Effect of Alert Level 4 on R eff : review of international COVID-19 cases

  1. Rachelle N. Binny
  2. Shaun C. Hendy
  3. Alex James
  4. Audrey Lustig
  5. Michael J. Plank
  6. Nicholas Steyn

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The effective reproduction number, R eff , is an important measure of transmission potential in the modelling of epidemics. It measures the average number of people that will be infected by a single contagious individual. A value of R eff > 1 suggests that an outbreak will occur, while R eff < 1 suggests the virus will die out. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, countries worldwide are implementing a range of intervention measures, such as population-wide social distancing and case isolation, with the goal of reducing R eff to values below one, to slow or eliminate transmission. We analyse case data from 25 international locations to estimate their R eff values over time and to assess the effectiveness of interventions, equivalent to New Zealand’s Alert Levels 1-4, for reducing transmission. Our results show that strong interventions, equivalent to NZ’s Alert Level 3 or 4, have been successful at reducing R eff below the threshold for outbreak. In general, countries that implemented strong interventions earlier in their outbreak have managed to maintain case numbers at lower levels. These estimates provide indicative ranges of R eff for each Alert Level, to inform parameters in models of COVID-19 spread under different intervention scenarios in New Zealand and worldwide. Predictions from such models are important for informing policy and decisions on intervention timing and stringency during the pandemic.

Executive Summary

  • In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, countries around the world are implementing a range of intervention measures, such as population-wide social distancing and case isolation, with the goal of reducing the spread of the virus.

  • R eff , the effective reproduction number, measures the average number of people that will be infected by a single contagious individual. A value of R eff > 1 suggests that an outbreak will occur, while R eff < 1 suggests the virus will die out.

  • Comparing R eff in an early outbreak phase (no or low-level interventions implemented) with a later phase (moderate to high interventions) indicates how effective these measures are for reducing R eff .

  • We estimate early-phase and late-phase R eff values for COVID-19 outbreaks in 25 countries (or provinces/states). Results suggest interventions equivalent to NZ’s Alert Level 3-4 can successfully reduce R eff below the threshold for outbreak.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.30.20086934: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.30.20086934v1 on medRxiv