Abstract
The interventions and outcomes in the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic are highly varied. The disease and the interventions both impose costs and harm on society. Some interventions with particularly high costs may only be implemented briefly. The design of optimal policy requires consideration of many intervention scenarios. In this paper we investigate the optimal timing of interventions that are not sustainable for a long period. Specifically, we look at at the impact of a single short-term non-repeated intervention (a “one-shot intervention”) on an epidemic and consider the impact of the intervention’s timing. To minimize the total number infected, the intervention should start close to the peak so that there is minimal rebound once the intervention is stopped. To minimise the peak prevalence, it should start earlier, leading to initial reduction and then having a rebound to the same prevalence as the pre-intervention peak rather than one very large peak. To delay infections as much as possible (as might be appropriate if we expect improved interventions or treatments to be developed), earlier interventions have clear benefit. In populations with distinct subgroups, synchronized interventions are less effective than targeting the interventions in each subcommunity separately.
Author Summary Some interventions which help control a spreading epidemic have significant adverse effects on the population, and cannot be maintained long-term. The optimal timing of such an intervention will depend on the ultimate goal.
Interventions to delay the epidemic while new treatments or interventions are developed are best implemented as soon as possible.
Interventions to minimize the peak prevalence are best implemented partway through the growth phase allowing immunity to build up so that the eventual rebound is not larger than the initial peak.
Interventions to minimize the total number of infections are best implemented late in the growth phase to minimize the amount of rebound.
For a population with subcommunities which would have asynchronous outbreaks, similar results hold. Additionally, we find that it is best to target the intervention asynchronously to each subcommunity rather than synchronously across the population.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the authors' institutions and by The Leverhulme Trust, RPG-2017-370
Author Declarations
All 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.
Yes
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
Revised and updated, with more discussion about the impact of delaying epidemics.
Data Availability
The model is entirely simulation based. No data has been used.
