Policymakers make decisions about COVID-19 management in the face of considerable uncertainty. We convened multiple modeling teams to evaluate reopening strategies for a mid-sized county in the United States, in a novel process designed to fully express scientific uncertainty while reducing linguistic uncertainty and cognitive biases. For the scenarios considered, the consensus from 17 distinct models was that a second outbreak will occur within 6 months of reopening, unless schools and non-essential workplaces remain closed. Up to half the population could be infected with full workplace reopening; non-essential business closures reduced median cumulative infections by 82%. Intermediate reopening interventions identified no win-win situations; there was a trade-off between public health outcomes and duration of workplace closures. Aggregate results captured twice the uncertainty of individual models, providing a more complete expression of risk for decision-making purposes.
Policymakers must make management decisions despite incomplete knowledge and conflicting model projections. Little guidance exists for the rapid, representative, and unbiased collection of policy-relevant scientific input from independent modeling teams. Integrating approaches from decision analysis, expert judgment, and model aggregation, we convened multiple modeling teams to evaluate COVID-19 reopening strategies for a mid-sized United States county early in the pandemic. Projections from seventeen distinct models were inconsistent in magnitude but highly consistent in ranking interventions. The 6-mo-ahead aggregate projections were well in line with observed outbreaks in mid-sized US counties. The aggregate results showed that up to half the population could be infected with full workplace reopening, while workplace restrictions reduced median cumulative infections by 82%. Rankings of interventions were consistent across public health objectives, but there was a strong trade-off between public health outcomes and duration of workplace closures, and no win-win intermediate reopening strategies were identified. Between-model variation was high; the aggregate results thus provide valuable risk quantification for decision making. This approach can be applied to the evaluation of management interventions in any setting where models are used to inform decision making. This case study demonstrated the utility of our approach and was one of several multimodel efforts that laid the groundwork for the COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub, which has provided multiple rounds of real-time scenario projections for situational awareness and decision making to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since December 2020.
Background Temperature-taking behaviors vary with levels of circulating infectious illness; however, little is known about how these behaviors differ by demographic characteristics. Populations with higher perceived risks of illness are more likely to adopt protective health behaviors. Objective We investigated differences in temperature-taking frequency and the proportion of readings that were feverish among demographic groups (age, gender, urban/rural status) over influenza offseason; influenza season; and waves 1, 2, and 3 of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Using data from smart thermometers collected from May 1, 2019, to February 28, 2021, across the United States, we calculated the frequency of temperature-taking and the proportion of temperature readings that were feverish. Mixed-effects negative binomial and mixed-effects logistic regression analyses were performed to identify demographic characteristics associated with temperature-taking frequency and the proportion of feverish readings, respectively. Separate models were fit over five study periods: influenza offseason (n=122,480), influenza season (n=174,191), wave 1 of COVID-19 (n=350,385), wave 2 (n=366,489), and wave 3 (n=391,578). Results Both temperature-taking frequency and the proportion of feverish readings differed by study period (ANOVA P<.001) and were the highest during influenza season. During all periods, children aged 2-5 years and 6-11 years had significantly higher frequencies of temperature-taking than users aged 19-30 years, and children had the highest proportion of feverish readings of all age groups, after adjusting for covariates. During wave 1 of COVID-19, users over the age of 60 years had 1.79 times (95% CI 1.76-1.83) the rate of temperature-taking as users aged 19-30 years and 74% lower odds (95% CI 72%-75%) of a reading being feverish. Across all periods, men had significantly lower temperature-taking frequency and significantly higher odds of having a feverish reading compared to women. Users living in urban areas had significantly higher frequencies of temperature-taking than rural users during all periods, except wave 2 of COVID-19, and urban users had higher odds of a reading being feverish in all study periods except wave 1 of COVID-19. Conclusions Temperature-taking behavior and the proportion of readings that were feverish are associated with both population disease levels and individual demographic characteristics. Differences in the health behavior of temperature-taking may reflect changes in both perceived and actual illness risk. Specifically, older adults may have experienced an increase in perceived risk during the first three waves of COVID-19, leading to increased rates of temperature monitoring, even when their odds of fever were lower than those of younger adults. Men’s perceived risk of circulating infectious illnesses such as influenza and COVID-19 may be lower than that of women, since men took their temperature less frequently and each temperature had a higher odds of being feverish across all study periods. Infectious disease surveillance should recognize and incorporate how behavior impacts illness monitoring and testing.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.