Early intervention is the key to success in COVID-19 control

  1. Rachelle N. Binny
  2. Michael G. Baker
  3. Shaun C. Hendy
  4. Alex James
  5. Audrey Lustig
  6. Michael J. Plank
  7. Kannan M. Ridings
  8. Nicholas Steyn

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

New Zealand responded to the COVID-19 pandemic with a combination of border restrictions and an Alert Level (AL) system that included strict stay-at-home orders. These interventions were successful in containing an outbreak and ultimately eliminating community transmission of COVID-19 in June 2020. The timing of interventions is crucial to their success. Delaying interventions may reduce their effectiveness and mean that they need to be maintained for a longer period. We use a stochastic branching process model of COVID-19 transmission and control to simulate the epidemic trajectory in New Zealand's March–April 2020 outbreak and the effect of its interventions. We calculate key measures, including the number of reported cases and deaths, and the probability of elimination within a specified time frame. By comparing these measures under alternative timings of interventions, we show that changing the timing of AL4 (the strictest level of restrictions) has a far greater impact than the timing of border measures. Delaying AL4 restrictions results in considerably worse outcomes. Implementing border measures alone, without AL4 restrictions, is insufficient to control the outbreak. We conclude that the early introduction of stay-at-home orders was crucial in reducing the number of cases and deaths, enabling elimination.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1098/rsos.210488
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.20.20216457: (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.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.10.20.20216457 on medRxiv