Is SARS-CoV-2 elimination or mitigation best? Regional and disease characteristics determine the recommended strategy

Maria M. Martignoni, Julien Arino, Amy Hurford
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.01.24302169

Abstract

Public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic varied across the world. Some countries (e.g., mainland China, New Zealand, and Taiwan) implemented elimination strategies involving strict travel measures and periods of rigorous non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in the community, aiming to achieve periods with no disease spread; while others (e.g., many European countries and the United States of America) implemented mitigation strategies involving less strict NPIs for prolonged periods, aiming to limit community spread. Travel measures and community NPIs have high economic and social costs, and there is a need for guidelines that evaluate the appropriateness of an elimination or mitigation strategy in regional contexts. To guide decisions, we identify key criteria and provide indicators and visualizations to help answer each question. Considerations include determining whether disease elimination is: (1) necessary to ensure health care provision; (2) feasible from an epidemiological point of view; and (3) cost effective when considering, in particular, the economic costs of travel measures and treating infections. We discuss our recommendations by considering the regional and economic variability of Canadian provinces and territories, and the epidemiological characteristics of different SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Introduction

Non-pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) have greatly reduced the spread of SARS-CoV-2 [42, 15], the virus that causes COVID-19, and include: travel measures, such as self-isolation, quarantine, and testing requirements applying to individuals arriving from other jurisdictions; and community measures, such as physical distancing, gathering size restrictions, and business and school closures, that apply to residents. However, these restrictions substantially reduced economic activity, increased unemployment rates, and undermined social wellbeing [40, 81, 78]. As NPIs have substantial economic and societal costs, it is important to establish criteria to adjust restrictions to control infection spread with minimal cost.

Canada is the second largest country in the world by area, extending from the Pacific to the Atlantic to the Arctic Oceans with ten provinces and three territories widely differing in their geography, population, and economies. Canada is also a federal state, with responsibility for health care divided between the federal government, responsible for: regulation of entry into the national territory; approval of medications and vaccines; the health of First Nations living on reserves, the military, and inmates in the federal prison system, and with the provinces and territories responsible for most of the remaining health care issues, including the implementation of health policies, and entry to, and movement within, their borders. Geographic, economic and jurisdictional differences, as well as differences in health care capacity, have driven broad inter-provincial variation in the type and timing of NPIs implemented to limit viral spread [71, 18, 124], which has in turn led to different COVID-19 epidemics in different Canadian jurisdictions.

Prior to the establishment of the Omicron variant in December 2021, the Atlantic provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador) and Northern Canada (Nunavut, Yukon, and Northwest Territories) generally implemented a containment strategy [92] that resulted in periods of elimination of community infections [47] consistent with an ‘elimination’ or ‘zero-COVID strategy’ [19, 10, 45] (see Fig. 1a). These provinces and territories have relatively small population sizes [102], and in Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, elimination was achieved through strict border control of few ports of entry (through which travellers from the rest of Canada and abroad could enter the province), contact tracing, testing, and rigorous restrictions to end community transmission when community outbreaks occurred [92]. In contrast, provinces with large urban centers, such as Ontario and Quebec, may have implemented ‘mitigation’ or ‘suppression’ strategies, aiming to flatten the epidemic curve and keep the number of cases below the critical care capacity, with some community transmission [10, 32, 20] (see Fig. 1b). At times during 2020 and 2021, these provinces reported high case counts [50], nearly reaching the critical care capacity in December 2020 and March 2021 [22, 21, 34].

Fig. 1:
Fig. 1:

Visual representation of (a) an elimination, and (b) a mitigation strategy. When an elimination strategy is implemented, a community outbreak initiated by an infected traveler is detected after a time interval Td. Following outbreak detection, strict restrictions to reduce the number of cases are implemented during the time interval Te (red regions). Strict restrictions are released when the number of cases drops from Ιmax to below a minimum Ιend (green region). The time interval between the time of detection for two consecutive outbreaks is Ti. When a mitigation strategy is implemented, prolonged periods of moderate restrictions are enacted (yellow regions). While epidemiological indicators governing the community infection dynamics, such as the control or basic reproduction numbers, are helpful to characterize disease spread when mitigation is implemented, other indicators that explicitly consider the number, frequency, and severity of outbreaks (e.g., Te, Ti, Ιmax, Ιstart and Ιend) are needed to characterise the epidemiological dynamics when an elimination strategy is implemented (see also Fig. 2). Red persons correspond to community cases. Blue persons correspond to travel-related cases that infect individuals in the community (i.e., ‘spillover’). For simplicity, travel-related cases that do not cause community cases are not shown in the figure. Shaded cases correspond to hospitalized cases. The width of a person corresponds to the average duration of an active case and the relationship between incidence, prevalence, and hospital occupancy is investigated in the supplementary information, section A. [Adapted from [68]

Whether an elimination or mitigation strategy is the preferable response to pandemic threats has been matter of debate (e.g., [2, 109, 37, 61, 72, 83]). Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, countries implementing an elimination strategy were praised for obtaining better public health outcomes, economic growth, civil liberties, and general population well-being [82, 10, 9, 43]. However, by late 2021, and especially with more people becoming vaccinated and the spread of the more transmissible Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of concern, most countries had abandoned the elimination strategy [8, 26, 46], and the societal costs of strict restrictions were increasingly highlighted [13, 75, 118]. These observations indicate that neither elimination, nor mitigation is the indisputable optimal strategy, and that the preferred strategy may vary regionally and change over time.

Infection severity, health care capacity, the efficiency of case detection, the vaccination status of a population, and the economic and societal costs of NPIs have a fundamental role in determining if an elimination or a mitigation strategy should be preferred. Many such indicators are highlighted in Guidance for a strategic approach to lifting restrictive public health measures [91] and other guidance documents by Canadian provincial public health [93], the Public Health Agency of Canada [90], and the World Health Organization [120]. Yet, lacking are quantitative descriptions that specify the relative importance and inter-relatedness of indicators, and how these quantities combine to determine epidemiological quantities that guide decisions.

A further issue that has not previously been highlighted, is that the most relevant epidemiological quantities for regions implementing an elimination strategy are different than for those implementing mitigation or suppression. When a mitigation strategy is implemented, travel-related cases make only a negligible contribution to epidemic dynamics [7, 117, 112], and the infection dynamics are mainly determined by the pathogen spread rate within a community (e.g., by indicators such as the basic or control reproduction numbers of the infection [30, 36, 57]). On the other hand, travel measures, including testing and post-arrival quarantine or self-isolation, may be a more critical component of the combined public health response in regions implementing an elimination strategy. In this case, other forms of assessment such as the evaluation of the efficiency of travel measures, including testing and quarantine policies [128, 107, 89, 106, 6, 101], and the probability of elimination under specific community NPIs (i.e., capacity limits or school and business closures) for hypothetical community outbreak scenarios [88, 14, 44, 38], are key to inform public health responses.

Due to these fundamental differences in the key quantities and modelling approaches used to forecast the epidemiological dynamics of mitigation and elimination, it has been challenging to develop methods that allow a quantitative comparison of the two strategies for decision-making purposes (see also Box 1, in which we highlight some common errors and misconceptions when deciding whether an elimination strategy should be implemented). Here, we identify key epidemiological and regional characteristics to evaluate whether disease elimination or mitigation is desirable, and we outline criteria to guide this decision. We highlight three main questions that should be answered to determine the circumstances when elimination is a recommended approach (see Fig. 2). Namely, is elimination:

Box 1:

Common errors and misconceptions that bias against recommending an elimination strategy

  • Multiple studies have shown that travel measures do not have a substantial role when community outbreaks are occurring [7, 117, 112, 16, 24], which may lead to the misconception that travel measures are unimportant. However, in regions with no community cases, travel measures become critical to ensure that mild community restrictions can remain in place for a reasonable period of time.

  • Recommendations have considered whether travel measures should be implemented [119, 24], but may have overlooked coordinated implementation of multiple components of a public health response. An elimination strategy might involve travel measures when there are no community cases, an aggressive containment response to community cases when they occur, and a plan to continue the elimination strategy only until the conditions for the implementation of the elimination strategy are no longer met, for example, when the population becomes highly vaccinated [82].

  • International guidelines considered as best-practise in several countries [119, 120] are not necessarily applicable to small jurisdictions or remote communities with self-determination of health care (e.g., economically smaller Canadian provinces or Indigenous communities), which may bias against elimination strategy recommendations. While elimination may be unsustainable and economically damaging at the country level, in smaller regions an elimination strategy may provide benefits, for example, helping to protect health system capacity.

  • Differential equations are frequently used to model infectious diseases (e.g. the Susceptible-Infectious-Recovered (SIR) compartmental models [59]) and treat infectious individuals as a continuous quantity. Such models can predict a wave of infection caused by a fractional number of individuals after community NPIs are relaxed [41], which is an artifact of the model choice. This limitation can be overcome by modelling the expected number of outbreaks, and then modelling each community outbreak individually (e.g. [47, 101, 38]).

  • Results of stochastic simulations are often reported as means of an ensemble of simulations with community outbreaks starting on different days. The ensemble mean may show no elimination of infection, although elimination does occur for individual simulations. Therefore, the results of stochastic models (including agent-based models) should be carefully reported (e.g. [54]).

Fig. 2:
Fig. 2:

The figure summarizes the three possible criteria presented in this manuscript that can be used to determine whether elimination or mitigation strategy is preferable, and key regional and disease characteristics and relevant quantities that should be considered to answer each of the questions. The meaning of the different parameters is shown in Fig. 1.

  • ❶ necessary to ensure health care provision?

  • ❷ epidemiologically feasible?

  • ❸ cost effective?

We discuss each of these questions separately, and consider which role different criteria may play during an unfolding pandemic. Although our discussion will mainly focus on the approach to SARS-CoV-2 of different Canadian provinces and territories, our conclusions have broad implications that apply widely outside the Canadian context.

❶ Is elimination necessary to ensure health care provision?

During the pandemic, in many countries a main purpose of NPI implementation was to ensure that the number of severe cases did not rise above hospital or Intense Care Unit (ICU) capacity. High pathogen transmissibility, high rates of asymptomatic cases, and low testing efficiency, are all factors that could cause a community outbreak to go undetected for several days. In regions with low resource capacity (e.g., jurisdictions with low hospital, contact tracing or testing capacities), the number of cases when the outbreak is initially detected may already have the potential to approach, or exceed, available resources for control and health care capacity [12, 113, 48]. This is particularly true of hospital and ICU occupancy limits, because due to the delay between exposure and hospitalization, and because hospital stays are often many days, peak hospital occupancy usually occurs weeks after the implementation of strict community NPIs and can be substantially higher than hospital occupancy at the time of strict NPI implementation (see supplementary information, section A). Thus, in these regions the implementation of strict community measures as soon as the outbreak is detected may be necessary to prevent hospital and ICU burden, spurring the implementation of an elimination approach. This choice is accompanied by implementation of travel measures after the outbreak is eliminated, meaning that the costs and disruptions of strict border control are outweighed by the benefits associated with protecting the capacity of the health care system.

On the other hand, regions with higher resource capacity may be able to detect a new outbreak before the number of hospitalizations reaches the potential to near the regional capacity. In these cases, a disease mitigation approach consisting of moderate community NPIs may be sufficient to ensure hospital capacity limits are not exceeded, and strict travel measures may lead to unnecessary costs and disruptions, that could negatively affect the compliance with other public health measures [127, 33]. Even when health care capacity is high, concerns regarding pathogen variants that are highly transmissible or virulent, and uncertainty in how cases will respond to interventions may justify the precautionary implementation of an elimination approach (or a ‘wait-and-see approach’ [88]) rather than a mitigation approach, in order to delay pathogen spread until more information is available, vaccines or therapy is developed, or response preparedness is enhanced [49, 35, 1, 6].

Disease severity will also determine whether elimination or mitigation is preferable. The occurrence of severe disease depends on characteristics of a population including the proportion with different ages, co-morbidities, vaccination and immunity statuses, associations between these variables, and where these factors may be heterogeneous within a population [97, 111]. For instance, it maybe be reasonable to recommend a SARS-CoV-2 elimination approach for regions whose populations have a high prevalence of co-morbidities, or a low proportion of individuals vaccinated [5, 60]. On the other hand, a lower proportion of cases requiring hospitalization arising from high vaccination rates, or the spread of a less severe variant, may reduce the need of an elimination strategy. For instance, the SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern Omicron (B.1.1.529) established and spread in Canada when a large proportion of the population had already received at least two doses of vaccine, reducing the rates of severe disease with respect to other variants (see vertical axis, Fig. 3).

Fig. 3:
Fig. 3:

Estimated average hospitalization per 1000 cases considering vaccination rates at the time each SARS-CoV-2 variant was established in the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador (vertical axis) and estimated percent of days with mild NPIs between two consecutive community outbreaks if an elimination strategy is implemented (i.e., ratio of Te/Ti on the horizontal axis, see Fig. 1). When high transmissibility does not allow for periods with no community cases between outbreaks, and when the risk of severe disease is relatively low, elimination is no longer feasible, and mitigation is preferred. Estimates used for producing the figure and their derivation are provided in the supplementary information, section B. [Adapted from [68]].

❷ Is elimination epidemiologically feasible?

For elimination to be feasible, the duration of the strict restrictions needs to be balanced with a reasonable period when restrictions are relaxed to release the population for the adverse impacts of strict public health measures (i.e., the proportion of green zones to red zones in Fig. 1a needs to be high). This requires both that many weeks elapse between community outbreaks initiated by infected travellers, and that once the outbreak is detected strict community NPIs are sufficient to rapidly decrease infection prevalence.

The probability that a travel-related case initiates a community outbreak depends on travel measures, infection prevalence in neighboring regions, pathogen characteristics, such as its transmissibility, airborne transmission, incubation time or testing efficiency [66, 96, 123], community NPIs and vaccination levels [47]. The time before an outbreak can be considered under control (i.e., when the probability that further community infections may occur is very low) depends on peak incidence and on the effectiveness of the strict NPIs in reducing community transmission. Peak incidence (as discussed in ❶) determines the approximate maximum from which new daily cases must decline, and the effectiveness of strict community NPIs determines the speed of the decline. The speed of the decline depends on pathogen transmissibility, and on the efficiency of contact tracing, testing, and isolation [42, 100]. Thus, local socio-geographic characteristics, pathogen characteristics, and characteristics of the local population can make an elimination strategy more or less feasible from a purely epidemiological point of view, and this feasibility should be continuously reassessed given evolving pathogenic traits and compliance with public health measures.

When a disease is highly transmissible, outbreaks occur often, as prevalence may be higher in other connected regions, and as the virus spreads easily even when restrictions are in place [47], allowing only short or no periods of mild restrictions. For example, it may not have been epidemiologically feasible to eliminate the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, even with strict NPIs. On October 21, 2021, Melbourne residents exited an 11 week lockdown because vaccination targets had been met, but at this time daily reported cases in Victoria were 2,232: the second highest that had been reported for any Australian state [53].

In Newfoundland and Labrador there were 10 months between the last reported case associated with the initial community outbreak (original SARS-CoV-2 virus) in March 2020, and the next community outbreak (Alpha variant) that began in February 2021 [92]. The more transmissible and virulent Delta variant was introduced into Newfoundland and Labrador in April 2021, and over the next 8 months several community outbreaks were reported in smaller regions across the province, with much shorter periods between community outbreaks than previously observed [92]. Nonetheless, elimination was achieved (and therefore feasible) in Newfoundland and Labrador for the original, Alpha, and Delta variants, but not for the more transmissible and less virulent Omicron variant. In Fig. 3 (horizontal axis), we provide estimates of the expected average percent of days with mild restrictions between two consecutive outbreaks if an elimination strategy is implemented (i.e., the percentage of days when mild (green) restrictions are implemented during the period Ti, see Fig. 1a), based on the travel measures applied in Newfoundland and Labrador and for different SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (see supplementary information, section B, for methodology). The effectiveness of the same public health measures varies depending on the pathogen or variant considered, making different strategies preferable at different points in time. Additionally, as discussed in ❶, different COVID-19 variants can be characterised by different rates of severe illness, and their variant emergence will coincide with different vaccination rates in the population. These considerations affect the risk of exceeding hospital capacity (Fig. 3, vertical axis).

Lastly, for an elimination strategy to be feasible it is not only important to achieve fast outbreak detection and implementation of strict community restrictions, but it is also necessary that strict measures are relaxed when they are no longer needed, because during an ongoing pandemic there remains a risk of disease re-introduction, and the population may be asked to comply with strict public health measures once again. The World Health Organization defines an outbreak as over when two incubation periods have passed with no further cases reported (i.e., 28 days for COVID-19 [86]), however, a more precise approach could be to relax measures when there is a high probability that the number of cases in the community is zero [86]), and to consider how quickly the reported cases were isolated. Contact tracing efficiency and population compliance will affect when community NPI relaxation can feasibly occur [70, 17]. Thus, faster reopening may occur in regions characterised by social cohesiveness, such as rural areas where ‘everyone knows everyone’, and where infected people and their contacts are easier to identify and reach [121, 64]. On the other hand, contact tracing might be impractical in larger and more densely populated areas making an elimination strategy more challenging to implement.

❸ Is it cost effective?

Discussing costs when it comes to fighting a pandemic threat is challenging, and there are trade-offs to be considered. Minimal public health restrictions may lead to many infections, hospitalizations, and deaths, while strict public health restrictions may lead to economic, social and psychological damages [81, 85]. Considering such costs involves finding a complex balance between medical needs, and social and economic freedom. This said, certain costs, whether social, economic, or medical, are unequivocally larger in some regions relative to others. When deciding if elimination or mitigation is preferable, an important consideration is the trade-off between the economic cost of implementing travel measures, which tend to be higher for a disease elimination strategy; and the costs of treating infections, which tend to be higher for a disease mitigation strategy due to higher number of infections [10, 122].

Travel measures, such as travel declaration forms and testing requirements that are verified at arrival are less costly, and can feasibly be enforced, in regions with few ports of entry. The costs of requiring arriving travellers to quarantine or self-isolate are less in regions with low travel volumes, while the cost of reducing travel-related infections in Canada’s economically larger provinces, i.e., Ontario and Quebec, are substantial due to the large volume of trade occurring across the inter-provincial and international borders [103, 104]. Travel measures may be less costly and more feasible in Atlantic Canada, where there are few ports of entry into most of the four provinces. Furthermore, during the pandemic, international arrivals to Canada occurred mostly first into provinces outside of Atlantic Canada [94], with with federal travel measures applying to these travellers before onward travel, which may have substantially reduced the risk of disease importation to Atlantic Canada. The implementation of travel measures in regions whose economies strongly depend on tourism can also be very costly for the country, especially if not well timed [98, 39].

The cost of treating a fixed number of infections is proportionally higher in smaller economic regions, compared to larger economic regions, because of large differences in the size of the economies (see horizontal axis of Figure 4) and relatively similar costs of treating infections. The costs of strict community NPIs, such as complete business closures, might also be higher in economically larger regions relatively to economically smaller regions. In Fig. 4 the pre-pandemic number of international travelers arriving to Canadian provinces and territories is shown versus their yearly Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2019. Areas characterised by low GDP and low travel volumes, such as Northern or Atlantic Canada, might opt for disease elimination to reduce pandemic costs by implementing travel measures to reduce the risk of community infections initiated from travel-related cases. Additionally, due to the lower travel volumes in these regions, elimination may also be more epidemiologically feasible (see point ❷). Economically larger provinces (e.g., Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, and Alberta), might consider mitigation to be an economically preferable strategy.

Fig. 4:
Fig. 4:

Daily number of international travelers (averaged over April 2018 to March 2019, [103]) and 2018 yearly GDP [105] obtained for different provinces and territories in Canada. Mitigation may be recommended in regions with high travel volumes, as in these regions travel measures might be less feasible and more costly. The two letter abbreviations denote Alberta (AB), British Columbia (BC), Manitoba (MB), New Brunswick (NB), Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Northwest Territories (NT), Nova Scotia (NS), Nunavut (NU), Ontario (ON), Prince Edward Island (PE), Quebec (QC), Saskatchewan (SK), Yukon (YT). Data for the Northwest territories (NT) for the same time period are not available.

In addition to economic costs, social and mental health costs need to be considered when discussing NPI implementation [2]. Elimination may provide more freedoms during periods of mild restrictions, however, social interactions are substantially limited during periods of strict restrictions, which may cause high occurrence of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety, or domestic violence [23, 25, 95]. Mitigation requires prolonged periods of moderate restrictions that can be exhausting and negatively impact the population [40, 81, 78]. Social and mental health costs of these two strategies are experienced unequally across population groups. Different social and psychological stress levels can arise depending on personal living situations, employment sector, gender, ethnicity, and social determinants of health [81], and it is misleading to report only whether elimination or mitigation guarantees lower social costs at a population level without also stratifying these costs for population groups. In many cases social costs of NPIs are to be paid in the future, and it is only recently that researchers have developed methods to determine the direct and indirect impact of NPIs implementation on a population’s health and social functioning [126, 116, 62, 31, 76]. For these reasons, it is premature to discuss which of elimination or mitigation may be preferred in terms of social cost.

Discussion

During the pandemic, the World Health Organization recommended a risk-assessment approach that considers local epidemiology, public health measures and capacity, and contextual factors to determine if restrictions on international travel should be implemented [119]. Yet, quantitative criteria to evaluate whether an elimination or a mitigation strategy is preferable, and guidelines applicable to subnational jurisdictions, are lacking. We propose a conceptual framework to guide the decision to implement an elimination or a mitigation strategy in response to a pandemic threat. We hope that our framework will inspire new modelling approaches to support and regularly reassess this decision.

So far, the focus of many epidemiological optimization models has been to determine the optimal level of social distancing needed to minimize infections and the socio-economic costs of interventions [11, 99, 55, 41, 3, 63, 125, 4, 77, 52]. However, as noted in [41] and [54], common modelling formulations can produce highly erroneous results when applied to situations where infection prevalence can be zero in reality (see also considerations listened in Box 1). Therefore, new mathematical tools are urgently needed to quantitatively optimize the trade-off between elimination and mitigation. We also emphasize that for proper quantitative comparison of response strategies, future modelling should explicitly consider a distinction between community cases and travel-related cases, and include statistics that are relevant for the characterisation of community outbreaks occurring when an elimination strategy is implemented, such as the efficiency of border testing and quarantine policies and the probability of a traveller initiating a community outbreak [128, 47, 101, 107, 106], the expected size of such an outbreak [88, 38, 44], the probability that a community outbreak has been eliminated, such that strict NPIs might be relaxed [86, 14, 79], vaccination strategies [69, 89] and elimination exit strategies [47, 70, 115] for regions with low infection prevalence.

Our analysis supports the application of local, rather than global, public health measures and responses [73, 71, 74, 56]. Indeed, in large regions urban and rural areas might be characterised by different geographical features, health care services, economies, and therefore disease dynamics [73, 71, 74]. We provide arguments to support the implementation of local travel measures, even if these occur within a country, as these measures can be considered a cost effective strategy to maintain a healthier economy and less restrictive social distancing in such regions. Considering the relative importance of the criteria presented here, and their inter-relatedness in determining whether elimination or mitigation may be best, is an important future research area.

Finally, although we discussed the dichotomy between implementing elimination and mitigation, alternative approaches to these two strategies can also be considered [84]. One of such example is the regulated planning of intermittent intense measures of short duration, that occur after periods when measures are relaxed, called ‘precautionary breaks’ or ‘circuit breakers’ [58, 29]. This strategy was first adopted by Singapore [51], and then implemented in other countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada [67, 110].

Data Availability

The code and data used to produce the figure are publicly available at https://github.com/ahurford/elimination-or-mitigation

https://github.com/ahurford/elimination-or-mitigation

Acknowledgement

MM is grateful to the Azrieli fundation for the award of the Azrieli fellowship. MM, JA, and AH were funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada-Public Health Agency of Canada Emerging Infectious Disease Modelling Consortium. MM and AH received funding from the Department of Health and Community Services, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.

References

  1. [1].↵
    Adeshina Adekunle, Michael Meehan, Diana Rojas-Alvarez, James Trauer, and Emma McBryde. Delaying the COVID-19 epidemic in Australia: evaluating the effectiveness of international travel bans. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 44(4):257–259, 2020.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. [2].↵
    Lara B Aknin, Bernardo Andretti, Rafael Goldszmidt, John F Helliwell, Anna Petherick, Jan-Emmanuel De Neve, Elizabeth W Dunn, Daisy Fancourt, Elkhonon Goldberg, Sarah P Jones, et al. Policy stringency and mental health during the covid-19 pan-demic: a longitudinal analysis of data from 15 countries. The Lancet Public Health, 7(5):e417–e426, 2022.
    OpenUrl
  3. [3].↵
    Fernando E Alvarez, David Argente, and Francesco Lippi. A simple planning problem for COVID-19 lockdown. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020. No. w26981.
  4. [4].↵
    Marco Tulio Angulo, Fernando Castaños, Rodrigo Moreno-Morton, Jorge X Velasco-Hernández, and Jaime A Moreno. A simple criterion to design optimal non-pharmaceutical interventions for mitigating epidemic outbreaks. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 18(178):20200803, 2021.
    OpenUrl
  5. [5].↵
    Elisha B Are, Yexuan Song, Jessica E Stockdale, Paul Tupper, and Caroline Colijn. COVID-19 endgame: From pandemic to endemic? Vaccination, reopening and evolution in low-and high-vaccinated populations. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 559:111368, 2023.
    OpenUrl
  6. [6].↵
    Julien Arino, Nicolas Bajeux, Stephanie Portet, and James Watmough. Quarantine and the risk of COVID-19 importation. Epidemiology & Infection, 148, 2020.
  7. [7].↵
    Julien Arino, Pierre-Yves Boelle, Evan M Milliken, and Stephanie Portet. Risk of COVID-19 variant importation – How useful are travel control measures? Infectious Disease Modelling, 6:875–897, 2021.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. [8].↵
    Australian Cabinet. National plan to transition Australia’s national COVID Response. https://web.archive.org/web/20220607095448/https://www.pmc.gov.au/national-plan-transition-australias-national-covid-response, 2021.
  9. [9].↵
    Michael G Baker, Amanda Kvalsvig, Ayesha J Verrall, and Newtown Wellington. New Zealand’s COVID-19 elimination strategy. Med J Aust, 213(5):198–200, 2020.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. [10].↵
    Michael G Baker, Nick Wilson, and Tony Blakely. Elimination could be the optimal response strategy for COVID-19 and other emerging pandemic diseases. BMJ, 371, 2020.
  11. [11].↵
    MT Barlow, ND Marshall, and RC Tyson. Optimal shutdown strategies for covid-19 with economic and mortality costs: British columbia as a case study. Royal Society Open Science, 8(9):202255, 2021.
    OpenUrl
  12. [12].↵
    Rachelle N Binny, Michael G Baker, Shaun C Hendy, Alex James, Audrey Lustig, Michael J Plank, Kannan M Ridings, and Nicholas Steyn. Early intervention is the key to success in COVID-19 control. Royal Society Open Science, 8(11):210488, 2021.
    OpenUrl
  13. [13].↵
    Alicia Blair, Mattia de Pasquale, Valentin Gabeff, Mélanie Rufi, and Antoine Flahault. The end of the elimination strategy: decisive factors towards sustainable management of COVID-19 in New Zealand. Epidemiologia, 3(1):135–147, 2022.
    OpenUrl
  14. [14].↵
    Tony Blakely, Jason Thompson, Natalie Carvalho, Laxman Bablani, Nick Wilson, and Mark Stevenson. The probability of the 6-week lockdown in Victoria (commencing 9 July 2020) achieving elimination of community transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Medical Journal of Australia, 213(8):349–351, 2020.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. [15].↵
    Jan M Brauner, Sören Mindermann, Mrinank Sharma, David Johnston, John Salvatier, Tomáš Gavenčiak, Anna B Stephenson, Gavin Leech, George Altman, Vladimir Mikulik, et al. Inferring the effectiveness of government interventions against COVID-19. Science, 371(6531), 2021.
  16. [16].↵
    Jacob Burns, Ani Movsisyan, Jan M Stratil, Michaela Coenen, Karl MF Emmert-Fees, Karin Geffert, Sabine Hoffmann, Olaf Horstick, Michael Laxy, Lisa M Pfadenhauer, et al. Travel-related control measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: A rapid review. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (9), 2020.
  17. [17].↵
    Timothy Callaghan, Jennifer A Lueck, Kristin Lunz Trujillo, and Alva O Ferdinand. Rural and urban differences in COVID-19 prevention behaviors. The Journal of Rural Health, 37(2):287–295, 2021.
    OpenUrl
  18. [18].↵
    Emily Cameron-Blake, Charles Breton, Paisley Sim, Helen Tatlow, Thomas Hale, Andrew Wood, Jonathan Smith, Julia Sawatsky, Zachary Parsons, and Katherine Tyson. Variation in the Canadian Provincial and Territorial responses to COVID-19. Blavatnik School of Government Working Paper, 2021. Available: www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/covidtra.
  19. [19].↵
    CAN-shield. Covid Strategic Choice. ‘Is it time to build the Canadian Shield?’ Website. https://covidstrategicchoices.ca/. Accessed: 2021-11-18.
  20. [20].↵
    Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), Montreal. COVID-19 News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-quebec-covid-third-wave-vaccination-1.6006078. Accessed: 2021-05-05.
  21. [21].↵
    Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), Montreal. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-health-minister-covid-hospitilizations-1.5847543, Accessed: 2020-12-30.
  22. [22].↵
    Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), Toronto. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doses-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-expected-arrive-ontario-today-1.5857207. Accessed: 2020-12-30.
  23. [23].↵
    Joht Singh Chandan, Julie Taylor, Caroline Bradbury-Jones, Krishnarajah Nirantharakumar, Eddie Kane, and Siddhartha Bandyopadhyay. COVID-19: a public health approach to manage domestic violence is needed. The Lancet Public Health, 5(6):e309, 2020.
    OpenUrl
  24. [24].↵
    Matteo Chinazzi, Jessica T Davis, Marco Ajelli, Corrado Gioannini, Maria Litvinova, Stefano Merler, Ana Pastore y Piontti, Kunpeng Mu, Luca Rossi, Kaiyuan Sun, et al. The effect of travel restrictions on the spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. Science, 368(6489):395–400, 2020.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. [25].↵
    Jade Connor, Sarina Madhavan, Mugdha Mokashi, Hanna Amanuel, Natasha R Johnson, Lydia E Pace, and Deborah Bartz. Health risks and outcomes that disproportionately affect women during the COVID-19 pandemic: A review. Social Science & Medicine, page 113364, 2020.
  26. [26].↵
    Eva Corlett. New Zealand Covid elimination strategy to be phased out, Ardern says. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/04/new-zealand-covid-strategy-in-transition-ardern-says-as-auckland-awaits-lockdown-decision, 2021.
  27. [27].
    COVID-19 daily epidemiology update. https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/epidemiological-summary-covid-19-cases.html, accessed March 7, 2022.
  28. [28].
    COVID-19 Vaccination in Canada. https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccination-coverage/, accessed March 7, 2022.
  29. [29].↵
    M. Cuoto Zuber. Covid-19 lockdown, shutdown, circuit breakers: How do these terms differ? Global News. https://globalnews.ca/news/7735633/covid-lockdown-emergency-break-shutdown/. Accessed 8 Jan 2024.
  30. [30].↵
    Jonathan Dushoff and Sang Woo Park. Speed and strength of an epidemic intervention. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 288(1947):20201556, 2021.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. [31].↵
    Harry Ferguson, Sarah Pink, and Laura Kelly. The unheld child: social work, social distancing and the possibilities and limits to child protection during the COVID-19 pandemic. The British Journal of Social Work, 52(4):2403–2421, 2022.
    OpenUrl
  32. [32].↵
    Neil M Ferguson, Daniel Laydon, Gemma Nedjati-Gilani, Natsuko Imai, Kylie Ainslie, Marc Baguelin, Sangeeta Bhatia, Adhiratha Boonyasiri, Zulma Cucunubá, Gina Cuomo-Dannenburg, et al. Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand. Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team, page 20, 2020.
  33. [33].↵
    Axel Franzen and Fabienne Wöhner. Coronavirus risk perception and compliance with social distancing measures in a sample of young adults: Evidence from Switzerland. PloS one, 16(2):e0247447, 2021.
    OpenUrl
  34. [34].↵
  35. [35].↵
    Arnaud Godin, Yiqing Xia, David L Buckeridge, Sharmistha Mishra, Dirk Douwes-Schultz, Yannan Shen, Maxime Lavigne, Mélanie Drolet, Alexandra M Schmidt, Marc Brisson, et al. The role of case importation in explaining differences in early SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics in Canada—A mathematical modeling study of surveillance data. International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 102:254–259, 2020.
    OpenUrl
  36. [36].↵
    Julia R Gog and T Déirdre Hollingsworth. Epidemic interventions: insights from classic results. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 376(1829):20200263, 2021.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. [37].↵
    Christian Gold. Unclear conclusions on sars-cov-2 elimination versus mitigation. Lancet (London, England), 398(10311):1566, 2021.
    OpenUrl
  38. [38].↵
    Nick Golding, David J Price, Gerard Ryan, Jodie McVernon, James M McCaw, and Freya M Shearer. A modelling approach to estimate the transmissibility of sars-cov-2 during periods of high, low, and zero case incidence. Elife, 12:e78089, 2023.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. [39].↵
    Stefan Gössling, Daniel Scott, and C Michael Hall. Pandemics, tourism and global change: a rapid assessment of COVID-19. Journal of sustainable tourism, 29(1):1–20, 2020.
    OpenUrl
  40. [40].↵
    Emeline Han, Melisa Mei Jin Tan, Eva Turk, Devi Sridhar, Gabriel M Leung, Kenji Shibuya, Nima Asgari, Juhwan Oh, Alberto L García-Basteiro, Johanna Hanefeld, et al. Lessons learnt from easing COVID-19 restrictions: An analysis of countries and regions in Asia Pacific and Europe. The Lancet, 396:1525–1534, 2020. Issue 10261.
    OpenUrl
  41. [41].↵
    Elsa Hansen and Troy Day. Optimal control of epidemics with limited resources. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 62:423–451, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. [42].↵
    Nina Haug, Lukas Geyrhofer, Alessandro Londei, Elma Dervic, Amélie Desvars-Larrive, Vittorio Loreto, Beate Pinior, Stefan Thurner, and Peter Klimek. Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government interventions. Nature human behaviour, 4(12):1303–1312, 2020.
    OpenUrl
  43. [43].↵
    John F Helliwell, Max B Norton, Shun Wang, Lara B Aknin, and Haifang Huang. Wellbeing analysis favours a virus-elimination strategy for COVID-19. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2021.
  44. [44].↵
    Shaun Hendy, Nicholas Steyn, Alex James, Michael J Plank, Kate Hannah, Rachelle N Binny, and Audrey Lustig. Mathematical modelling to inform New Zealand’s COVID-19 response. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 51(sup1):S86–S106, 2021.
    OpenUrl
  45. [45].↵
    Anita E Heywood and C Raina Macintyre. Elimination of COVID-19: what would it look like and is it possible? The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 20(9):1005–1007, 2020.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. [46].↵
    G. Ho. Zero-Covid strategy no longer feasible due to highly infectious delta variant: PM Lee. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/spore-must-press-on-with-strategy-of-living-with-covid-19-and-not-be-paralysed-by, 2021.
  47. [47].↵
    Amy Hurford, Maria M Martignoni, J Concepción Loredo-Osti, Francis Anokye, Julien Arino, Bilal Saleh Husain, Brian Gaas, and James Watmough. Pandemic modelling for regions implementing an elimination strategy. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 561:111378, 2023.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. [48].↵
    Amy Hurford, Maria M Martignoni, Paul Tupper, Caroline Colijn, Sarah P Otto, Christopher McCabe, and David JD Earn. Travel restrictions and the Omicron variant. 2021.
  49. [49].↵
    Amy Hurford, Proton Rahman, and J Concepción Loredo-Osti. Modelling the impact of travel restrictions on COVID-19 cases in Newfoundland and Labrador. Royal Society Open Science, 8(6):202266, 2021.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. [50].↵
    Canada Health Infobase. Canada Health Infobase, Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/epidemiological-summary-covid-19-cases.html. Epidemiology update, Accessed: 2021-11–18.
  51. [51].↵
    I Jacinta, Pei Chen, Jason Chin-Huat Yap, Li Yang Hsu, and Yik Ying Teo. COVID-19 and Singapore: from early response to circuit breaker. Ann Acad Med Singap, 49(8):561, 2020.
    OpenUrl
  52. [52].↵
    Vito Janko, Nina Reščič, Aljoša Vodopija, David Susič, Carlo De Masi, Tea Tušar, Anton Gradišek, Sophie Vandepitte, Delphine De Smedt, Jana Javornik, et al. Optimizing non-pharmaceutical intervention strategies against COVID-19 using artificial intelligence. Frontiers in public health, 11:1073581, 2023.
    OpenUrl
  53. [53].↵
    R. Jose. Melbourne readies to exit world’s longest COVID-19 lockdown. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/melbourne-readies-exit-worlds-longest-covid-19-lockdowns-2021-10-20/, 2021.
  54. [54].↵
    Jonas L Juul, Kaare Græsbøll, Lasse Engbo Christiansen, and Sune Lehmann. Fixed-time descriptive statistics underestimate extremes of epidemic curve ensembles. Nature physics, 17(1):5–8, 2021.
    OpenUrl
  55. [55].↵
    Markus Kantner and Thomas Koprucki. Beyond just “flattening the curve”: Optimal control of epidemics with purely non-pharmaceutical interventions. Journal of Mathematics in Industry, 10(1):1–23, 2020.
    OpenUrl
  56. [56].↵
    Vadim A Karatayev, Madhur Anand, and Chris T Bauch. Local lockdowns outperform global lockdown on the far side of the COVID-19 epidemic curve. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(39):24575–24580, 2020.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. [57].↵
    Matt J Keeling, Louise Dyson, Glen Guyver-Fletcher, Alex Holmes, Malcolm G Semple, ISARIC4C Investigators, Michael J Tildesley, and Edward M Hill. Fitting to the UK COVID-19 outbreak, short-term forecasts and estimating the reproductive number. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 31(9):1716–1737, 2022.
    OpenUrl
  58. [58].↵
    Matt J Keeling, Glen Guyver-Fletcher, Alex Holmes, Louise Dyson, Michael J Tildesley, Edward M Hill, and Graham F Medley. Precautionary breaks: planned, limited duration circuit breaks to control the prevalence of covid-19. Limited Duration Circuit Breaks to Control the Prevalence of COVID-19, 2020.
  59. [59].↵
    Matt J. Keeling and Pejman Rohani. Infectious Disease Modelling. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2011.
  60. [60].↵
    Jackson A Killian, Marie Charpignon, Bryan Wilder, Andrew Perrault, Milind Tambe, and Maimuna S Majumder. Evaluating COVID-19 lockdown and business-sector-specific reopening policies for three US states. Available at SSRN 3598744, 2020.
  61. [61].↵
    Michael König and Adalbert Winkler. The impact of government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic on GDP growth: Does strategy matter? PloS one, 16(11):e0259362, 2021.
    OpenUrl
  62. [62].↵
    Anastasia Kourti, Androniki Stavridou, Eleni Panagouli, Theodora Psaltopoulou, Chara Spiliopoulou, Maria Tsolia, Theodoros N Sergentanis, and Artemis Tsitsika. Domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. Trauma, violence, & abuse, 24(2):719–745, 2023.
    OpenUrl
  63. [63].↵
    Thomas Kruse and Philipp Strack. Optimal control of an epidemic through social distancing. 2020. Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 2229, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3583186 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.3583186.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  64. [64].↵
    R Ryan Lash, Patrick K Moonan, Brittany L Byers, Robert A Bonacci, Kimberly E Bonner, Matthew Donahue, Catherine V Donovan, Heather N Grome, Julia M Janssen, Reed Magleby, et al. COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing in the US, 2020. JAMA Network Open, 4(6):e2115850–e2115850, 2021.
    OpenUrl
  65. [65].
    Kathy Leung, Marcus HH Shum, Gabriel M Leung, Tommy TY Lam, and Joseph T Wu. Early transmissibility assessment of the N501Y mutant strains of SARS-CoV-2 in the United Kingdom, October to November 2020. Eurosurveillance, 26(1):2002106, 2021.
    OpenUrl
  66. [66].↵
    Dyani Lewis. Why many countries failed at COVID contact-tracing–but some got it right. Nature, 588(7838):384–388, 2020.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. [67].↵
    Maya Lowe, Shawn HE Harmon, Ksenia Kholina, Rachel Parker, and Janice E Graham. Public health communication in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 113(Suppl 1):34–45, 2022.
    OpenUrl
  68. [68].↵
    A. Hurford M. M. Martignoni. It’s not realistic to eliminate covid-19 in newfoundland and labrador. here’s why’. Canada Broadcast Corporation (CBC) opinion, Posted: Mar 18, 2022, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/covid-19-here-to-stay-1.6384033.
  69. [69].↵
    Maria M. Martignoni, Proton Rahman, and Amy Hurford. Rotational worker vaccination provides indirect protection to vulnerable groups in regions with low COVID-19 prevalence. AIMS Mathematics, 7(3):3988–4003, 2022.
    OpenUrl
  70. [70].↵
    Maria M Martignoni, Josh Renault, Joseph Baafi, and Amy Hurford. Downsizing of COVID-19 contact tracing in highly immune populations. Plos one, 17(6):e0268586, 2022.
    OpenUrl
  71. [71].↵
    Liam G McCoy, Jonathan Smith, Kavya Anchuri, Isha Berry, Joanna Pineda, Vinyas Harish, Andrew T Lam, Seung Eun Yi, Sophie Hu, Laura Rosella, et al. Characterizing early Canadian federal, provincial, territorial and municipal nonpharmaceutical inter-ventions in response to COVID-19: A descriptive analysis. CMAJ Open, 8(3):E545, 2020.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  72. [72].↵
    C Jessica, E Metcalf, Soa Fy Andriamandimby, Rachel E Baker, Emma E Glennon, Katie Hampson, T Deirdre Hollingsworth, Petra Klepac, and Amy Wesolowski. Challenges in evaluating risks and policy options around endemic establishment or elimination of novel pathogens. Epidemics, 37:100507, 2021.
    OpenUrl
  73. [73].↵
    Sharmistha Mishra, Jeffrey C Kwong, Adrienne K Chan, and Stefan D Baral. Understanding heterogeneity to inform the public health response to COVID-19 in Canada. CMAJ, 192(25):E684–E685, 2020.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  74. [74].↵
    Sharmistha Mishra, Jennifer D Walker, Linda Wilhelm, Vincent Larivière, Tania Bubela, and Sharon E Straus. Use and misuse of research: Canada’s response to Covid-19 and its health inequalities. bmj, 382, 2023.
  75. [75].↵
    Madhavi Misra, Harsha Joshi, Rakesh Sarwal, and Krishna D Rao. Exit strategies from lockdowns due to COVID-19: a scoping review. BMC public health, 22(1):488, 2022.
    OpenUrl
  76. [76].↵
    Carmen Moreno, Til Wykes, Silvana Galderisi, Merete Nordentoft, Nicolas Crossley, Nev Jones, Mary Cannon, Christoph U Correll, Louise Byrne, Sarah Carr, et al. How mental health care should change as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. The lancet psychiatry, 7(9):813–824, 2020.
    OpenUrl
  77. 77.↵
    Alex LK Morgan, Mark EJ Woolhouse, Graham F Medley, and Bram AD Van Bunnik. Optimizing time-limited non-pharmaceutical interventions for COVID-19 outbreak control. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 376(1829):20200282, 2021.
  78. [78].↵
    Krishnadas Nanath, Sreejith Balasubramanian, Vinaya Shukla, Nazrul Islam, and Supriya Kaitheri. Developing a mental health index using a machine learning approach: Assessing the impact of mobility and lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic. Technological forecasting and social change, 178:121560, 2022.
    OpenUrl
  79. [79].↵
    Trung Nguyen, Mehnaz Adnan, Binh P Nguyen, Joep de Ligt, Jemma L Geoghegan, Richard Dean, Sarah Jefferies, Michael G Baker, Winston Kg Seah, Andrew A Sporle, et al. COVID-19 vaccine strategies for Aotearoa New Zealand: a mathematical modelling study. The Lancet Regional Health–Western Pacific, 15, 2021.
  80. [80].
    Hiroshi Nishiura, Kimihito Ito, Asami Anzai, Tetsuro Kobayashi, Chayada Piantham, and Alfonso J Rodríguez-Morales. Relative reproduction number of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B. 1.1. 529) compared with Delta variant in South Africa, 2021.
  81. [81].↵
    Coilín ÓhAiseadha, Gerry A Quinn, Ronan Connolly, Awwad Wilson, Michael Connolly, Willie Soon, and Paul Hynds. Unintended Consequences of COVID-19 Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) for Population Health and Health Inequalities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(7):5223, 2023.
    OpenUrl
  82. [82].↵
    Miquel Oliu-Barton, Bary SR Pradelski, Philippe Aghion, Patrick Artus, Ilona Kickbusch, Jeffrey V Lazarus, Devi Sridhar, and Samantha Vanderslott. SARS-CoV-2 elimination, not mitigation, creates best outcomes for health, the economy, and civil liberties. The Lancet, 397(10291):2234–2236, 2021.
    OpenUrl
  83. [83].↵
    Miquel Oliu-Barton, Bary SR Pradelski, Philippe Aghion, Patrick Artus, Ilona Kickbusch, Jeffrey V Lazarus, and Samantha Vanderslott. Unclear conclusions on SARS-CoV-2 elimination versus mitigation–Authors’ reply. The Lancet, 398(10311):1566–1567, 2021.
    OpenUrl
  84. [84].↵
    Miquel Oliu-Barton, Bary SR Pradelski, Yann Algan, Michael G Baker, Agnes Binagwaho, Gregory J Dore, Ayman El-Mohandes, Arnaud Fontanet, Andreas Peichl, Viola Priesemann, et al. Elimination versus mitigation of SARS-CoV-2 in the presence of effective vaccines. The Lancet global health, 10(1):e142–e147, 2022.
    OpenUrl
  85. [85].↵
    Marco Pangallo, Alberto Aleta, R Maria del Rio-Chanona, Anton Pichler, David Martín-Corral, Matteo Chinazzi, François Lafond, Marco Ajelli, Esteban Moro, Yamir Moreno, et al. The unequal effects of the health–economy trade-off during the COVID-19 pan-demic. Nature Human Behaviour, pages 1–12, 2023.
  86. [86].↵
    Kris V Parag, Benjamin J Cowling, and Christl A Donnelly. Deciphering early-warning signals of SARS-CoV-2 elimination and resurgence from limited data at multiple scales. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 18(185):20210569, 2021.
    OpenUrl
  87. [87].
    Miguel I Paredes, Stephanie M Lunn, Michael Famulare, Lauren A Frisbie, Ian Painter, Roy Burstein, Pavitra Roychoudhury, Hong Xie, Shah A Mohamed Bakhash, Ricardo Perez, et al. Associations between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants and risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalization among confirmed cases in Washington State: a retrospective cohort study. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 75(1):e536–e544, 2022.
    OpenUrl
  88. [88].↵
    Michael J Plank. Minimising the use of costly control measures in an epidemic elimination strategy: A simple mathematical model. Mathematical Biosciences, 351:108885, 2022.
    OpenUrl
  89. [89].↵
    Michael J Plank, Rachelle N Binny, Shaun C Hendy, Audrey Lustig, and Kannan Ridings. Vaccination and testing of the border workforce for COVID-19 and risk of community outbreaks: a modelling study. Royal Society Open Science, 8(9):210686, 2021.
    OpenUrl
  90. [90].↵
    Public Health Agency of Canada. Federal, Provincial, Territorial Public Health Response Plan for Ongoing Management of COVID-19. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/guidance-documents/federal-provincial-territorial-public-health-response-plan-ongoing-management-covid-19.html, 2022.
  91. [91].↵
    Public Health Agency of Canada. Guidance for a strategic approach to lifting restrictive public health measures. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/guidance-documents/lifting-public-health-measures.html, 2022.
  92. [92].↵
    Public Health, Newfoundland and Labrador. Report to the House of Assembly on the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency. https://www.assembly.nl.ca/business/electronicdocuments/ReporttoHOACOVID-19PublicHealthEmergency2022.pdf, 2022.
  93. [93].↵
    Public Health Ontario. Jurisdictional Scan of Frameworks and Epidemiologic Indicators to Inform Public Health Measures during COVID-19. https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/he/2020/12/covid-19-jurisdictional-scan-epi-indicators-public-health.pdf?la=en, 2020.
  94. [94].↵
    Public Satefy Canada. Timeline – CBSA Border Measures. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlmntry-bndrs/20210907/05-en.aspx. Date: April 23, 2021.
  95. [95].↵
    Oliver Robinson. COVID-19 lockdown policies: An interdisciplinary review. Available at SSRN 3782395, 2021.
  96. [96].↵
    Bertrand R Rowe, André Canosa, Amina Meslem, and Frantz Rowe. Increased airborne transmission of COVID-19 with new variants, implications for health policies. Building and environment, 219:109132, 2022.
    OpenUrl
  97. [97].↵
    Clark D Russell, Nazir I Lone, and J Kenneth Baillie. Comorbidities, multimorbidity and COVID-19. Nature medicine, 29(2):334–343, 2023.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  98. [98].↵
    Siamak Seyfi, C Michael Hall, and Bardia Shabani. COVID-19 and international travel restrictions: the geopolitics of health and tourism. Tourism Geographies, 25(1):357–373, 2023.
    OpenUrl
  99. [99].↵
    Oluwaseun Sharomi and Tufail Malik. Optimal control in epidemiology. Annals of Operations Research, 251:55–71, 2017.
    OpenUrl
  100. [100].↵
    Kristian Soltesz, Fredrik Gustafsson, Toomas Timpka, Joakim Jaldén, Carl Jidling, Albin Heimerson, Thomas B Schön, Armin Spreco, Joakim Ekberg, Örjan Dahlström, et al. The effect of interventions on COVID-19. Nature, 588(7839):E26–E28, 2020.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. [101].↵
    Emma Southall, Z Ogi-Gittins, AR Kaye, WS Hart, FA Lovell-Read, and RN Thompson. A practical guide to mathematical methods for estimating infectious disease outbreak risks. Journal of Theoretical Biology, page 111417, 2023.
  102. [102].↵
    Statistics Canada. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-X2016001. Ottawa. Released November 29, 2017. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E. Accessed November 15, 2021.
  103. [103].↵
    Statistics Canada. Table 24-10-0041-01 International travellers entering or returning to Canada, by type of transport DOI: 10.25318/2410004101-eng.
  104. [104].↵
    Statistics Canada. Table 12-10-0088-01 Interprovincial and international trade flows, basic prices, summary level (x 1,000,000), DOI: 10.25318/1210008801-eng.
  105. [105].↵
    Statistics Canada. Table 36-10-0402-02 Gross domestic product (GDP) at basic prices, by industry, provinces and territories, growth rates (x 1,000,000).
  106. [106].↵
    Nicholas Steyn, Audrey Lustig, Shaun C Hendy, Rachelle N Binny, and Michael J Plank. Effect of vaccination, border testing, and quarantine requirements on the risk of COVID-19 in New Zealand: A modelling study. Infectious Disease Modelling, 7(1):184– 198, 2022.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  107. [107].↵
    Nicholas Steyn, Michael J Plank, Alex James, Rachelle N Binny, Shaun C Hendy, and Audrey Lustig. Managing the risk of a COVID-19 outbreak from border arrivals. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 18(177):20210063, 2021.
    OpenUrl
  108. [108].
    Anika Stobart and Stephen Duckett. Australia’s Response to COVID-19. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 17(1):95–106, 2022.
    OpenUrl
  109. [109].↵
    Zhaohui Su, Ali Cheshmehzangi, Dean McDonnell, Junaid Ahmad, Sabina Šegalo, Yu-Tao Xiang, and Claudimar Pereira da Veiga. The advantages of the zero-COVID-19 strategy. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(14):8767, 2022.
    OpenUrl
  110. [110].↵
    Helen Tatlow, Emily Cameron-Blake, Sagar Grewal, Thomas Hale, Toby Phillips, and Andrew Wood. Variation in the response to COVID-19 across the four nations of the United Kingdom. Blavatnik Sch Gov Work Paper, 2021.
  111. [111].↵
    Bhaskar Thakur, Pallavi Dubey, Joseph Benitez, Joshua P Torres, Sireesha Reddy, Navkiran Shokar, Koko Aung, Debabrata Mukherjee, and Alok Kumar Dwivedi. A systematic review and meta-analysis of geographic differences in comorbidities and associated severity and mortality among individuals with COVID-19. Scientific reports, 11(1):8562, 2021.
    OpenUrl
  112. [112].↵
    Gianpaolo Scalia Tomba and Jacco Wallinga. A simple explanation for the low impact of border control as a countermeasure to the spread of an infectious disease. Mathematical biosciences, 214(1-2):70–72, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  113. [113].↵
    Paul Tupper, Sarah P Otto, and Caroline Colijn. Fundamental limitations of contact tracing for COVID-19. Facets, 6(1):1993–2001, 2021.
    OpenUrl
  114. [114].
    Updates on COVID-19 Variants of Concern (VOC). https://nccid.ca/covid-19-variants/, accessed March 7, 2022.
  115. [115].↵
    Giorgia Vattiato, Audrey Lustig, Oliver Maclaren, Rachelle N Binny, Shaun C Hendy, Emily Harvey, Dion O’Neale, and Michael J Plank. Modelling Aotearoa New Zealand’s COVID-19 protection framework and the transition away from the elimination strategy. Royal Society Open Science, 10(2):220766, 2023.
    OpenUrl
  116. [116].↵
    Jianghao Wang, Yichun Fan, Juan Palacios, Yuchen Chai, Nicolas Guetta-Jeanrenaud, Nick Obradovich, Chenghu Zhou, and Siqi Zheng. Global evidence of expressed sentiment alterations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(3):349–358, 2022.
    OpenUrl
  117. [117].↵
    Chad R Wells, Pratha Sah, Seyed M Moghadas, Abhishek Pandey, Affan Shoukat, Yaning Wang, Zheng Wang, Lauren A Meyers, Burton H Singer, and Alison P Galvani. Impact of international travel and border control measures on the global spread of the novel 2019 coronavirus outbreak. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(13):7504–7509, 2020.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  118. [118].↵
    Shuk-Ching Wong, Albert Ka-Wing Au, Hong Chen, Lithia Lai-Ha Yuen, Xin Li, David Christopher Lung, Allen Wing-Ho Chu, Jonathan Daniel Ip, Wan-Mui Chan, Hoi-Wah Tsoi, et al. Transmission of Omicron (B. 1.1. 529)-SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern in a designated quarantine hotel for travelers: a challenge of elimination strategy of COVID-19. The Lancet Regional Health–Western Pacific, 18, 2022.
  119. [119].↵
    World Health Organization. Public health considerations while resuming international travel, https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/public-health-considerations-while-resuming-international-travel, 30 Jul 2020.
  120. [120].↵
    World Health Organization. Chapter 4 National pandemic influenza risk assessment in Pandemic influenza risk management: a WHO guide to inform and harmonize national and international pandemic preparedness and response. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/259893. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO, 2017.
  121. [121].↵
    World Health Organization and others. Operational guide for engaging communities in contact tracing, 28 may 2021. Technical report, World Health Organization, 2021.
  122. [122].↵
    Shishi Wu, Rachel Neill, Chuan De Foo, Alvin Qijia Chua, Anne-Sophie Jung, Victoria Haldane, Salma M Abdalla, Wei-jie Guan, Sudhvir Singh, Anders Nordström, et al. Aggressive containment, suppression, and mitigation of covid-19: lessons learnt from eight countries. bmj, 375, 2021.
  123. [123].↵
    Yu Wu, Liangyu Kang, Zirui Guo, Jue Liu, Min Liu, and Wannian Liang. Incubation period of COVID-19 caused by unique SARS-CoV-2 strains: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA network open, 5(8):e2228008–e2228008, 2022.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  124. [124].↵
    Yiqing Xia, Jorge Luis Flores Anato, Caroline Colijin, Naveed Janjua, Michael Otterstatter, Mike Irvine, Tyler Williamson, Marie B Varughese, Michael Li, Nathaniel Osgood, et al. Canada’s Provincial Covid-19 Pandemic Modelling Efforts: A Review of Mathematical Models and Their Impacts on the Responses. 2023.
  125. [125].↵
    Haoxiang Yang, Özge Sürer, Daniel Duque, David P Morton, Bismark Singh, Spencer J Fox, Remy Pasco, Kelly Pierce, Paul Rathouz, Victoria Valencia, et al. Design of COVID-19 staged alert systems to ensure healthcare capacity with minimal closures. Nature Communications, 12(1):1–7, 2021.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  126. [126].↵
    Kai Yuan, Yi-Miao Gong, Lin Liu, Yan-Kun Sun, Shan-Shan Tian, Yi-Jie Wang, Yi Zhong, An-Yi Zhang, Si-Zhen Su, Xiao-Xing Liu, et al. Prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder after infectious disease pandemics in the twenty-first century, including COVID-19: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Molecular psychiatry, 26(9):4982– 4998, 2021.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  127. [127].↵
    Ricci P H Yue, Bobo HP Lau, Cecilia LW Chan, and Siu-Man Ng. Risk perception as a double-edged sword in policy compliance in COVID-19 pandemic? A two-phase evaluation from Hong Kong. Journal of Risk Research, 25(9):1131–1145, 2022.
    OpenUrl
  128. [128].↵
    Cameron Zachreson, Freya M Shearer, David J Price, Michael J Lydeamore, Jodie McVernon, James McCaw, and Nicholas Geard. COVID-19 in low-tolerance border quarantine systems: Impact of the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. Science Advances, 8(14):eabm3624, 2022.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  129. [129].
    Jiří Zahradník, Shir Marciano, Maya Shemesh, Eyal Zoler, Daniel Harari, Jeanne Chiaravalli, Björn Meyer, Yinon Rudich, Chunlin Li, Ira Marton, et al. SARS-CoV-2 variant prediction and antiviral drug design are enabled by RBD in vitro evolution. Nature microbiology, 6(9):1188–1198, 2021.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted February 07, 2024.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Is SARS-CoV-2 elimination or mitigation best? Regional and disease characteristics determine the recommended strategy
Maria M. Martignoni, Julien Arino, Amy Hurford
medRxiv 2024.02.01.24302169; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.01.24302169
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area