Safety-Critical Control of Active Interventions for COVID-19 Mitigation

  1. Aaron D. Ames
  2. Tamás G. Molnár
  3. Andrew W. Singletary
  4. Gábor Orosz

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The world has recently undergone the most ambitious mitigation effort in a century 1 , consisting of wide-spread quarantines aimed at preventing the spread of COVID-19 2 . The use of influential epidemiological models 3–6 of COVID-19 helped to encourage decision makers to take drastic non-pharmaceutical interventions. Yet, inherent in these models are often assumptions that the active interventions are static, e.g., that social distancing is enforced until infections are minimized, which can lead to inaccurate predictions that are ever evolving as new data is assimilated. We present a methodology to dynamically guide the active intervention by shifting the focus from viewing epidemiological models as systems that evolve in autonomous fashion to control systems with an “input” that can be varied in time in order to change the evolution of the system. We show that a safety-critical control approach 7 to COVID-19 mitigation gives active intervention policies that formally guarantee the safe evolution of compartmental epidemiological models. This perspective is applied to current US data on cases while taking into account reduction of mobility, and we find that it accurately describes the current trends when time delays 8 associated with incubation and testing are incorporated. Optimal active intervention policies are synthesized to determine future mitigations necessary to bound infections, hospitalizations, and death, both at national and state levels. We therefore provide means in which to model and modulate active interventions with a view toward the phased reopenings that are currently beginning across the US and the world in a decentralized fashion. This framework can be converted into public policies, accounting for the fractured landscape of COVID-19 mitigation in a safety-critical fashion.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.17.20133264: (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: 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 10.1101/2020.06.17.20133264v1 on medRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.1109/access.2020.3029558