Abstract
Background We compared the health and economic consequences for the State of Victoria, Australia, of four COVID-19 strategies: aggressive and moderate elimination, tight suppression (aiming for 1 to 5 cases per million per day) and loose suppression (5 to 25 cases per million per day). The strategies shifted up and down through five levels of policy stringency based on the number of cases per day, for one year.
Methods An agent-based model (ABM) generated 100 runs of daily SARS-CoV-2 case numbers, that then fed into a proportional multistate lifetable to estimate health adjusted life years (HALYs) and costs. We used a net monetary benefit approach to estimate the optimal strategy.
Findings Aggressive elimination resulted in the highest percentage of days with the lowest level of restrictions (median 31.7%, 90% simulation interval 6.6% to 64.4%). However, days in hard lockdown were similar across all four strategies (medians 27.5% to 36.1%).
HALY losses (compared to a no-COVID-19 scenario) were similar for moderate elimination (286, 219 to 389) and moderate elimination (314, 228 to 413), and nearly eight and 40-times higher for tight and loose suppression. The median GDP loss was least for moderate elimination ($US41.7 billion, $29.0 to $63.6 billion), but there was substantial overlap in simulation intervals between the four strategies.
From a health system perspective aggressive elimination was optimal in 64% of simulations above a willingness to pay of $15,000 per HALY, followed by moderate elimination in 35% of simulations. Moderate elimination was optimal from a partial societal perspective in half the simulations followed by aggressive elimination in a quarter.
Shortening the pandemic duration to 6 months saw loose suppression become preferable under a partial societal perspective.
Interpretation For this single high-income jurisdiction, elimination strategies were preferable over a 1-year pandemic duration.
Funding Anonymous philanthropic donation to the University of Melbourne.
Evidence before this study There have been varying approaches across countries and jurisdictions as to how to manage the COVID-19 pandemic, ranging from elimination of community transmission (e.g. Australasia, Taiwan and other East Asian and Pacific Island countries) to loose suppression or mitigation that attempts to keep the case numbers within health services capacity (e.g. Sweden, USA, India, UK and some continental European countries). The best or optimal approach is unknown, and involves an invidious balancing of health, social and economic consequences of the pandemic. But it has become apparent that in high income countries using loose suppression that one still has to use lock-downs from time to time to keep case numbers within health service capacity, raising the question as to what is the best for the economy – attempting elimination, tight suppression or loose suppression?
One approach to integrating the health and economic consequences is cost effectiveness analysis, but to date such approaches have mainly been focused on SARS-CoV-2 treatments rather than societal intervention, and have not incorporated a counterfactual approach to compare the same jurisdiction across the many (stochastically varying) realizations for different policy options.
Added value of this study This study uses one high-income jurisdiction, the state of Victoria in Australia as it exited its second wave, to estimate the health and economic consequences of four policy options: aggressive and moderate elimination strategies, and tight and loose suppression strategies. The modeling is done in two steps: first, an agent-based model to simulate 100 possible trajectories of daily SARS-CoV-2 infections over one year for each of the four policy options; and second, an integrated epidemiological and economic model that estimates health and economic costs. Whilst there is considerable uncertainty in outcomes for all of the four policy options, the two elimination options are usually optimal from both a health system and a partial societal (health expenditure plus GDP cost) perspective. However, if the remaining duration of the pandemic is lessened from 1 year to half a year (as may be the case with vaccine roll-outs), loose suppression becomes more favorable – suggesting countries with already high infection rates ‘ride it out’ till vaccination coverage is adequate.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Anonymous philanthropic donation to the University of Melbourne.
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:
We confirm that we have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines.
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
The Victorian Department of Health and Human Services provided Victorian SARS-CoV-2 notification data for calculation of hospitalisation, ICU admission and fatality rates.
