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

Synchronization in Epidemic Growth and the Impossibility of Selective Containment

View ORCID ProfileJan Carl Budich, View ORCID ProfileEmil J. Bergholtz
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.06.20226894
Jan Carl Budich
1Institute of Theoretical Physics, Technische Universität Dresden and Würzburg-Dresden Cluster of Excellence ct.qmat, 01062 Dresden, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jan Carl Budich
Emil J. Bergholtz
2Department of Physics, Stockholm University, AlbaNova University Center, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Emil J. Bergholtz
  • For correspondence: emil.bergholtz@fysik.su.se
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Containment, aiming to prevent the epidemic stage of community-spreading altogether, and mitigation, aiming to merely ‘flatten the curve’ of a wide-ranged outbreak, constitute two qualitatively different approaches to combating an epidemic through non-pharmaceutical interventions. Here, we study a simple model of epidemic dynamics separating the population into two groups, namely a low-risk group and a high-risk group, for which different strategies are pursued. Due to synchronization effects, we find that maintaining a slower epidemic growth behavior for the high-risk group is unstable against any finite coupling between the two groups. More precisely, the density of infected individuals in the two groups qualitatively evolves very similarly, apart from a small time delay and an overall scaling factor quantifying the coupling between the groups. Hence, selective containment of the epidemic in a targeted (high-risk) group is practically impossible whenever the surrounding society implements a mitigated community-spreading. We relate our general findings to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic caused by the new Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is among the biggest global challenges of our time [1], and its quantitative analysis has thus been an intense focus of recent research [2–7]. A repeatedly debated [8, 9] mitigation strategy is based on selectively protecting vulnerable individuals that are at high risk to die or at least develop a severe condition when contracting the virus. Such a strategy, in the following referred to as 2GROUPS, in practice amounts to defining (at least) two groups of individuals, a low-risk group (L) and a high-risk group (H), and then focusing most of the available resources to try and protect the group H from infection, while the larger low-risk group basically does “business as usual”, possibly combined with moderate general mitigation measures aimed at ‘flattening the curve’ of infections for group L.

Here, we analyze the expected qualitative outcome of such a 2GROUPS scenario [10]. Generally speaking, there are two crucial ingredients to a 2GROUPS strategy: First, efficient criteria to identify the high-risk and the low-risk individuals a priori. Regarding this aspect, earlier studies indicated that a large fraction of anticipated severe cases may be concentrated in a relatively small group H, even if only the single criterion of age is used [2, 11]. Second, the isolation of the high-risk group aimed at strongly containing the prevalence of the disease in group H. In this regard, we find that the selective isolation of the risk group is largely stymied by synchronization effects in the equations governing the pandemic dynamics (see Fig. 1 for an illustration). In particular, we analytically demonstrate within a minimal mathematical model that maintaining a qualitatively slower growth of infections in the high-risk group is unstable against any finite coupling between the two groups, and thus impractical. Instead, the overall exposure of the group H is found to be proportional to that of group L, which may allow for a certain degree of mitigation within H, but largely rules out selective containment within the high-risk group.

FIG. 1:
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
FIG. 1:

Syncronization of epidemic growth governed by Eq. 1. Even if the high-risk group (H) isolates very efficiently, here quantified by a small basic reproduction number Embedded Image, a significant fraction Embedded Image (red) becomes infected if the low-risk group (L) exhibits a mitigated ‘flatten the curve’ scenario, here at Embedded Image, as described by Embedded Image (blue). We show that this holds for any finite coupling between the groups due to a synchronization effect taking place in exponential growth phase of the epidemic. Specifically, during the synchronization the high and low-risk group infection rates are scaled by a simple constant factor, Embedded Image and shifted by one time-step (cf. the black dashed curve). After the synchronization the infection rate in the high-risk group remains significant and bounded from below as Embedded Image. Initial conditions set to Embedded Image.

Minimal mathematical model of 2GROUPS

We analyze a simple two-component model of SIR type [12], in which the qualitative synchronization between the epidemic curves of the two groups (cf. Fig. 1) may be readily understood analytically. The corresponding equations for the low-risk group L read as Embedded Image Here, Embedded Image, stands for the density of individuals within group α that are susceptible (μ = s), infectious (μ = i), and recovered (μ = r), respectively. The time-step of the discretized dynamics is denoted by Δt and for SARS-CoV-2 roughly amounts to 5 days in real time [13]. The parameter Embedded Image is the reproduction rate within group L, and the inter-group coupling Embedded Image quantifies the transfer of infections from group H to group L. The corresponding equations for the high-risk group H are identical to Eqs. (1) upon exchanging H and L in all instances. The resulting parameters Embedded Image and Embedded Image then denote the transfer of infections from L to H, and the effective reproduction rate within H, respectively. The goal of 2GROUPs is of course to keep Embedded Image as low as possible, but it will still be non-zero in any realistic implementation.

It is important to notice that the reproduction numbers scale with the relative size of the groups: Embedded Image and Embedded Image scale with the fraction of the population in the low-risk group while Embedded Image and Embedded Image scale with the population fraction in the high-risk group. In a realistic scenario with the low-risk group being about five times as large as the high risk group this directly leads to a factor of five between Embedded Image as compared to Embedded Image and RHL, as reflected in the parameters used for the simulations shown in Fig. 1. Moreover, in our example in Fig. 1, we use RLH = 0.5 which corresponds to an additional three-fold reduction of contacts involving individuals from group H, compared to the already mitigated values (for SARS-CoV-2) within group L of Embedded Image This, for the high-risk group, amounts to a rather strict isolation at a level of hard lockdowns in Europe during spring 2020, and even similar to the level reached during the lockdown in Wuhan [14].

To gain analytical insight, and motivated by the afore-mentioned scaling of parameters with relative group size, within a first approximation we neglect both Embedded Image and Embedded Image, while keeping Embedded Image and Embedded Image finite. This leads to a uni-directional decoupling of the two groups (note that H no longer appears in Eqs. (1) for the group L), which allows us to get an intuitive feeling for the synchronization of the two groups (see Fig. 2(a)). Corrections arising from restoring the neglected couplings are discussed further below. Roughly speaking, this only adds additional channels of infection compared to the simplifying approximation, and at least does not make the situation more favorable for the H group. Within our approximation, we may first solve Eqs. (1) for group L and then plug the time-dependent solution Embedded Image into the corresponding equations for H. Putting Δt = 1, i.e. measuring time in units of Δt, we thus derive

FIG. 2:
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
FIG. 2:

Instability at weak inter-group coupling (a) and total infection during the epidemic (b), illustrating Eq. (5) for various inter-group coupling values Embedded Image (evaluated at Embedded Image for the initial condition Embedded Image).

Embedded Image where we have defined Embedded Image as an effective time-dependent reproduction rate for group H. Eq. (2) formally resembles a time-step in a simple epidemic dynamics of a single group but with Embedded Image replaced by the time-dependent Embedded Image. Importantly, since Embedded Image is pro-portional to the quotient Embedded Image, a much lower density of infected in the H group (the main goal of 2GROUPS) increases the epidemic growth within H – a very undesirable but unavoidable effect of the non-linear couplingEmbedded Image. During the initial exponential growth of infections in L, a stable situation characterized by a time-independent Embedded Image only occurs if the condition Embedded Image is satisfied. Then, the dynamics of Embedded Image simply follows the dynamics of Embedded Image with a delay of a single time step and an overall reduction in amplitude, effectively dividing it by Embedded Image i.e. Embedded Image (cf. Eq. (3)). Close to the peak and during the downward slope of the dynamics, the delay causes Embedded Image to grow even slightly above Embedded Image (see Fig. 1). Hence, a simple estimate for the overall number of infected IH within the high-risk group is given by Embedded Image where IL denotes the overall number of infected within the low-risk group during the epidemic (see Fig. 2(b)). These general results are illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2(a). In fact, a stronger bound holds throughout the relevant parts of the epidemic, namely that Embedded Image (cf. the black dashed and blue solid curves in Fig. 1). We stress that Fig. 1 shows data on the full model (1) with finite parameter values Embedded Image and Embedded Image, and the good agreement with our analytical predictions based on neglecting those couplings thus corroborates the ro-bustness of our analytical picture over a wider parameter range.

More generally, we find that an undesirable outbreak within the high-risk group that, apart from a delay by one time-step, is qualitatively similar to the behavior of the low-risk group occurs as soon as Embedded Image is non-zero, even for very small values (see Fig. 2(a)). Furthermore, increasing Embedded Image and Embedded Image is never found to reduce Embedded Image (or IH for that matter). Hence, our analytical picture for Embedded Image may be seen as an optimistic lower bound for the infections within the high-risk group.

Concluding remarks

In this work, we have shown that the efficiency of a stratified epidemic strategy dividing the population into a low- and a high-risk group is drastically limited by synchronization effects occurring for any finite coupling between the groups. Specifically, the most optimistic hope to maintain a significantly slower effective reproduction rate for the high-risk group as compared to the low-risk group is largely ruled out. We have explicitly demonstrated this analytically in SIR-based 2GROUP models that give a coarse grained mean-field picture, noting that SIR models are microscopically more accurate for the spread of e.g. influenza viruses than for SARS-CoV-2, as clusters and superspreading events play an important role for the latter. Furthermore, certain quantitative aspects such as the delay in infections between the two groups may differ significantly due to finer structures of a real society not captured by our simple modelling [15]. Finally, we note that our model assumes perfect immunity upon recovery. That may be a reasonable approximation during a specific wave of the epidemic, and deviations from this assumption can for sure only make the situation worse for both groups. Despite our minimal modeling, we would find it very surprising, if the qualitative effects revealed in our present work, in particular the impossibility of sustaining a selective containment for a risk-group only, could not be clearly identified in more microscopic modelling scenarios. Along these lines, we hope that our findings stimulate future efforts to analyze more detailed COVID-19 specific models from a viewpoint of epidemic curves corresponding to different groups, including effects such as partial immunity, time-dependent strategies, imperfect vaccinations, and relaxing NPIs.

As a matter of fact, a sort of 2GROUPs strategy has been applied in Sweden for the first 7 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. While this has certainly contributed to keeping the fatalities lower than in an entirely unmitigated scenario, the comparably high fatality rates in Sweden may serve as a practical example of how hard it is to selectively protect high-risk groups [16, 17]. While insufficient security measures naturally play a major role here, we note that the outcome is in agreement with our general analysis: the substantial impact on the high-risk group has been reflecting the high spread in society at large. This stands in contrast to the neighboring countries that have applied a containment strategy directed to the society at large. Even without similarly stringent restrictions for the risk groups, this has resulted in a per capita fatality rate roughly an order of magnitude lower than in Sweden. This indicates that synchronization phenomena as the ones revealed in our present study might be more universal for epidemic dynamics, as long as infections occur between individuals (as opposed to disease spreading via agents such as mosquitos).

Data Availability

All data and source code is available from the authors upon request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Marcus Carlsson, Thors Hans Hansson and Jan LÖtvall for useful comments and discussions. EJB acknowledges the Science Forum Covid-19 (https://vetcov19.se/en/) for numerous discussions on epidemiology and COVID-19. EJB is supported by the Swedish Research Council (VR) and the Wallenberg Academy Fellows program of the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation.

Footnotes

  • ↵* Electronic address: jan.budich{at}tu-dresden.de

References

  1. [1].↵
    WHO (2020) Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Situation Report - 72. April 1, 2020, World Health Organization, Geneva (2020), https://apps.who.int.
  2. [2].↵
    N. M. Ferguson et al., Impact of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand, DOI:https://doi.org/10.25561/77482.
  3. [3].
    S. Flaxman et al., (2020) Estimating the number of infections and the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in 11 European countries (Imperial College London, 2020), DOI: https://doi.org/10.25561/77731.
  4. [4].
    T. Britton, F. Ball, and P. Trapman (2020) A mathematical model reveals the influence of population heterogeneity on herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2, Science 369,6505, 846–849.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. [5].
    H. Salje et al., Estimating the burden of SARS-CoV-2 in France, Science 369, 6500, 208–211.
  6. [6].
    A. J. Kucharski et al., Early dynamics of transmission and control of COVID-19: a mathematical modelling study, The Lancet Infectious Diseases 20, 5, 553–558.
  7. [7].↵
    nCoV-2019 Data Working Group (2020) Epidemiological data from the nCoV-2019 outbreak: early descriptions from publicly available data, http://virological.org/t/epidemiological-data-from-the-ncov-2019-outbreak-early-descriptions-from-publicly-available-data/337.
  8. [8].↵
    M. Kulldorf et al. (2020), The Great Barrington Declaration, https://gbdeclaration.org.
  9. [9].↵
    K. Alexanderson et al. (2020), THE JOHN SNOW MEM-ORANDUM, https://www.johnsnowmemo.com.
  10. [10].↵
    We do not attempt a detailed modeling with many parameters specific to a given country, but rather aim at distilling robust qualitative properties of the considered scenarios that do not depend on any fine-tuning.
  11. [11].↵
    Quantitative predictions will be about orders of magnitude rather than changes of a few percent.ourworldindata.org, Case fatality rate of COVID-19 by age, https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#case-fatality-rate-of-covid-19-by-age.
  12. [12].↵
    W. O. Kermack, and A. G. McKendrick (1927), A Contribution to the Mathematical Theory of Epidemics, Pro-ceedings of the Royal Society A. 115 (772): 700–721.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. [13].↵
    H. Nishiura, N. M. Linton, A. R. Akhmetzhanov (2020). Serial interval for novel coronavirus (COVID-19) infections, International Journal of Infectious Diseases. 93,284–286.
    OpenUrl
  14. [14].↵
    B. Rahman, E. Sadraddin and A. Porreca (2020). The basic reproduction number of SARS?CoV?2 in Wuhan is about to die out, how about the rest of the World?, RevMed Virol., doi:10.1002/rmv.2111.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. [15].↵
    An example of this is that the infection may be intro-duced to society in a specific subpopulation of the lowrisk groups, such as rich and healthy tourists that go on skiing vaccations, while it takes a few time steps (generations of transmission) until it has reached e.g. the usually poorer care home workers that are in direct contact with the high-risk group.
  16. [16].↵
    M. Brandén et al. (2020), Residential context and COVID-19 mortality among adults aged 70 years and older in Stockholm: a population-based, observational study using individual-level data, Lancet Healthy Longev 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-7568(20)30016-7.
  17. [17].↵
    A.C. Roxby and T.R. Gure (2020), Lessons from Sweden: where can older adults shelter from COVID-19?, Lancet Healthy Longev 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-7568(20)30035-0.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted November 07, 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.
Synchronization in Epidemic Growth and the Impossibility of Selective Containment
(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
Synchronization in Epidemic Growth and the Impossibility of Selective Containment
Jan Carl Budich, Emil J. Bergholtz
medRxiv 2020.11.06.20226894; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.06.20226894
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Synchronization in Epidemic Growth and the Impossibility of Selective Containment
Jan Carl Budich, Emil J. Bergholtz
medRxiv 2020.11.06.20226894; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.06.20226894

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 (271)
  • Allergy and Immunology (557)
  • Anesthesia (135)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1769)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (238)
  • Dermatology (173)
  • Emergency Medicine (316)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (662)
  • Epidemiology (10812)
  • Forensic Medicine (8)
  • Gastroenterology (594)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (2960)
  • Geriatric Medicine (288)
  • Health Economics (534)
  • Health Informatics (1933)
  • Health Policy (836)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (745)
  • Hematology (293)
  • HIV/AIDS (633)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (12525)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (696)
  • Medical Education (300)
  • Medical Ethics (87)
  • Nephrology (324)
  • Neurology (2808)
  • Nursing (152)
  • Nutrition (433)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (559)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (597)
  • Oncology (1473)
  • Ophthalmology (444)
  • Orthopedics (172)
  • Otolaryngology (257)
  • Pain Medicine (190)
  • Palliative Medicine (56)
  • Pathology (381)
  • Pediatrics (868)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (367)
  • Primary Care Research (338)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2646)
  • Public and Global Health (5383)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1016)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (597)
  • Respiratory Medicine (727)
  • Rheumatology (330)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (290)
  • Sports Medicine (279)
  • Surgery (327)
  • Toxicology (48)
  • Transplantation (150)
  • Urology (126)