Challenges in evaluating risks and policy options around endemic establishment or elimination of novel pathogens

Metcalf, C. Jessica E.; Andriamandimby, Soa Fy; Baker, Richard F.; Glennon, Emma E.; Hampson, Katie; Hollingsworth, T. Déirdre; Klepac, Petra; Wesolowski, Amy

doi:10.1016/j.epidem.2021.100507

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The challenges of those transmission routes have been discussed a.o. by Hollingsworth et al (2015) and Brooks-Pollock et al (2015), and are explored further in Roberts et al (2021) and Metcalf et al (2021).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges for modelling interventions for future pandemics

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges for modelling interventions for future pandemics

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Whether an elimination or mitigation strategy is the preferable response to pandemic threats has been matter of debate (e.g., [2, 109, 37, 61, 72, 83]). Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, countries implementing an elimination strategy were praised for obtaining better public health outcomes, economic growth, civil liberties, and general population well-being [82, 10, 9, 43].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is SARS-CoV-2 elimination or mitigation best? Regional and disease characteristics determine the recommended strategy

Martignoni,

Arino,

Hurford

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic varied across the world. Some countries (e.g., mainland China, New Zealand, and Taiwan) implemented elimination strategies involving strict travel measures and periods of rigorous non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in the community, aiming to achieve periods with no disease spread; while others (e.g., many European countries and the United States of America) implemented mitigation strategies involving less strict NPIs for prolonged periods, aiming to limit community spread. Travel measures and community NPIs have high economic and social costs, and there is a need for guidelines that evaluate the appropriateness of an elimination or mitigation strategy in regional contexts. To guide decisions, we identify key criteria and provide indicators and visualizations to help answer each question. Considerations include determining whether disease elimination is: (1) necessary to ensure health care provision; (2) feasible from an epidemiological point of view; and (3) cost effective when considering, in particular, the economic costs of travel measures and treating infections. We discuss our recommendations by considering the regional and economic variability of Canadian provinces and territories, and the epidemiological characteristics of different SARS-CoV-2 variants.

show abstract

“…Whether an elimination or mitigation strategy is the preferable response to pandemic threats has been a matter of debate (e.g. [22][23][24][25][26][27]). Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, countries implementing an elimination strategy were praised for obtaining better public health outcomes, economic growth, civil liberties and general population well-being [12,[28][29][30].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is SARS-CoV-2 elimination or mitigation best? Regional and disease characteristics determine the recommended strategy

Martignoni,

Arino,

Hurford

2024

R. Soc. Open Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic varied across the world. Some countries (e.g. mainland China, New Zealand and Taiwan) implemented elimination strategies involving strict travel measures and periods of rigorous non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in the community, aiming to achieve periods with no disease spread; while others (e.g. many European countries and the USA) implemented mitigation strategies involving less strict NPIs for prolonged periods, aiming to limit community spread. Travel measures and community NPIs have high economic and social costs, and there is a need for guidelines that evaluate the appropriateness of an elimination or mitigation strategy in regional contexts. To guide decisions, we identify key criteria and provide indicators and visualizations to help answer each question. Considerations include determining whether disease elimination is: (1) necessary to ensure healthcare provision; (2) feasible from an epidemiological point of view and (3) cost-effective when considering, in particular, the economic costs of travel measures and treating infections. We discuss our recommendations by considering the regional and economic variability of Canadian provinces and territories, and the epidemiological characteristics of different SARS-CoV-2 variants. While elimination may be a preferable strategy for regions with limited healthcare capacity, low travel volumes, and few ports of entry, mitigation may be more feasible in large urban areas with dense infrastructure, strong economies, and with high connectivity to other regions.

show abstract

Challenges in evaluating risks and policy options around endemic establishment or elimination of novel pathogens

Cited by 8 publications

References 79 publications

Challenges for modelling interventions for future pandemics

Challenges for modelling interventions for future pandemics

Is SARS-CoV-2 elimination or mitigation best? Regional and disease characteristics determine the recommended strategy

Is SARS-CoV-2 elimination or mitigation best? Regional and disease characteristics determine the recommended strategy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About