Dataset Information

Modelling the impact of lockdown-easing measures on cumulative COVID-19 cases and deaths in England.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To assess the potential impacts of successive lockdown-easing measures in England, at a point in the COVID-19 pandemic when community transmission levels were relatively high.

Design

We developed a Bayesian model to infer incident cases and reproduction number (R) in England, from incident death data. We then used this to forecast excess cases and deaths in multiple plausible scenarios in which R increases at one or more time points.

Setting

England.

Participants

Publicly available national incident death data for COVID-19 were examined.

Primary outcome

Excess cumulative cases and deaths forecast at 90 days, in simulated scenarios of plausible increases in R after successive easing of lockdown in England, compared with a baseline scenario where R remained constant.

Results

Our model inferred an R of 0.75 on 13 May when England first started easing lockdown. In the most conservative scenario modelled where R increased to 0.80 as lockdown was eased further on 1 June and then remained constant, the model predicted an excess 257 (95% CI 108 to 492) deaths and 26 447 (95% CI 11 105 to 50 549) cumulative cases over 90 days. In the scenario with maximal increases in R (but staying ≤1), the model predicts 3174 (95% CI 1334 to 6060) excess cumulative deaths and 421 310 (95% CI 177 012 to 804 811) cases. Observed data from the forecasting period aligned most closely to the scenario in which R increased to 0.85 on 1 June, and 0.9 on 4 July.

Conclusions

When levels of transmission are high, even small changes in R with easing of lockdown can have significant impacts on expected cases and deaths, even if R remains ≤1. This will have a major impact on population health, tracing systems and healthcare services in England. Following an elimination strategy rather than one of maintenance of R ≤1 would substantially mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic within England.

SUBMITTER: Ziauddeen H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8438582 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA second wave of COVID-19 cases in autumn, 2020, in England led to localised, tiered restrictions (so-called alert levels) and, subsequently, a second national lockdown. We examined the impact of these tiered restrictions, and alternatives for lockdown stringency, timing, and duration, on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission and hospital admissions and deaths from COVID-19.MethodsWe fit an age-structured mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to data on hospital admissions and hospital bed occupancy (ISARIC4C/COVID-19 Clinical Information Network, National Health Service [NHS] England), seroprevalence (Office for National Statistics, UK Biobank, REACT-2 study), virology (REACT-1 study), and deaths (Public Health England) across the seven NHS England regions from March 1, to Oct 13, 2020. We analysed mobility (Google Community Mobility) and social contact (CoMix study) data to estimate the effect of tiered restrictions implemented in England, and of lockdowns implemented in Northern Ireland and Wales, in October, 2020, and projected epidemiological scenarios for England up to March 31, 2021.FindingsWe estimated a reduction in the effective reproduction number (Rt) of 2% (95% credible interval [CrI] 0-4) for tier 2, 10% (6-14) for tier 3, 35% (30-41) for a Northern Ireland-stringency lockdown with schools closed, and 44% (37-49) for a Wales-stringency lockdown with schools closed. From Oct 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021, a projected COVID-19 epidemic without tiered restrictions or lockdown results in 280 000 (95% projection interval 274 000-287 000) hospital admissions and 58 500 (55 800-61 100) deaths. Tiered restrictions would reduce hospital admissions to 238 000 (231 000-245 000) and deaths to 48 600 (46 400-50 700). From Nov 5, 2020, a 4-week Wales-type lockdown with schools remaining open-similar to the lockdown measures announced in England in November, 2020-was projected to further reduce hospital admissions to 186 000 (179 000-193 000) and deaths to 36 800 (34 900-38 800). Closing schools was projected to further reduce hospital admissions to 157 000 (152 000-163 000) and deaths to 30 300 (29 000-31 900). A projected lockdown of greater than 4 weeks would reduce deaths but would bring diminishing returns in reducing peak pressure on hospital services. An earlier lockdown would have reduced deaths and hospitalisations in the short term, but would lead to a faster resurgence in cases after January, 2021. In a post-hoc analysis, we estimated that the second lockdown in England (Nov 5-Dec 2) reduced Rt by 22% (95% CrI 15-29), rather than the 32% (25-39) reduction estimated for a Wales-stringency lockdown with schools open.InterpretationLockdown measures outperform less stringent restrictions in reducing cumulative deaths. We projected that the lockdown policy announced to commence in England on Nov 5, with a similar stringency to the lockdown adopted in Wales, would reduce pressure on the health service and would be well timed to suppress deaths over the winter period, while allowing schools to remain open. Following completion of the analysis, we analysed new data from November, 2020, and found that despite similarities in policy, the second lockdown in England had a smaller impact on behaviour than did the second lockdown in Wales, resulting in more deaths and hospitalisations than we originally projected when focusing on a Wales-stringency scenario for the lockdown.FundingHorizon 2020, UK Medical Research Council, and the National Institute for Health Research.

Project description:ObjectivesIn this study we compared two predictions of COVID-19 cases in the Kingdom Saudi Arabia (KSA) using pre-and post-relaxation of lockdown period data to provide an insight regarding rational exit strategies. We also applied these projections to understand economic costs versus health benefit of lockdown measures.MethodsWe analyzed open access data on COVID-19 cases from March 6 to January 16, 2021 in the KSA. To understand the epidemic projection during the pre- and post-lockdown period, we used two types of modeling: the SIR model, and the time series model. We also estimated the costs and benefits of lockdown- QALY gained compared to the costs of lockdown considering the payment threshold of the Government.ResultsPrediction using lockdown period data suggested that the epidemic might slow down significantly after 109 thousand cases and end on October 6, 2020. However, analysis with latest data after easing lockdown measures suggested that epidemic might be close to an end on October 28, 2021 with 358 thousand cases. The peak has also been shifted from May 18, 2020 to Jun 24, 2020. While earlier model predicted a steady growth in mid-June, the revised model with latest data predicted it in mid-August. In addition, we estimated that 4986 lives would have been saved if lockdown continued but the cost per life saved would be more than $378 thousand, which is way above not only the KSA threshold, but also the threshold of any other highly advanced economies such as the UK and the USA.ConclusionsOur results suggest that relaxation of lockdown measures negatively impacts the epidemic. However, considering the negative impact of prolong lockdown measures on health and economy, countries must decide on the best timing and strategy to exit from such measures to safely return to normal life with minimum loss of lives and economy considering its economic and health systems' capacity. Instead of focusing only on health, a balanced approach taking economy under consideration is recommended.

Project description:COVID-19 caseloads in England have passed through a first peak, and at the time of this analysis appeared to be gradually increasing, potentially signalling the emergence of a second wave. To ensure continued response to the epidemic is most effective, it is imperative to better understand both retrospectively and prospectively the geographical evolution of COVID-19 caseloads and deaths at small-area resolution, identify localised areas in space-time at significantly higher risk, quantify the impact of changes in localised population mobility (or movement) on caseloads, identify localised risk factors for increased mortality and project the likely course of the epidemic at high spatial resolution in coming weeks. We applied a Bayesian hierarchical space-time SEIR model to assess the spatiotemporal variability of COVID-19 caseloads (transmission) and deaths at small-area scale in England [Middle Layer Super Output Area (MSOA), 6791 units] and by week (using observed data from week 5 to 34 of 2020), including key determinants, the modelled transmission dynamics and spatial-temporal random effects. We also estimate the number of cases and deaths at small-area resolution with uncertainty projected forward in time by MSOA (up to week 51 of 2020), the impact mobility reductions (and subsequent easing) have had on COVID-19 caseloads and quantify the impact of key socio-demographic risk factors on COVID-19 related mortality risk by MSOA. Reductions in population mobility during the course of the first lockdown had a significant impact on the reduction of COVID-19 caseloads across England, however local authorities have had a varied rate of reduction in population movement which our model suggest has substantially impacted the geographic heterogeneity in caseloads at small-area scale. The steady gain in population mobility, observed from late April, appears to have contributed to a slowdown in caseload reductions towards late June and subsequent start of the second wave. MSOA with higher proportions of elderly (70+ years of age) and elderly living in deprivation, both with very distinct geographic distributions, have a significantly elevated COVID-19 mortality rates. While non-pharmaceutical interventions (that is, reductions in population mobility and social distancing) had a profound impact on the trajectory of the first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak in England, increased population mobility appears to have significantly contributed to the second wave. A number of contiguous small-areas appear to be at a significant elevated risk of high COVID-19 transmission, many of which are also at increased risk for higher mortality rates. A geographically staggered re-introduction of intensified social distancing measures is advised and limited cross MSOA movement if the magnitude and geographic extent of the second wave is to be reduced.

Project description:IntroductionDelays in cancer diagnosis arose from the commencement of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) introduced in the UK in March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our earlier work predicted this will lead to approximately 3620 avoidable deaths for four major tumour types (breast, bowel, lung, and oesophageal cancer) in the next 5 years. Here, using national population-based modelling, we estimate the health and economic losses resulting from these avoidable cancer deaths. We also compare these with the impact of an equivalent number of COVID-19 deaths to understand the welfare consequences of the different health conditions.MethodsWe estimate health losses using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and lost economic productivity using the human capital (HC) approach. The analysis uses linked English National Health Service (NHS) cancer registration and hospital administrative datasets for patients aged 15-84 years, diagnosed with breast, colorectal, and oesophageal cancer between 1st Jan to 31st Dec 2010, with follow-up data until 31st Dec 2014, and diagnosed with lung cancer between 1st Jan to 31st Dec 31 2012, with follow-up data until 31st Dec 2015. Productivity losses are based on the estimation of excess additional deaths due to cancer at 1, 3 and 5 years for the four cancer types, which were derived from a previous analysis using this dataset. A total of 500 random samples drawn from the total number of COVID-19 deaths reported by the Office for National Statistics, stratified by gender, were used to estimate productivity losses for an equivalent number of deaths (n = 3620) due to SARS-CoV-2 infection.ResultsWe collected data for 32,583 patients with breast cancer, 24,975 with colorectal cancer, 6744 with oesophageal cancer, and 29,305 with lung cancer. We estimate that across the four site-specific cancers combined in England alone, additional excess cancer deaths would amount to a loss of 32,700 QALYs (95% CI 31,300-34,100) and productivity losses of £103.8million GBP (73.2-132.2) in the next five years. For breast cancer, we estimate a loss of 4100 QALYS (3900-4400) and productivity losses of £23.2 m (18.2-28.6); for colorectal cancer, 15,000 QALYS (14,100-16,000) lost and productivity losses of £35.7 m (22.4-48.7); for lung cancer 10,900 QALYS (9,900-11,700) lost and productivity losses of £38.3 m (14.0-59.9) for lung cancer; and for oesophageal cancer, 2700 QALYS (2300-3,100) lost and productivity losses of £6.6 m (-6 to -17.6). In comparison, the equivalent number of COVID-19 deaths caused approximately 21,450 QALYs lost, as well as productivity losses amounting to £76.4 m (73.5-79.2).ConclusionPremature cancer deaths resulting from diagnostic delays during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK will result in significant economic losses. On a per-capita basis, this impact is, in fact, greater than that of deaths directly attributable to COVID-19. These results emphasise the importance of robust evaluation of the trade-offs of the wider health, welfare and economic effects of NPI to support both resource allocation and the prioritisation of time-critical health services directly impacted in a pandemic, such as cancer care.

Project description:BackgroundSince a national lockdown was introduced across the UK in March, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer screening has been suspended, routine diagnostic work deferred, and only urgent symptomatic cases prioritised for diagnostic intervention. In this study, we estimated the impact of delays in diagnosis on cancer survival outcomes in four major tumour types.MethodsIn this national population-based modelling study, we used linked English National Health Service (NHS) cancer registration and hospital administrative datasets for patients aged 15-84 years, diagnosed with breast, colorectal, and oesophageal cancer between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2010, with follow-up data until Dec 31, 2014, and diagnosed with lung cancer between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2012, with follow-up data until Dec 31, 2015. We use a routes-to-diagnosis framework to estimate the impact of diagnostic delays over a 12-month period from the commencement of physical distancing measures, on March 16, 2020, up to 1, 3, and 5 years after diagnosis. To model the subsequent impact of diagnostic delays on survival, we reallocated patients who were on screening and routine referral pathways to urgent and emergency pathways that are associated with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis. We considered three reallocation scenarios representing the best to worst case scenarios and reflect actual changes in the diagnostic pathway being seen in the NHS, as of March 16, 2020, and estimated the impact on net survival at 1, 3, and 5 years after diagnosis to calculate the additional deaths that can be attributed to cancer, and the total years of life lost (YLLs) compared with pre-pandemic data.FindingsWe collected data for 32 583 patients with breast cancer, 24 975 with colorectal cancer, 6744 with oesophageal cancer, and 29 305 with lung cancer. Across the three different scenarios, compared with pre-pandemic figures, we estimate a 7·9-9·6% increase in the number of deaths due to breast cancer up to year 5 after diagnosis, corresponding to between 281 (95% CI 266-295) and 344 (329-358) additional deaths. For colorectal cancer, we estimate 1445 (1392-1591) to 1563 (1534-1592) additional deaths, a 15·3-16·6% increase; for lung cancer, 1235 (1220-1254) to 1372 (1343-1401) additional deaths, a 4·8-5·3% increase; and for oesophageal cancer, 330 (324-335) to 342 (336-348) additional deaths, 5·8-6·0% increase up to 5 years after diagnosis. For these four tumour types, these data correspond with 3291-3621 additional deaths across the scenarios within 5 years. The total additional YLLs across these cancers is estimated to be 59 204-63 229 years.InterpretationSubstantial increases in the number of avoidable cancer deaths in England are to be expected as a result of diagnostic delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Urgent policy interventions are necessary, particularly the need to manage the backlog within routine diagnostic services to mitigate the expected impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with cancer.FundingUK Research and Innovation Economic and Social Research Council.

Project description:Stringent lockdown measures implemented in Italy to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 are generating unprecedented economic impacts. However, the environmental consequences associated with the temporary shutdown and recovery of industrial and commercial activities are still not fully understood. Using the well-known carbon footprint (CF) indicator, this paper provides a comprehensive estimation of environmental effects due to the COVID-19 outbreak lockdown measures in Italy. Our aim was to quantify the CF associated with the consumption of energy by any economic activity and region in Italy during the lockdown, and then compare these environmental burdens with the CF calculated for analogous periods from 2015 to 2019 (~March and April). Complementarily, we also conducted a scenario analysis to estimate the post-lockdown CF impact in Italy. A consumption-based approach was applied according to the principles of the established Life Cycle Assessment method. The CF was therefore quantified as a sum of direct and indirect greenhouse gases (GHGs) released from domestically produced and imported energy metabolism flows, excluding the exports. Our findings indicate that the CF in the lockdown period is ~-20% lower than the mean CF calculated for the past. This means avoided GHGs in between ~5.6 and ~10.6 Mt CO2e. Results further suggest that a tendency occurs towards higher impact savings in the Northern regions, on average ~230 kt CO2e of GHGs avoided by province (against ~110-130 kt CO2e in central and Southern provinces). Not surprisingly, these are the utmost industrialized areas of Italy and have been the ones mostly affected by the outbreak. Despite our CF estimates are not free of uncertainties, our research offers quantitative insights to start understanding the magnitude generated by such an exceptional lockdown event in Italy on climate change, and to complement current scientific efforts investigating the relationships between air pollution and the spread of COVID-19.