Optimizing the COVID-19 Intervention Policy in Scotland and the Case for Testing and Tracing

  1. Andreas Grothey
  2. Ken Mckinnon

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Unlike other European countries the UK has abandoned widespread testing and tracing of known SARS-CoV-2 carriers in mid-March. The reason given was that the pandemic was out of control and with wide community based spread it would not be possible to contain it by tracing any longer. Like other countries the UK has since relied on a lockdown as the main measure to contain the virus (or more precisely the reproduction number ℛ ) at significant economic and social cost. It is clear that this level of lockdown cannot be sustained until a vaccine is available, yet it is not clear what an exit strategy would look like that avoids the danger of a second (or subsequent waves).

In this paper we argue that, when used within a portfolio of intervention strategies, widespread testing and tracing leads to significant cost savings compared to using lockdown measures alone. While the effect is most pronounced if a large proportion of the infectious population can be identified and their contacts traced, under reasonable assumptions there are still significant savings even if the fraction of infectious people found by tracing is small.

We also present a policy optimization model that finds, for given assumptions on the disease parameters, the best intervention strategy to contain the virus by varying the degree of tracing and lockdown measure (and vaccination once that option is available) over time. We run the model on data fitted to the published COVID-19 outbreak figures for Scotland. The model suggests an intervention strategy that keeps the number of COVID-19 deaths low using a combination of tracing and lockdown. This strategy would only require lockdown measures equivalent to a reduction of ℛ to about 1.8–2.0 if lockdown was used alone, at acceptable economic cost, while the model finds no such strategy without tracing enabled.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.11.20128173: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    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 10.1101/2020.06.11.20128173v1 on medRxiv