Abstract
The role of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) on the spread of SARS-CoV-2 has drawn significant attention, both scientific and political. Particularly, an article by the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team (ICCRT), published online in Nature on June 8, 2020, evaluates the efficiency of 5 NPIs. Based on mortality data up to early May, it concludes that only one of the interventions, lockdown, has been efficient in 10 out of 11 studied European countries.
We show, via simulations using the ICCRT model code, that conclusions regarding the effectiveness of individual NPIs are not justified. Our analysis focuses on the 11th country, Sweden, an outlier in that no lockdown was effectuated. The new simulations show that estimated NPI efficiencies across all 11 countries change drastically unless the model is adapted to give the Swedish data special treatment. While stated otherwise in the Nature article, such adaptation has been done in the model code reproducing its results: An ungrounded country-specific parameter said to have been introduced in all 11 countries, is in the code only activated for Sweden. This parameter de facto provides a new NPI category, only present in Sweden, and with an impact comparable to that of a lockdown.
While the considered NPIs have unarguably contributed to reduce virus spread, our analysis reveals that their individual efficiency cannot be reliably quantified by the ICCRT model, provided mortality data up to early May.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was partially supported by the ELLIIT Strategic Research Area, by the Wallenberg AI, Autonomous Systems and Software Program (WASP) funded by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, and by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF) via the project ASSEMBLE (contract number: RIT15-0012).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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
Footnotes
Author’s contributions Study conceptualisation: Bernhardsson, Gustafsson, Jaldén, Soltesz, Timpka
Analysis and interpretation of model weaknesses: Bernhardsson, Bagge Carlson, Jaldén, Soltesz Code preparation and execution: Heimerson, Jidling
Background literature review: Bernhardsson, Jöud, Spreco,Timpka
Manuscript writing and reviewing: Bernhardsson, Dahlström, Ekberg, Jaldén, Jöud, Schön, Soltesz, Spreco, Timpka
Competing interests: None.
Funding statement: This work was partially supported by the ELLIIT Strategic Research Area, by the Wallenberg AI, Autonomous Systems and Software Program (WASP) funded by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, and by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF) via the project ASSEMBLE (contract number: RIT15-0012).
Data Availability
We have used the original model code and associated data, provided in [9] and described as "the exact code that was used" in [4]. A fork of this code, generating the figures in this manuscript, is provided in [10].
