The effectiveness of the three-tier system of local restrictions for control of COVID-19

  1. Paul R Hunter
  2. Julii Brainard
  3. Alastair Grant

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Despite it being over 10 months since COVID-19 was first reported to the world and it having caused over 1.3 million deaths it is still uncertain how the virus can be controlled whilst minimising the negative impacts on society and the economy. On the 14 th October, England introduced a three-tier system of regional restrictions in an attempt to control the epidemic. This lasted until the 5 th November when a new national lockdown was imposed. Tier 1 was the least and Tier 3 the most restrictive tiers. We used publicly available data of daily cases by local authority (local government areas) and estimated the reproductive rate (R value) of the epidemic over the previous 14 days at various time points after the imposition of the tier system or where local authorities were moved into higher tiers at time points after reallocation. At day 0 there vas very little difference in the R value between authorities in the different groups but by day 14 the R value in Tier 3 authorities had fallen to about 0.9, in Tier 2 to about 1.0 and in Tier 1 the R value was about 1.5. The restrictions in Tier 1 had little impact on transmission and allowed exponential growth in the large majority of authorities. By contrast the epidemic was declining in most Tier 3 authorities. In Tier 2, exponential growth was being seen in about half of authorities but declining in half. We concluded that the existing three tier system would have been sufficient to control the epidemic if all authorities had been moved out of Tier 1 into tier 2 and there had been more rapid identification and transfer of those authorities where the epidemic was increasing out of Tier 2 into Tier 3. A more restrictive tier than Tier 3 may be needed but only by a small number of authorities.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.22.20236422: (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

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The mean and standard deviations of the R values for each local authority were calculated in Microsoft Excel.
    Microsoft Excel
    suggested: (Microsoft Excel, RRID:SCR_016137)

    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.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • 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 10.1101/2020.11.22.20236422v1 on medRxiv