Control Strategies against COVID-19 in China: Significance of Effective Testing in the Long Run

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is reasonably contained in China. In this paper, we evaluated the effectiveness of different containment strategies in halting the pandemic spread in both short- and long-term. We combined a networked metapopulation SEIR model featuring undocumented infections, actual mobility data and Bayesian inference to simulate the counterfactual outbreak scenarios removing each one or a combination of the following three policies in place: i) city lockdowns, ii) intercity travel bans, and iii) testing, detection, and quarantine. Our estimates revealed that 11.4% [95% credible interval (CI): 9.7-13.0%] of the infected cases were unidentified before January 23, 2020. The rate grew to 92.5% [95% credible interval (CI): 85.9-94.5%] in early March, thanks to the boost in coronavirus testing capacity. We show that increasing the detection rate of infections from 11.4% to 92.5% alone would explain 75% of the reduction in infections from a no-policy baseline by March 15, 2020. The most pronounced policy implication is that city lockdowns appeared to be the more effective intervention in the short-run but effective testing is essential in containing the COVID-19 spread in the long run. By March 15, restoring within-city personal contact to its 2019 level would lead to a 678% growth in infections with all the other interventions remaining unaffected. Removing intercity travel restrictions and effective detection measures would lead to 3% and 477% growth, respectively. Extending the time horizon to July 15, the counterfactual increase in infections would become 581%, 3% and 30000% had the three classes of interventions been lifted individually.

The acceptance of SARS‐CoV‐2 rapid antigen self‐testing: A cross‐sectional study in China

“…It revealed that people in developed countries and developing countries consider prices differently. Consistent with this observation, our study also found that people with a higher monthly income had a higher intention to use SARS-CoV-2 NAAT, [30][31][32] might make people relax their vigilance, so they might think that SARS-CoV-2 RAST is unnecessary.…”

“…In addition, the different situations of the COVID‐19 pandemic in different countries might also change attitudes toward the SARS‐CoV‐2 RAST. The low risk of SARS‐Cov‐2 infection in China, because of strong interventions including quarantine, mask mandates, mass vaccination, and extensive NAAT, 30–32 might make people relax their vigilance, so they might think that SARS‐CoV‐2 RAST is unnecessary.…”