relaxation periods, e.g., if transmission is only reduced by 20% rather than 40%. However, the proposed triggers are not robust to leaky cocooning. We analyze the relative merits of policies with a constant lock-down threshold to the horizon, relative to having two distinct thresholds, as presented here. We show the importance of optimizing trigger thresholds: conservative triggers significantly increase the duration of lock-down periods, while loose triggers result in hospital capacity being overrun. See Supplementary Materials for details.
3 Discussion
A significant relaxation of social distancing in the absence of a comprehensive program for testing, contact tracing and isolation will likely lead to future waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in US cities. Even if policy-makers extend lock-down periods, lack of public willingness to comply might undermine their efficacy. Thus, planning for future relaxations is paramount to averting unmanageable surges in COVID-19 hospitalizations. Carefully designed strategies for triggering future shelter-in-place measures can mitigate the impact on the community’s healthcare system while minimizing economic and societal costs.
Our framework clarifies a key decision facing city and state leaders in the wake of the first wave of COVID-19 transmission—when to enact and relax social distancing measures should the epidemic rebound. We posit a simple strategy for measuring and responding to future surges in hospitalizations—enact and then relax temporary lock-downs when daily hospital admissions climb above and eventually recede below a predetermined, optimized threshold.
The optimal strategies derived for Austin, Texas provide three critical insights. First, data-driven optimization yields policies that are expected to protect against catastrophic hospital surges while requiring far fewer days of costly shelter-in-place measures than most sensible expert-designed strategies. For example, triggering lock-downs based on an arbitrarily chosen trigger of 50 new admissions per day should prevent hospitalizations from reaching capacity, but they are expected to require more than 150 additional days of lock-down, relative to the optimized trigger policy. However, implementing this trigger-based optimization framework requires continual review of daily hospital admissions and overall hospital utilization, as well as constant validation of transmission rates during lock-down and relaxation phases.
Second, under the plausible scenario that transmission rebounds to 60% of baseline (i.e., a 40% reduction), the best strategy for limiting lock-downs without undermining the healthcare system would likely trigger only one future lock-down in mid June following a steep increase in hospitalizations that surpasses the trigger of 80 new admissions per day (Fig. 1c). Hospitalizations would then be expected to peak and subside in late July, allowing relaxation of the lock-down by late September. The simultaneous release of the lock-down and start of a delayed 2020–2021 school year would fuel a third wave, which would be expected to be self-limiting, that is, subside without requiring a third lock-down period. This decline is driven by herd immunity, with an expected 79% of the population already infected and recovered by October 2021.
We emphasize that, while this strategy offers a practical balance between economic and health-care constraints, it is not designed to minimize morbidity and mortality and results in nearly 3000 expected deaths by September 2021. If we assume a similar COVID-19 mortality rate for the entire US, this extrapolates to over 450 thousand deaths, an order of magnitude higher than the annual mortality from seasonal influenza. We note, with concern, that this alarming projection assumes that high-risk populations maintain 95% effective social distancing through September 2021.
Finally, failing to vigilantly cocoon our vulnerable populations will significantly increase both the death toll and the requisite number of days in lock-down, even under the most efficient policy for keeping hospitalizations in check. Nursing homes and populations experiencing homelessness have both large proportions of high-risk individuals and living conditions that exacerbate the risks of COVID-19 transmission. Proactive measures to prevent COVID-19 introductions into these communities and to rapidly contain initial clusters is essential to effective cocooning but will require considerable forethought and resources, including additional trained staff and isolation facilities. In addition, providing incentives and support for high-risk members of the workforce to shelter-at-home will be critical.
While we believe that our qualitative findings are robust and provide actionable insights for navigating the challenges ahead, our quantitative findings are specific to Austin and are based on several simplifying assumptions. For example, we do not consider the impact of the 2020–2021 influenza season on surge capacity for COVID-19 cases. During the 2019–2020 influenza season, several Austin area hospitals neared their capacity. In reality, we cannot predict when or how much transmission will rebound from policy loosening or public fatigue. Yet, our optimal policies assume a specific and constant degree of relaxation. Our sensitivity analysis suggests that the derived policies are relatively robust to uncertainty regarding future transmission but not to a relaxation of cocooning.
Our simple threshold policies allow optimization using a relatively small discrete grid. This approach can be directly applied to other epidemiological simulation models, provided that they can incorporate both triggers and variable levels of social distancing, e.g., by adjusting transmission rates over time. Thus, modelers can broadly apply this framework to provide decision-support for COVID-19 responses in cities worldwide. In addition to tracking hospitalizations for triggering shelter-in-place orders, modelers will need to regularly estimate local transmission rates as policies and individual behavior evolve. Although daily COVID-19 hospitalization counts allow robust estimation of reductions in transmission (16), the signal is delayed by the roughly 10-day lag between infection and hospitalization. Integrating cell phone mobility data reflecting social distancing, as we do in our forecasting model (19, 20), may improve the accuracy and timeliness of our estimates. Finally, September 2021 is a long horizon. In the months ahead, the likelihood and timeline for promising antiviral drugs and vaccines may become clearer. If such life-saving measures appear within reach, communities may have a renewed willingness to shelter-in-place that can be directly incorporated to designing new triggers for aggressive mitigation.
Data Availability
All data is available in the main text or the supplementary materials.
Data and materials availability
All data is available in the main text or the supplementary materials.
Acknowledgments
Funding: This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health under Grant NIH R01 AI151176 and by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under Grant 2017-ST-061-QA0001. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.