Association of national and regional lockdowns with COVID-19 infection rates in Pune, India

  1. Vidya Mave
  2. Arsh Shaikh
  3. Joy Merwin Monteiro
  4. Prasad Bogam
  5. Bhalchandra S. Pujari
  6. Nikhil Gupte

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Assessing the impact of lockdowns on COVID-19 incidence may provide important lessons for management of pandemic in resource-limited settings. We examined growth of incident confirmed COVID-19 patients before, during and after lockdowns during the first wave in Pune city that reported the largest COVID-19 burden at the peak of the pandemic. Using anonymized individual-level data captured by Pune’s public health surveillance program between February 1st and September 15th 2020, we assessed weekly incident COVID-19 patients, infection rates, and epidemic curves by lockdown status (overall and by sex, age, and population density) and modelled the natural epidemic using the compartmental model. Effect of lockdown on incident patients was assessed using multilevel Poisson regression. We used geospatial mapping to characterize regional spread. Of 241,629 persons tested for SARS-CoV-2, 64,526 (26%) were positive, contributing to an overall rate of COVID-19 disease of 267·0 (95% CI 265·3–268·8) per 1000 persons. The median age of COVID-19 patients was 36 (interquartile range [IQR] 25–50) years, 36,180 (56%) were male, and 9414 (15%) were children < 18 years. Epidemic curves and geospatial mapping showed delayed peak of the patients by approximately 8 weeks during the lockdowns as compared to modelled natural epidemic. Compared to a subsequent unlocking period, incident COVID-19 patients were 43% lower (IRR 0·57, 95% CI 0·53–0·62) during India’s nationwide lockdown and were 22% lower (IRR 0·78, 95% CI 0.73–0.84) during Pune’s regional lockdown and was uniform across age groups and population densities. Both national and regional lockdowns slowed the COVID-19 infection rates in population dense, urban region in India, underscoring its impact on COVID-19 control efforts.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1038/s41598-022-14674-0
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.05.21254694: (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
    We assessed the geospatial spread of COVID-19 cases over time using the Python library geopandas (version 0.7.0).
    Python
    suggested: (IPython, RRID:SCR_001658)

    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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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 10.1101/2021.05.05.21254694v1 on medRxiv