RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Is SARS-CoV-2 elimination or mitigation best? Regional and disease characteristics determine the recommended strategy
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.02.01.24302169
DO 10.1101/2024.02.01.24302169
A1 Martignoni, Maria M.
A1 Arino, Julien
A1 Hurford, Amy
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/07/2024.02.01.24302169.abstract
AB 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.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementMM 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. Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesThe code and data used to produce the figure are publicly available at https://github.com/ahurford/elimination-or-mitigationhttps://github.com/ahurford/elimination-or-mitigation