The effectiveness of Non-pharmaceutical interventions in reducing the COVID-19 contagion in the UK, an observational and modelling study

  1. Giorgos Galanis
  2. Corrado Di Guilmi
  3. David L. Bennett
  4. Georgios Baskozos

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Epidemiological models used to inform government policies aimed to reduce the contagion of COVID-19, assume that the reproduction number is reduced through Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) leading to physical distancing. Available data in the UK show an increase in physical distancing before the NPIs were implemented and a fall soon after implementation. We aimed to estimate the effect of people’s behaviour on the epidemic curve and the effect of NPIs taking into account this behavioural component. We have estimated the effects of confirmed daily cases on physical distancing and we used this insight to design a behavioural SEIR model (BeSEIR), simulated different scenaria regarding NPIs and compared the results to the standard SEIR. Taking into account behavioural insights improves the description of the contagion dynamics of the epidemic significantly. The BeSEIR predictions regarding the number of infections without NPIs were several orders of magnitude less than the SEIR. However, the BeSEIR prediction showed that early measures would still have an important influence in the reduction of infections. The BeSEIR model shows that even with no intervention the percentage of the cumulative infections within a year will not be enough for the epidemic to resolve due to a herd immunity effect. On the other hand, a standard SEIR model significantly overestimates the effectiveness of measures. Without taking into account the behavioural component, the epidemic is predicted to be resolved much sooner than when taking it into account and the effectiveness of measures are significantly overestimated.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0260364
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.16.20248308: (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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.12.16.20248308v1 on medRxiv