The impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 epidemic growth in the 37 OECD member states

Pozo-Martin, Francisco; Weishaar, Heide; Cristea, Florin; Hanefeld, Johanna; Bahr, Thurid; Schaade, Lars; Bcheraoui, Charbel El

doi:10.1007/s10654-021-00766-0

Cited by 42 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The impact of other non-pharmaceutical public health measures, including workplace closings, voluntary quarantine compliance, shelter-in-place, and masking mandates have been considered and compared in prior work [ 7 , 9 , 20 , 31 , 53 – 56 ]. Some studies found that the public health effects of school closures are similar to that of workplace closures [ 20 , 53 , 54 ]. Our study focused on the impact of various school reopening scenarios to provide policy suggestions to decision-makers amid an ongoing pandemic or epidemic, in the presence of other non-pharmaceutical interventions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating scenarios for school reopening under COVID19

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Thousands of school systems have struggled with the decisions about how to deliver education safely and effectively amid the COVID19 pandemic. This study evaluates the public health impact of various school reopening scenarios (when, and how to return to in-person instruction) on the spread of COVID19. Methods An agent-based simulation model was adapted and used to project the impact of various school reopening strategies on the number of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths in the state of Georgia during the study period, i.e., February 18th-November 24th, 2020. The tested strategies include (i) schools closed, i.e., all students receive online instruction, (ii) alternating school day, i.e., half of the students receive in-person instruction on Mondays and Wednesdays and the other half on Tuesdays and Thursdays, (iii) alternating school day for children, i.e., half of the children (ages 0-9) receive in-person instruction on Mondays and Wednesdays and the other half on Tuesdays and Thursdays, (iv) children only, i.e., only children receive in-person instruction, (v) regular, i.e., all students return to in-person instruction. We also tested the impact of universal masking in schools. Results Across all scenarios, the number of COVID19-related deaths ranged from approximately 8.8 to 9.9 thousand, the number of cumulative infections ranged from 1.76 to 1.96 million for adults and 625 to 771 thousand for children and youth, and the number of COVID19-related hospitalizations ranged from approximately 71 to 80 thousand during the study period. Compared to schools reopening August 10 with a regular reopening strategy, the percentage of the population infected reduced by 13%, 11%, 9%, and 6% in the schools closed, alternating school day for children, children only, and alternating school day reopening strategies, respectively. Universal masking in schools for all students further reduced outcome measures. Conclusions Reopening schools following a regular reopening strategy would lead to higher deaths, hospitalizations, and infections. Hybrid in-person and online reopening strategies, especially if offered as an option to families and teachers who prefer to opt-in, provide a good balance in reducing the infection spread compared to the regular reopening strategy, while ensuring access to in-person education.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating scenarios for school reopening under COVID19

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Aleta et al show that travel restrictions are likely to be effective measures only in the short term and may be less effective at a later stage and for the elimination of the infection (15,60). In order to have a better control of COVID-19 pandemic, other preventive and control measures such as promotion of the use of face masks, regular handwashing, school closures, and suspension of large public get-togethers should also be place (61). Other measures such as active surveillance and self-isolation of infected persons and their contacts should also be implemented (45).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classification Schemes of COVID-19 High Risk Areas and Resulting Policies: A Rapid Review

Uthman

Adetokunboh

Wiysonge

et al. 2022

Front. Public Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a significant global health threat since January 2020. Policies to reduce human mobility have been recognized to effectively control the spread of COVID-19; although the relationship between mobility, policy implementation, and virus spread remains contentious, with no clear pattern for how countries classify each other, and determine the destinations to- and from which to restrict travel. In this rapid review, we identified country classification schemes for high-risk COVID-19 areas and associated policies which mirrored the dynamic situation in 2020, with the aim of identifying any patterns that could indicate the effectiveness of such policies. We searched academic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, medRxiv, Google Scholar, and EMBASE. We also consulted web pages of the relevant government institutions in all countries. This rapid review's searches were conducted between October 2020 and December 2021. Web scraping of policy documents yielded additional 43 country reports on high-risk area classification schemes. In 43 countries from which relevant reports were identified, six issued domestic classification schemes. International classification schemes were issued by the remaining 38 countries, and these mainly used case incidence per 100,000 inhabitants as key indicator. The case incidence cut-off also varied across the countries, ranging from 20 cases per 100,000 inhabitants in the past 7 days to more than 100 cases per 100,000 inhabitants in the past 28 days. The criteria used for defining high-risk areas varied across countries, including case count, positivity rate, composite risk scores, community transmission and satisfactory laboratory testing. Countries either used case incidence in the past 7, 14 or 28 days. The resulting policies included restrictions on internal movement and international travel. The quarantine policies can be summarized into three categories: (1) 14 days self-isolation, (2) 10 days self-isolation and (3) 14 days compulsory isolation.

show abstract

“…However, these designs are limited in capturing herd immunity (indirect effect) and population-level effectiveness (overall effect of a vaccination program in the population) [ 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Furthermore, these designs were unable to examine the population-level outcomes of mass vaccination (e.g., the growth rate of infection cases [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ], the number of cases averted [ 19 ]), which have important public health implications and provide evidence for policymaking. Some methods have been adopted to study the population-level effect (overall effect) of the COVID-19 vaccines, most of which are mathematical models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Population-Level Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccination Program in the United States: Causal Analysis Based on Structural Nested Mean Model

Wang

et al. 2022

Vaccines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Though COVID-19 vaccines have shown high efficacy, real-world effectiveness at the population level remains unclear. Based on the longitudinal data on vaccination coverage and daily infection cases from fifty states in the United States from March to May 2021, causal analyses were conducted using structural nested mean models to estimate the population-level effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccination program against infection with the original strain. We found that in the US, every 1% increase of vaccination coverage rate reduced the weekly growth rate of COVID-19 confirmed cases by 1.02% (95% CI: 0.26%, 1.69%), and the estimated population-level effectiveness of the COVID-19 program was 63.9% (95% CI: 18.0%, 87.5%). In comparison to a no-vaccination scenario, the COVID-19 vaccination campaign averted 8.05 million infections through the study period. Scenario analyses show that a vaccination program with doubled vaccination speed or with more rapid vaccination speed at the early stages of the campaign would avert more infections and increase vaccine effectiveness. The COVID-19 vaccination program demonstrated a high population-level effectiveness and significantly reduced the disease burden in the US. Accelerating vaccine rollout, especially at an early stage of the campaign, is crucial for reducing COVID-19 infections.

show abstract

The impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 epidemic growth in the 37 OECD member states

Cited by 42 publications

References 29 publications

Evaluating scenarios for school reopening under COVID19

Evaluating scenarios for school reopening under COVID19

Classification Schemes of COVID-19 High Risk Areas and Resulting Policies: A Rapid Review

Population-Level Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccination Program in the United States: Causal Analysis Based on Structural Nested Mean Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About