Simulation of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions on COVID-19 with an Agent-based Model of Zonal Restraint

  1. Lindsay Álvarez
  2. Sergio Rojas-Galeano

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPI) are currently the only mechanism governments can use to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic. Similarly to the actual spread of the disease, the dynamics of the contention patterns emerging from the application of NPIs are complex and depend on interactions between people within a specific region as well as other stochastic factors associated to demographic, geographic, political and economical conditions. Agent-based models simulate microscopic rules of simultaneous spatial interactions between multiple agents within a population, in an attempt to reproduce the complex dynamics of the effect of the contention measures. In this way, it is possible to design individual behaviours along with NPI scenarios, measuring how the simulation dynamics is affected and therefore, yielding rapid insights to perform a broad assessment of the potential of composite interventions at different stages of the epidemic. In this paper we describe a model and a tool to experiment with such kind of analysis applied to a conceptual city, considering a number of widely-applied NPIs such as social distancing, case isolation, home quarantine, total lockdown, sentinel testing, mask wearing and a distinctive “zonal” enforcement measure, requiring these interventions to be applied gradually to separated enclosed districts (zones). We find that the model is able to capture emerging dynamics associated to these NPIs; besides, the zonal contention strategy yields an improvement on the mitigation impact across all scenarios of combination with individual NPIs. The model and tool are open to extensions to account for omitted or newer factors affecting the planning and design of NPIs intended to counter the late stages or forthcoming waves of the COVID-19 crisis.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.13.20130542: (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 10.1101/2020.06.13.20130542v1 on medRxiv