Abstract
Governments are attempting to control the COVID-19 pandemic with nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). However, it is still largely unknown how effective different NPIs are at reducing transmission. Data-driven studies can estimate the effectiveness of NPIs while minimising assumptions, but existing analyses lack sufficient data and validation to robustly distinguish the effects of individual NPIs. We gather chronological data on NPIs in 41 countries between January and the end of May 2020, creating the largest public NPI dataset collected with independent double entry. We then estimate the effectiveness of 8 NPIs with a Bayesian hierarchical model by linking NPI implementation dates to national case and death counts. The results are supported by extensive empirical validation, including 11 sensitivity analyses with over 200 experimental conditions. We find that closing schools and universities was highly effective; that banning gatherings and closing high-risk businesses was effective, but closing most other businesses had limited further benefit; and that many countries may have been able to reduce R below 1 without issuing a stay-at-home order.
- COVID-19
- SARS-CoV-2
- nonpharmaceutical intervention
- countermeasure
- Bayesian model
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Jan Brauner was supported by the EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Autonomous Intelligent Machines and Systems [EP/S024050/1] and by Cancer Research UK. Soeren Mindermann's funding for graduate studies was from Oxford University and DeepMind. Mrinank Sharma was supported by the EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Autonomous Intelligent Machines and Systems [EP/S024050/1]. Gavin Leech was supported by the UKRI Centre for Doctoral Training in Interactive Artificial Intelligence [EP/S022937/1]. The paid contractor work in the data collection, the development of the interactive website, and the costs for cloud compute were funded by the Berkeley Existential Risk Initiative.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Not required.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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
Footnotes
Major changes
e The main qualitative conclusions as outlined in the Discussion are: Stay-at-home orders had a small effect; Mandating mask-wearing had a small effect; School and university closures had a large effect; Gatherings bans were effective; More strict gathering bans were more effective than less strict ones; Business closures were effective; Closing most nonessential businesses had limited benefit over closing just high-risk businesses.
Data Availability
All NPI data with sources and model code are available at https://github.com/epidemics/COVIDNPIs/tree/manuscript
