The effect of multiple interventions to balance healthcare demand for controlling COVID-19 outbreaks: a modelling study
Authors: Yang Po , Qi Jun , Zhang Shuhao , Wang Xulong , Bi Gaoshan , Yang Yun , Sheng Bin , Mad Xuxin 
Published: May 2020

Background

Recent outbreak of a novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led a rapid global spread around the world. For controlling COVID-19 outbreaks, many countries have implemented two non-pharmaceutical interventions: suppression like immediate lock-downs in cities at epicentre of outbreak; or mitigation that slows down but not stopping epidemic for reducing peak healthcare demand. Both interventions have apparent pros and cons; the effectiveness of any one intervention in isolation is limited. It is crucial but hard to know how and when to take which level of interventions tailored to the specific situation in each country. We aimed to conduct a feasibility study for robustly accessing the effect of multiple interventions to control the number and distribution of infections, growth of deaths, peaks and lengths of COVID-19 breakouts in the UK and other European countries, accounting for balance of healthcare demand.

Methods

We developed a model to attempt to infer the impact of mitigation, suppression and multiple rolling interventions for controlling COVID-19 outbreaks in the UK. Our model assumed that each intervention has equivalent effect on the reproduction number R across countries and over time; where its intensity was presented by average-number contacts with susceptible individuals as infectious individuals; early immediate intensive intervention led to increased health need and social anxiety. We considered two important features: direct link between Exposed and Recovered population, and practical healthcare demand by separation of infections into mild, moderate and critical cases. Our model was fitted and calibrated with date on cases of COVID-19 in Wuhan to estimate how suppression intervention impacted on the number and distribution of infections, growth of deaths over time during January 2020, and April 2020. We combined the calibrated model with data on the cases of COVID-19 in London and non-London regions in the UK during February 2020 and April 2020 to estimate the number and distribution of infections, growth of deaths, and healthcare demand by using multiple interventions. We applied the calibrated model to the prediction of infection and healthcare resource changes in other 6 European countries based on actual measures they have implemented during this period.

Findings

We estimated given that 1) By the date (5th March 2020) of the first report death in the UK, around 7499 people would have already been infected with the virus. After taking suppression on 23rd March, the peak of infection in the UK would have occurred between 28th March and 4th April 2020; the peak of death would have occurred between 18th April and 24th April 2020. 2) By 29th April, no significant collapse of health system in the UK have occurred, where there have been sufficient hospital beds for severe and critical cases. But in the Europe, Italy, Spain and France have experienced a 3 weeks period of shortage of hospital beds for severe and critical cases, leading to many deaths outside hospitals. 3) One optimal strategy to control COVID-19 outbreaks in the UK is to take region-level specific intervention. If taking suppression with very high intensity in London from 23rd March 2020 for 100 days, and 3 weeks rolling intervention between very high intensity and high intensity in non-London regions. The total infections and deaths in the UK were limited to 9.3 million and 143 thousand; the peak time of healthcare demand was due to the 96th day (12th May, 2020), where it needs hospital beds for 68.9 thousand severe and critical cases. 4) If taking a simultaneous 3 weeks rolling intervention between very high intensity and high intensity in all regions of the UK, the total infections and deaths increased slightly to 10 million and 154 thousand; the peak time of healthcare occurs at the 97th day (13th May, 2020), where it needs equivalent hospital beds for severe and critical cases of 73.5 thousand. 5) If too early releasing intervention intensity above moderate level and simultaneously implemented them in all regions of the UK, there would be a risk of second wave, where the total infections and deaths in the UK possibly reached to 23.4 million and 897 thousand.

Interpretation

Considering social and economic costs in controlling COVID-19 outbreaks, long-term suppression is not economically viable. Our finding suggests that rolling intervention is an optimal strategy to effectively and efficiently control COVID-19 outbreaks in the UK and potential other countries for balancing healthcare demand and morality ratio. As for huge difference of population density and social distancing between different regions in the UK, it is more appropriate to implement regional level specific intervention with varied intensities and maintenance periods. We suggest an intervention strategy to the UK that take a consistent suppression in London for 100 days and 3 weeks rolling intervention in other regions. This strategy would reduce the overall infections and deaths of COVID-19 outbreaks, and balance healthcare demand in the UK.