Dataset Information

Quantifying the impact of physical distance measures on the transmission of COVID-19 in the UK.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To mitigate and slow the spread of COVID-19, many countries have adopted unprecedented physical distancing policies, including the UK. We evaluate whether these measures might be sufficient to control the epidemic by estimating their impact on the reproduction number (R₀, the average number of secondary cases generated per case).

Methods

We asked a representative sample of UK adults about their contact patterns on the previous day. The questionnaire was conducted online via email recruitment and documents the age and location of contacts and a measure of their intimacy (whether physical contact was made or not). In addition, we asked about adherence to different physical distancing measures. The first surveys were sent on Tuesday, 24 March, 1 day after a "lockdown" was implemented across the UK. We compared measured contact patterns during the "lockdown" to patterns of social contact made during a non-epidemic period. By comparing these, we estimated the change in reproduction number as a consequence of the physical distancing measures imposed. We used a meta-analysis of published estimates to inform our estimates of the reproduction number before interventions were put in place.

Results

We found a 74% reduction in the average daily number of contacts observed per participant (from 10.8 to 2.8). This would be sufficient to reduce R₀ from 2.6 prior to lockdown to 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.89) after the lockdown, based on all types of contact and 0.37 (95% CI = 0.22-0.53) for physical (skin to skin) contacts only.

Conclusions

The physical distancing measures adopted by the UK public have substantially reduced contact levels and will likely lead to a substantial impact and a decline in cases in the coming weeks. However, this projected decline in incidence will not occur immediately as there are significant delays between infection, the onset of symptomatic disease, and hospitalisation, as well as further delays to these events being reported. Tracking behavioural change can give a more rapid assessment of the impact of physical distancing measures than routine epidemiological surveillance.

SUBMITTER: Jarvis CI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7202922 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Extensive non-pharmaceutical and physical distancing measures are currently the primary interventions against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide. It is therefore urgent to estimate the impact such measures are having. We introduce a Bayesian epidemiological model in which a proportion of individuals are willing and able to participate in distancing, with the timing of distancing measures informed by survey data on attitudes to distancing and COVID-19. We fit our model to reported COVID-19 cases in British Columbia (BC), Canada, and five other jurisdictions, using an observation model that accounts for both underestimation and the delay between symptom onset and reporting. We estimated the impact that physical distancing (social distancing) has had on the contact rate and examined the projected impact of relaxing distancing measures. We found that, as of April 11 2020, distancing had a strong impact in BC, consistent with declines in reported cases and in hospitalization and intensive care unit numbers; individuals practising physical distancing experienced approximately 0.22 (0.11-0.34 90% CI [credible interval]) of their normal contact rate. The threshold above which prevalence was expected to grow was 0.55. We define the "contact ratio" to be the ratio of the estimated contact rate to the threshold rate at which cases are expected to grow; we estimated this contact ratio to be 0.40 (0.19-0.60) in BC. We developed an R package 'covidseir' to make our model available, and used it to quantify the impact of distancing in five additional jurisdictions. As of May 7, 2020, we estimated that New Zealand was well below its threshold value (contact ratio of 0.22 [0.11-0.34]), New York (0.60 [0.43-0.74]), Washington (0.84 [0.79-0.90]) and Florida (0.86 [0.76-0.96]) were progressively closer to theirs yet still below, but California (1.15 [1.07-1.23]) was above its threshold overall, with cases still rising. Accordingly, we found that BC, New Zealand, and New York may have had more room to relax distancing measures than the other jurisdictions, though this would need to be done cautiously and with total case volumes in mind. Our projections indicate that intermittent distancing measures-if sufficiently strong and robustly followed-could control COVID-19 transmission. This approach provides a useful tool for jurisdictions to monitor and assess current levels of distancing relative to their threshold, which will continue to be essential through subsequent waves of this pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundMany low- and middle-income countries have implemented control measures against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, it is not clear to what extent these measures explain the low numbers of recorded COVID-19 cases and deaths in Africa. One of the main aims of control measures is to reduce respiratory pathogen transmission through direct contact with others. In this study, we collect contact data from residents of informal settlements around Nairobi, Kenya, to assess if control measures have changed contact patterns, and estimate the impact of changes on the basic reproduction number (R0).MethodsWe conducted a social contact survey with 213 residents of five informal settlements around Nairobi in early May 2020, 4 weeks after the Kenyan government introduced enhanced physical distancing measures and a curfew between 7 pm and 5 am. Respondents were asked to report all direct physical and non-physical contacts made the previous day, alongside a questionnaire asking about the social and economic impact of COVID-19 and control measures. We examined contact patterns by demographic factors, including socioeconomic status. We described the impact of COVID-19 and control measures on income and food security. We compared contact patterns during control measures to patterns from non-pandemic periods to estimate the change in R0.ResultsWe estimate that control measures reduced physical contacts by 62% and non-physical contacts by either 63% or 67%, depending on the pre-COVID-19 comparison matrix used. Masks were worn by at least one person in 92% of contacts. Respondents in the poorest socioeconomic quintile reported 1.5 times more contacts than those in the richest. Eighty-six percent of respondents reported a total or partial loss of income due to COVID-19, and 74% reported eating less or skipping meals due to having too little money for food.ConclusionCOVID-19 control measures have had a large impact on direct contacts and therefore transmission, but have also caused considerable economic and food insecurity. Reductions in R0 are consistent with the comparatively low epidemic growth in Kenya and other sub-Saharan African countries that implemented similar, early control measures. However, negative and inequitable impacts on economic and food security may mean control measures are not sustainable in the longer term.

Project description:BackgroundA variety of public health measures have been implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada to reduce contact between individuals. The objective of this study was to provide empirical contact pattern data to evaluate the impact of public health measures, the degree to which social contacts rebounded to normal levels, as well as direct public health efforts toward age- and location-specific settings.MethodsFour population-based cross-sectional surveys were administered to members of a paid panel representative of Canadian adults by age, gender, official language, and region of residence during May (Survey 1), July (Survey 2), September (Survey 3), and December (Survey 4) 2020. A total of 4981 (Survey 1), 2493 (Survey 2), 2495 (Survey 3), and 2491 (Survey 4) respondents provided information about the age and setting for each direct contact made in a 24-h period. Contact matrices were constructed and contacts for those under the age of 18 years imputed. The next generation matrix approach was used to estimate the reproduction number (Rt) for each survey. Respondents with children under 18 years estimated the number of contacts their children made in school and extracurricular settings.ResultsEstimated Rt values were 0.49 (95% CI: 0.29-0.69) for May, 0.48 (95% CI: 0.29-0.68) for July, 1.06 (95% CI: 0.63-1.52) for September, and 0.81 (0.47-1.17) for December. The highest proportion of reported contacts occurred within the home (51.3% in May), in 'other' locations (49.2% in July) and at work (66.3 and 65.4% in September and December). Respondents with children reported an average of 22.7 (95% CI: 21.1-24.3) (September) and 19.0 (95% CI 17.7-20.4) (December) contacts at school per day per child in attendance.ConclusionThe skewed distribution of reported contacts toward workplace settings in September and December combined with the number of reported school-related contacts suggest that these settings represent important opportunities for transmission emphasizing the need to support and ensure infection control procedures in both workplaces and schools.

Project description:Countries around the world have taken control measures to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, including Korea. Social distancing is considered an essential strategy to reduce transmission in the absence of vaccination or treatment. While interventions have been successful in controlling COVID-19 in Korea, maintaining the current restrictions incurs great social costs. Thus, it is important to analyze the impact of different polices on the spread of the epidemic. To model the COVID-19 outbreak, we use an extended age-structured SEIR model with quarantine and isolation compartments. The model is calibrated to age-specific cumulative confirmed cases provided by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA). Four control measures-school closure, social distancing, quarantine, and isolation-are investigated. Because the infectiousness of the exposed has been controversial, we study two major scenarios, considering contributions to infection of the exposed, the quarantined, and the isolated. Assuming the transmission rate would increase more than 1.7 times after the end of social distancing, a second outbreak is expected in the first scenario. The epidemic threshold for increase of contacts between teenagers after school reopening is 3.3 times, which brings the net reproduction number to 1. The threshold values are higher in the second scenario. If the average time taken until isolation and quarantine reduces from three days to two, cumulative cases are reduced by 60% and 47% in the first scenario, respectively. Meanwhile, the reduction is 33% and 41%, respectively, for rapid isolation and quarantine in the second scenario. Without social distancing, a second wave is possible, irrespective of whether we assume risk of infection by the exposed. In the non-infectivity of the exposed scenario, early detection and isolation are significantly more effective than quarantine. Furthermore, quarantining the exposed is as important as isolating the infectious when we assume that the exposed also contribute to infection.