Abstract
Background The COVID-19 pandemic has had an enormous toll on human health and well-being and led to major social and economic disruptions. Public health interventions in response to burgeoning case numbers and hospitalizations have repeatedly bent down the epidemic curve in many jurisdictions, effectively creating a closed-loop dynamic system. We aim to formalize and illustrate how to incorporate principles of feedback control into pandemic projections and decision making.
Methods Starting with a SEEIQR epidemiological model, we illustrate how feedback control can be incorporated into pandemic management using a simple design (proportional-integral or PI control), which couples recent changes in case numbers or hospital occupancy with explicit policy restrictions. We then analyse a closed-loop system between the SEEIQR model and the designed feedback controller to illustrate the potential benefits of pandemic policy design that incorporates feedback.
Findings We first explored a feedback design that responded to hospital measured infections , demonstrating robust ability to control a pandemic despite simulating large uncertainty in reproduction number R0 (range: 1.04-5.18) and average time to hospital admission (range: 4-28 days). The second design compared responding to hospital occupancy to responding to case counts, showing that shorter delays reduced both the cumulative case count and the average level of interventions. Finally, we show that feedback is robust to changing public compliance to public health directives and to systemic changes associated with new variants of concern and with the introduction of a vaccination program.
Interpretation The negative impact of a pandemic on human health and societal disruption can be reduced by coupling models of disease propagation with models of the decision-making process. This creates a closed-loop system that better represents the coupled dynamics of a disease and public health responses. Importantly, we show that feedback control is robust to delays in both measurements and responses and to uncertainty in model parameters and the efficacy of control measures.
Funding A Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Grant to SPO (RGPIN-2016-03711). NSERC Discovery Grant to GAD (RGPIN-2018-05151).
Research in context
Evidence before this study
Evidence before this study A search on Pubmed on August 24 2021 for the keywords ((COVID[Title/Abstract]) AND (model[Title/Abstract])) AND ((projection[Title/Abstract]) OR (forecast[Title/Abstract])) returned 422 articles, reflecting challenges in accurate modeling of the pandemic. This pandemic has put both the influence and limitations of modeling into the public eye. A google search with the keywords “covid death model” AND “wrong” returns scientific articles as well as opinion and newspaper articles including in influential media. Many of the modeling papers include simulation scenarios evaluating possible interventions and control strategies. We found very few articles that take the inherent feedback into account that happens when intervention policies are determined in practice. An exception is the widely simulated ad hoc on-off policy where interventions are triggered when case or hospitalization levels are reached. A google scholar search using the keywords “covid 19 feedback control” returns over 30 articles in engineering journals that explicitly address the inherent feedback in the decision-making process. Many of these articles are highly technical and one of our goals in this study is to connect the engineering community with the public health and epidemiology community.
Added value of this study
Added value of this study This study aims to provide the public health community with a brief overview of feedback control principles and how they apply to decision-making for a pandemic such as COVID-19. In this work we shift the focus from prediction to the design of interventions. We used a standard SEEIQR model with a simple controller to simulate the implication of feedback in the decision-making process. We show that, in contrast to highly varying open-loop projections, incorporating feedback explicitly in the decision-making process is more reflective of real-world situations and illustrates that effective decision making can be made even with only moderately accurate models. We show that effective feedback policy can be designed using daily case counts or hospitalizations and that it is not necessary to know the fraction of cases that is detected to control the pandemic. We illustrate how fundamental limitations of feedback impact the achievable level of control.
Implications of all the available evidence
Implications of all the available evidence It is recommended that models of propagation of the virus be augmented with models of the decision-making process to produce a closed-loop system that is more representative of the real-world situation. Policy decisions resulting from systematic intervention design, rather than ad hoc decisions, will make projections more reliable and can encourage taking earlier and smaller actions, which reduce both case counts and the severity of interventions. Using feedback principles, effective control strategies can be designed even if the pandemic characteristics remain highly uncertain. Case numbers as well as total interventions can be reduced by minimizing all delays in the chain of information from testing and reporting to decision making and public response.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
A Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Grant to SPO (RGPIN-2016-03711). NSERC Discovery Grant to GAD (RGPIN-2018-05151).
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:
IRB approval was not necessary as no patient data was used, but only publicly available public health data was 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
Email address: greg.stewart555{at}gmail.com
Data Availability
All code will be available on GitHub
