TY - JOUR T1 - The effectiveness of the three-tier system of local restrictions for control of COVID-19 JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.11.22.20236422 SP - 2020.11.22.20236422 AU - Paul R Hunter AU - Julii Brainard AU - Alastair Grant Y1 - 2020/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/24/2020.11.22.20236422.abstract N2 - Despite it being over 10 months since COVID-19 was first reported to the world and it having caused over 1.3 million deaths it is still uncertain how the virus can be controlled whilst minimising the negative impacts on society and the economy. On the 14th October, England introduced a three-tier system of regional restrictions in an attempt to control the epidemic. This lasted until the 5th November when a new national lockdown was imposed. Tier 1 was the least and Tier 3 the most restrictive tiers. We used publicly available data of daily cases by local authority (local government areas) and estimated the reproductive rate (R value) of the epidemic over the previous 14 days at various time points after the imposition of the tier system or where local authorities were moved into higher tiers at time points after reallocation. At day 0 there vas very little difference in the R value between authorities in the different groups but by day 14 the R value in Tier 3 authorities had fallen to about 0.9, in Tier 2 to about 1.0 and in Tier 1 the R value was about 1.5. The restrictions in Tier 1 had little impact on transmission and allowed exponential growth in the large majority of authorities. By contrast the epidemic was declining in most Tier 3 authorities. In Tier 2, exponential growth was being seen in about half of authorities but declining in half. We concluded that the existing three tier system would have been sufficient to control the epidemic if all authorities had been moved out of Tier 1 into tier 2 and there had been more rapid identification and transfer of those authorities where the epidemic was increasing out of Tier 2 into Tier 3. A more restrictive tier than Tier 3 may be needed but only by a small number of authorities.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementProfessor Hunter and Dr. Brainard were funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response at Kings College London in partnership with Public Health England (PHE) and collaboration with the University of East Anglia. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, UEA, the Department of Health or PHE.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:No individual person data was used in this study, only publicly available summary dataAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll data is publicly available from the UK Department of Health and Social Care COVID-19 Dashboard https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/about-data ER -