Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has called for swift action from local governments, which have instated Nonpharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) to curb the spread of SARS-Cov-2. The quick and decisive decision to save lives through blunt instruments has raised questions about the conditions under which decision-makers should employ mitigation or suppression strategies to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic. More broadly, there are still debates over which set of strategies should be adopted to control different pandemics, and the lessons learned for SARS-Cov-2 may not apply to a new pathogen. While curbing SARS-Cov-2 required blunt instruments, it is unclear whether a less-transmissible and less-deadly emerging pathogen would justify the same response. This paper illuminates this question using a parsimonious transmission model by formulating the social distancing lives vs. livelihoods dilemma as a boundary value problem. In this setup, society balances the costs and benefits of social distancing contingent on the costs of reducing transmission relative to the burden imposed by the disease. To the best of our knowledge, our approach is distinct in the sense that strategies emerge from the problem structure rather than being imposed a priori. We find that the relative time-horizon of the pandemic (i.e., the time it takes to develop effective vaccines and treatments) and the relative cost of social distancing influence the choice of the optimal policy. Unsurprisingly, we find that the appropriate policy response depends on these two factors. We discuss the conditions under which each policy archetype (suppression vs. mitigation) appears to be the most appropriate.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
We wish to thank the National Cancer Institute (R21CA157571), and the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (R01AI118705 and R01AI160240) for providing support in projects that led to preliminary work and ideas that motivated this project. Dr. Nowak acknowledges support from the Blodwen S. Huber Early Career Green and Gold Professor in Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at The Robert Larner, M.D. College of Medicine.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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
This is a computational study and does not contain emperical data.
