Abstract
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 a complete lockdown. Here we study the effectiveness of NPIs in reducing documented cases of COVID-19.
Methods We empirically estimate the impact of NPIs on documented COVID-19 cases in a cross-country analysis. A Bayesian hierarchical model with a time-delayed effect for each NPI allows us to quantify the relative reduction in the number of new cases attributed to each NPI. Based on this model, 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). 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.
Findings Based on our model, we compare the effectiveness of NPIs up to now, i.e., in the early stages of the outbreak. Venue closures are 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 %) appear to be the least effective among the NPIs considered in this analysis.
Interpretation This cross-country analysis provides early estimates regarding the effectiveness of different NPIs for controlling the COVID-19 epidemic. These findings are relevant for evaluating current health-policies and will be refined as more data becomes available.
Funding Swiss National Science Foundation
Evidence before this study To control the current COVID-19 epidemic, several countries have implemented health-policy measures, i.e., non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). Their intended effect is to steer people towards increased social distancing that will eventually reduce person-to-person transmission rates. Several studies have investigated the effect of NPIs within the framework of theoretical transmission models. To obtain empirical evidence concerning the effectiveness of such measures, we searched PubMed and medRxiv using “coronavirus”, “COVID-19”, and similar terms through April 21, 2020. We identified several studies with observational data correlating non-pharmaceutical interventions and SARS-CoV-2 infection rates. These studies focus primarily on single measures and/or the novel coronavirus outbreak in China. One study analyzed the effectiveness of NPIs using data from several countries. However, the main conclusion of that study focused on demonstrating an overall effect of all NPIs together and hesitated to make conclusions about single NPIs. Hence, empirical investigations about the relative effectiveness of NPIs are still lacking.
Added value of this study We estimate empirically the effect of NPIs on documented cases of COVID-19. For this purpose, we perform a cross-country analysis in order to identify which NPIs are (most) effective.
Implications of all the available evidence Not all NPIs are equally effective. This needs to be considered when authorities respond to the COVID-19 outbreak or when NPIs are lifted. Authorities should carefully evaluate the effectiveness based on empirical evidence, as several health policies come with substantial costs for society.
Competing Interest Statement
SF 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 Statement
NB, 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 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
Email addresses: nbanholzer{at}ethz.ch (Nicolas Banholzer), sfeuerriegel{at}ethz.ch (Stefan Feuerriegel)
Data Availability
We 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.
