Abstract
Public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic varied across the world. Some countries (e.g., mainland China, New Zealand, and Taiwan) implemented elimination strategies involving strict travel measures and periods of rigorous nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in the community, aiming to achieve periods with no disease spread; while others (e.g., many European countries and the United States of America) implemented mitigation strategies involving less strict NPIs for prolonged periods, aiming to limit community spread. Travel measures and community NPIs have high economic and social costs, and there is a need for guidelines that evaluate the appropriateness of an elimination or mitigation strategy in regional contexts. To guide decisions, we identify key criteria and provide indicators and visualizations to help answer each question. Considerations include determining whether disease elimination is: (1) necessary to ensure health care provision; (2) feasible from an epidemiological point of view; and (3) cost effective when considering, in particular, the economic costs of travel measures and treating infections. We discuss our recommendations by considering the regional and economic variability of Canadian provinces and territories, and the epidemiological characteristics of different SARS-CoV-2 variants. While elimination may be a preferable strategy for regions with limited health care capacity, low travel volumes, and few port of entries, mitigation may be more feasible in large urban areas with dense infrastructure, strong economies, and with high connectivity to other regions.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
MM is grateful to the Azrieli fundation for the award of the Azrieli fellowship. MM, JA, and AH were funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada-Public Health Agency of Canada Emerging Infectious Disease Modelling Consortium. MM and AH received funding from the Department of Health and Community Services, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
We slightly changed the abstract, to clarify what our recommendations are. We also clarified our interpretation of Fig. 3, and clarified the link between concepts and the quantitative frameworks we propose that could be developed to understand whether elimination or imtigation is best. We also reviewed the discussion and changed the last two paragraphs to better explain why we think that recommendations should be local, not global.
Data Availability
The code and data used to produce the figure are publicly available at https://github.com/ahurford/elimination-or-mitigation