Homebound by COVID19: the benefits and consequences of non-pharmaceutical intervention strategies
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Background
Recent research has been conducted by various countries and regions on the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) on reducing the spread of COVID19. This study evaluates the tradeoffs between potential benefits (e.g., reduction in infection spread and deaths) of NPIs for COVID19 and being homebound (i.e., refraining from interactions outside of the household).
Methods
An agent-based simulation model, which captures the natural history of the disease at the individual level, and the infection spread via a contact network assuming heterogeneous population mixing in households, peer groups (workplaces, schools), and communities, is adapted to project the disease spread and estimate the number of homebound people and person-days under multiple scenarios, including combinations of shelter-in-place, voluntary quarantine, and school closure in Georgia from March 1 to September 1, 2020.
Results
Compared to no intervention, under voluntary quarantine, voluntary quarantine with school closure, and shelter-in-place with school closure scenarios 4.5, 23.1, and 200+ homebound adult-days were required to prevent one infection, with the maximum number of adults homebound on a given day in the range of 119 K–248 K, 465 K–499 K, 5388 K-5389 K, respectively. Compared to no intervention, school closure only reduced the percentage of the population infected by less than 16% while more than doubling the peak number of adults homebound.
Conclusions
Voluntary quarantine combined with school closure significantly reduced the number of infections and deaths with a considerably smaller number of homebound person-days compared to shelter-in-place.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.22.20160085: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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 …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.22.20160085: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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.
-
-
-
