PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Amir Shlomai
AU  - Ari Leshno
AU  - Ella H. Sklan
AU  - Moshe Leshno
TI  - Modeling social distancing strategies to prevent SARS-CoV2 spread in Israel- A Cost-effectiveness analysis
AID  - 10.1101/2020.03.30.20047860
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.03.30.20047860
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/10/2020.03.30.20047860.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/10/2020.03.30.20047860.full
AB  - Objectives While highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 spread, national lockdowns come with an enormous economic price. Few countries have adopted an alternative “testing, tracing, and isolation” approach to selectively isolate people at high exposure risk, thereby minimizing the economic impact. To assist policy makers, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of these two strategies.Methods A modified Susceptible, Exposed, Infectious, Recovered and Deceased (SEIRD) model was employed to assess the situation in Israel, a small country with ~9 million people. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of these strategies, as well as the expected number of infected individuals and deaths were calculated.Results A nationwide lockdown is expected to save on average 274 (median 124, interquartile range (IQR): 71-221) lives compared to the “testing, tracing, and isolation” approach. However, the ICER will be on average $45,104,156 (median $ 49.6 million, IQR: 22.7-220.1) to prevent one case of death.Conclusions A national lockdown has a moderate advantage in saving lives with tremendous costs and possible overwhelming economic effects. These findings should assist decision-makers dealing with additional waves of this pandemic.HighlightsDrastic measures of national lockdowns are taken by many countries to slow-down SARS-CoV-2 spread. However, these measures have detrimental economic effects.Here we compare two strategies to control the epidemic using a modified SEIRD model: 1. Global national lockdown 2. Focused isolation of people at high exposure risk, following detailed epidemiological investigations.We show that strategy 1 is modestly superior in saving lives compared to strategy 2, but with tremendous costs to prevent one case of death. This might result in overwhelming economic effects that are expected to increase future death toll.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo external funding was receivedAuthor DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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 and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData available within the article or its supplementary materials