Abstract
Background During the COVID-19 epidemic, governments around the world have implemented unprecedented non-pharmaceutical measures to control its spread. As these measures carry significant economic and humanitarian cost, it is an important topic to investigate the efficacy of different policies and accurately project the future spread under such said policies.
Methods We developed a novel epidemiological model, DELPHI, based on the established SEIR model, that explicitly captures government interventions, underdetection, and many other realistic effects. We estimate key biological parameters using a meta-analysis of over 190 COVID-19 research papers and fit DELPHI to over 167 geographical areas since early April. We extract the inferred government intervention effect from DELPHI.
Findings Our epidemiological model recorded 6% and 11% two-week out-of-sample Median Absolute Percentage Error on cases and deaths, and successfully predicted the severity of epidemics in many areas (including US, UK and Russia) months before it happened. Using the extracted government response, we find mass gathering restrictions and school closings on average reduced infection rates the most, at 29.9 ± 6.9% and 17.3 ± 6.7%, respectively. The most stringent policy, stay-at-home, on average reduced the infection rate by 74.4 ± 3.7% from baseline across countries that implemented it. We also further show that a reversal of stay-at-home policies in some countries, such as Brazil, could have disastrous results by end of July.
Interpretation Our findings highlight that among the widely implemented policies around the world, mass gathering restrictions and school closings appear to be the most effective policies in reducing the infection rate. Given the continued spread of the epidemic in many countries, we recommend these policies to continue to the extent that they can be feasibly implemented. Our results also show that under an assumption of R0 of 2.5-3 for COVID-19, stay-at-home policies appear to be the only effective policy that was widely implemented in reducing the R0 below 1. This implies that stay-at-home policies might be necessary, for at least the vulnerable population, if an uncontrolled second wave reemerges.
Research in Context
Evidence before this study
Evidence before this study Previous research into COVID-19 has focused on reporting estimates of epidemiological parameters of COVID-19. We conducted an extensive literature search on PubMed and MedRXiv including keywords such as “non-pharmaceutical interventions” and “government interventions”. We discovered some studies reporting on the theoretical effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions in a theoretical modeling framework. There have also been a few published studies reporting on the overall effect of government interventions in the very early stages of the epidemics in various regions, such as the United States and Europe. However, there were few studies that tried to quantify the effect of each policy that was implemented, and none that the authors know of that are conducted on the global scale of this paper.
Added value of this study
Added value of this study As governments continue to implement non-pharmaceutical interventions, we aim to understand the effect of different policies that have been implemented in the past. We developed a novel epidemiological model that has been continuously providing high accuracy forecasts since early April. It also provides global estimates for the effects of different policies as they have been implemented across 167 areas. The large number of areas we consider enable us to derive inference for many popular policies that have been implemented, including mass gathering restrictions, school closures, along with travel and work restrictions.
Implications of all the available evidence
Implications of all the available evidence The evidence indicates that mass gathering restrictions were the most effective single policy in reducing the spread of COVID-19, followed by school closings. Stay-at-home policies greatly reduced the effective R0 and most likely enabled the effective control of the epidemics in many regions. Policy simulations suggest that many countries around the world are not yet suitable for a loosening of policy guidance, or there would be potentially severe humanitarian costs.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No Funding Sources.
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:
No IRB approval required.
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
M.L.L, H.T.B, O.S.L, T.A.T, N.K.T, D.B designed the study, M.L.L, H.T.B, O.S.L acquired data, carried out analysis and formulated the results. M.L.L, H.T.B, O.S.L, T.A.T, N.K.T, D.B wrote the manuscript.
Data Availability
All data used in this paper is available at the DELPHI repository hosted on github.
https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19
https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america
https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/research-projects/coronavirus-government-response-tracker
