Effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions to contain COVID-19 in China

Abstract

On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic 1. The strategies based on non-pharmaceutical interventions that were used to contain the outbreak in China appear to be effective 2 , but quantitative research is still needed to assess the efficacy of non-pharmaceutical interventions and their timings 3. Here, using epidemiological data on COVID-19 and anonymized data on human movement 4,5 , we develop a modelling framework that uses daily travel networks to simulate different outbreak and intervention scenarios across China. We estimate that there were a total of 114,325 cases of COVID-19 (interquartile range 76,776-164,576) in mainland China as of 29 February 2020. Without non-pharmaceutical interventions, we predict that the number of cases would have been 67-fold higher (interquartile range 44-94-fold) by 29 February 2020, and we find that the effectiveness of different interventions varied. We estimate that early detection and isolation of cases prevented more infections than did travel restrictions and contact reductions, but that a combination of non-pharmaceutical interventions achieved the strongest and most rapid effect. According to our model, the lifting of travel restrictions from 17 February 2020 does not lead to an increase in cases across China if social distancing interventions can be maintained, even at a limited level of an on average 25% reduction in contact between individuals that continues until late April. These findings improve our understanding of the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19, and will inform response efforts across the world.

Test for Covid-19 seasonality and the risk of second waves

“…Control measures such as periods of enforced lockdown followed by various degrees of social distancing effectively slow the spread of the disease in a population (e.g. Lai et al, 2020;Maier and Brockmann, 2020). Stringent lockdown can reduce R t to less than 1, causing the epidemic to disappear over time as has been reported to be the case for Wuhan, China (Zhang et al, 2020a, b).…”

Effect of COVID-19 Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions and Threats to Human Rights

“…The burgeoning literature examines the effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) [3][4][5][6][7] , the stringency of NPIs 8 , or factors affecting compliance with NPIs 9 . Some mainly support the effect of lockdown by arguing that stringent government responses are effective in containing COVID-19, but only in a single country 3,6 , or even without giving what it means by lockdown in different countries 5,10,11 . Given the variety of scope and measures included in a lockdown of different countries, however, it is crucial to investigate the effect of NPIs in a more detailed way.…”

How can traditional Chinese medicine contribute to the therapeutic approach in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? A review of the registered clinical trials

“…Since March 12, the number of new indigenous cases in China has been below 13 every day [7]. The under-reporting of cases and deaths of COVID-19 in China is believed almost non-existent due to the strict implementation of nonpharmaceutical interventions (including isolating ill persons, contact tracing, quarantine of exposed persons, travel restrictions, school and workplace closures, cancellation of mass gatherings, and hand washing, among others) [8], and the rapid establishment of large health-care facilities (Fangcang shelter hospitals) to leave no virus patient unattended [9], and the combination of TCM and WM is believed to have played a substantial role in prevention and treatment and has attracted increasing attention worldwide [5]. In order to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of speci c TCM therapies such as Chinese patent medicines, formulae and complex treatment, many clinical trials have been registered and carried out in China in the past four months [10].…”