Summary
Background The novel coronavirus COVID-19 has been classified by the World Health Organisation as a pandemic due to its worldwide spread. The ability of countries to contain and control transmission is critical in the absence of a vaccine. We evaluated a range of social distancing measures to determine which strategies are most effective in reducing the peak daily infection rate, and consequential pressure on the health care system.
Methods Using COVID-19 transmission data from the outbreak source in Hubei Province, China, collected prior to activation of containment measures, we adapted an established individual based simulation model of the city of Newcastle, Australia, population 272,409. Simulation of virus transmission in this community model without interventions provided a baseline from which to compare alternative social distancing strategies. The infection history of each individual was determined, as was the time infected. From this model-generated data, the rate of growth in cases, the magnitude of the epidemic peak, and the outbreak duration were obtained.
Findings The application of all four social distancing interventions: school closure, workplace non-attendance, increased case isolation, and community contact reduction is highly effective in flattening the epidemic curve, reducing the maximum daily case numbers, and lengthening outbreak duration. These were also found to be effective even after 10 weeks delay from index case arrivals. The most effective single intervention was found to be increasing case isolation, to 100% of children and 90% of adults.
Interpretation As strong social distancing intervention strategies had the most effect in reducing the epidemic peak, this strategy may be considered when weaker strategies are first tried and found to be less effective. Questions arise as to the duration of strong social distancing measures, given they are highly disruptive to society. Tradeoffs may need to be made between the effectiveness of social distancing strategies and population willingness to adhere to them.
Competing Interest Statement
Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Health funded program of related research
Funding Statement
No funding for this specific research paper
Author Declarations
All 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.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
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 and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Not applicable
