Dataset Information

The effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on SARS-CoV-2 transmission in different socioeconomic populations in Kuwait: a modeling study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Aggressive non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) may reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The extent to which these interventions are successful in stopping the spread have not been characterized in countries with distinct socioeconomic groups. We compared the effects of a partial lockdown on disease transmission among Kuwaitis (P₁) and non-Kuwaitis (P₂) living in Kuwait.

Methods

We fit a modified metapopulation SEIR transmission model to reported cases stratified by two groups to estimate the impact of a partial lockdown on the effective reproduction number ([Formula: see text]). We estimated the basic reproduction number ([Formula: see text]) for the transmission in each group and simulated the potential trajectories of an outbreak from the first recorded case of community transmission until 12 days after the partial lockdown. We estimated [Formula: see text] values of both groups before and after the partial curfew, simulated the effect of these values on the epidemic curves and explored a range of cross-transmission scenarios.

Results

We estimate [Formula: see text] at 1·08 (95% CI: 1·00-1·26) for P₁ and 2·36 (2·03-2·71) for P₂. On March 22nd, [Formula: see text] for P₁ and P₂ are estimated at 1·19 (1·04-1·34) and 1·75 (1·26-2·11) respectively. After the partial curfew had taken effect, [Formula: see text] for P₁ dropped modestly to 1·05 (0·82-1·26) but almost doubled for P₂ to 2·89 (2·30-3·70). Our simulated epidemic trajectories show that the partial curfew measure greatly reduced and delayed the height of the peak in P₁, yet significantly elevated and hastened the peak in P₂. Modest cross-transmission between P₁ and P₂ greatly elevated the height of the peak in P₁ and brought it forward in time closer to the peak of P₂.

Conclusion

Our results indicate and quantify how the same lockdown intervention can accentuate disease transmission in some subpopulations while potentially controlling it in others. Any such control may further become compromised in the presence of cross-transmission between subpopulations. Future interventions and policies need to be sensitive to socioeconomic and health disparities.

SUBMITTER: Khadadah F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8152192 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNon-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are used to reduce transmission of SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, empirical evidence of the effectiveness of specific NPIs has been inconsistent. We assessed the effectiveness of NPIs around internal containment and closure, international travel restrictions, economic measures, and health system actions on SARS-CoV-2 transmission in 130 countries and territories.MethodsWe used panel (longitudinal) regression to estimate the effectiveness of 13 categories of NPIs in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission using data from January to June 2020. First, we examined the temporal association between NPIs using hierarchical cluster analyses. We then regressed the time-varying reproduction number (Rt) of COVID-19 against different NPIs. We examined different model specifications to account for the temporal lag between NPIs and changes in Rt, levels of NPI intensity, time-varying changes in NPI effect, and variable selection criteria. Results were interpreted taking into account both the range of model specifications and temporal clustering of NPIs.ResultsThere was strong evidence for an association between two NPIs (school closure, internal movement restrictions) and reduced Rt. Another three NPIs (workplace closure, income support, and debt/contract relief) had strong evidence of effectiveness when ignoring their level of intensity, while two NPIs (public events cancellation, restriction on gatherings) had strong evidence of their effectiveness only when evaluating their implementation at maximum capacity (e.g. restrictions on 1000+ people gathering were not effective, restrictions on < 10 people gathering were). Evidence about the effectiveness of the remaining NPIs (stay-at-home requirements, public information campaigns, public transport closure, international travel controls, testing, contact tracing) was inconsistent and inconclusive. We found temporal clustering between many of the NPIs. Effect sizes varied depending on whether or not we included data after peak NPI intensity.ConclusionUnderstanding the impact that specific NPIs have had on SARS-CoV-2 transmission is complicated by temporal clustering, time-dependent variation in effects, and differences in NPI intensity. However, the effectiveness of school closure and internal movement restrictions appears robust across different model specifications, with some evidence that other NPIs may also be effective under particular conditions. This provides empirical evidence for the potential effectiveness of many, although not all, actions policy-makers are taking to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.