RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on documented cases of COVID-19
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.04.16.20062141
DO 10.1101/2020.04.16.20062141
A1 Banholzer, Nicolas
A1 van Weenen, Eva
A1 Kratzwald, Bernhard
A1 Seeliger, Arne
A1 Tschernutter, Daniel
A1 Bottrighi, Pierluigi
A1 Cenedese, Alberto
A1 Salles, Joan Puig
A1 Vach, Werner
A1 Feuerriegel, Stefan
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/28/2020.04.16.20062141.abstract
AB Background The novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly evolved into a global epidemic. To control its spread, countries have implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), such as school or border closures, while others have even enforced complete lockdowns. Here we study the impact of NPIs in reducing documented cases of COVID-19. Documented case numbers are selected because they are essential for decision-makers in the area of health-policy when monitoring and evaluating current control mechanisms.Methods We empirically estimate the relative reduction in the number of new cases attributed to each NPI. A cross-country analysis is performed using documented cases through April 15, 2020 from n = 20 countries (i.e., the United States, Canada, Australia, the EU-15 countries, Norway, and Switzerland).Results As of April 15, venue closures were associated with a reduction in the number of new cases by 36 % (95% credible interval [CrI] 20–48 %), closely followed by gathering bans (34 %; 95% CrI 21–45 %), border closures (31 %; 95% CrI 19–42 %), and work bans on non-essential business activities (31 %; 95% CrI 16–44 %). Event bans lead to a slightly less pronounced reduction (23 %; 95% CrI 8–35 %). School closures (8 %; 95% CrI 0–23 %) and lockdowns (5 %; 95% CrI 0–14 %) appeared to be the least effective among the NPIs considered in this analysis.Conclusions With this cross-country analysis, we provide early estimates regarding the impact of different NPIs for controlling the COVID-19 epidemic. These findings are relevant for evaluating current health-policies.Competing Interest StatementSF reports further grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation outside of the submitted work. JPS declares part-time employment at Luciole Medical outside of the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests.Funding StatementNB, EvW and SF acknowledge funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) as part of the Eccellenza grant 186932 on "Data-driven health management". The funding bodies had no control over design, conduct, data, analysis, review, reporting, or interpretation of the research conducted.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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 and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesWe collected data from publicly available data sources (Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center for epidemiological data; news reports and government resources for policy measures). All the public health information that we used is documented in the main text, the extended data and supplementary tables. A preprocessed data file is available with the codes.