Abstract
Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have been conditioned by a perceived tradeoff between saving lives and the economic costs of contact-reduction measures. We develop a model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission where populations endogenously reduce contacts in response to the risk of death. We estimate the model for 118 countries and assess the existence of a tradeoff between death rates and changes in contacts. In this model communities go through three phases – rapid early outbreaks, control through initial response, and a longer period of quasi-equilibrium endemic infection with effective reproduction number (Re) fluctuating around one. Analytical characterization of this phase shows little tradeoff between contact reduction levels (underpinning economic costs) and death rates. Empirically estimating the model, we find no positive correlation between (log) death rates and (normalized) contact levels across nations, whether contacts are estimated based on epidemic curves or mobility data. While contact reduction levels are broadly similar across countries, expected death rates vary greatly, by two orders of magnitude (5-95 percentile: 0.03-17 deaths per million per day). Results suggest nations could significantly reduce the human toll of the pandemic without more disruption to normal social and economic activity than they have already faced.
Executive Summary
Problem specification: The response to COVID-19 pandemic is dominated by a perceived tradeoff between saving lives through cutting social interactions vs. allowing those interactions to maintain economic livelihood of communities. It is, however, unclear if this tradeoff really exists.
Practitioner audience: Local, regional, and national policy makers who control communities’ responses to observed levels of COVID-19 transmission risk are grappling with this perceived tradeoff on a daily basis.
Core insight: The perceived tradeoff is illusory. Every community will pay a similar price in contact reduction. What communities do control is the level of infection and deaths at which they are willing to bring down contacts enough to keep the epidemic from growing further.
Practical implications: By becoming more responsive, effective leaders quickly bring down community’s interactions in response to small numbers of cases and deaths. They can then maintain these small case counts at social interaction levels similar to other communities that experience much larger ongoing cases. Thus, there is a path to saving lives at limited excess costs.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research used no funding
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:
Only public data sources used
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
Incorporated analysis with mobility data from google to measure changes in contact rates.
Data Availability
All models data and analysis code are available at the link below