Quantifying the impact of physical distance measures on the transmission of COVID-19 in the UK
Authors: Jarvis Christopher I , Van Zandvoort Kevin , Gimma Amy , Prem Kiesha ,   CMMID COVID-19 working group, Klepac Petra , Rubin G James , Edmunds W John 
Published: April 2020

Background

To mitigate and slow the spread of COVID-19, many countries have adopted unprecedented physical distancing policies, including the UK. We evaluate whether these measures might be sufficient to control the epidemic by estimating their impact on the reproduction number (R0, the average number of secondary cases generated per case).

Methods

We asked a representative sample of UK adults about their contact patterns on the previous day. The questionnaire documents the age and location of contacts and as well as a measure of their intimacy (whether physical contact was made or not). In addition, we asked about adherence to different physical distancing measures. The first surveys were sent on Tuesday 24th March, one day after a “ lockdown” was implemented across the UK. We compared measured contact patterns during the “ lockdown” to patterns of social contact made during a non-epidemic period. By comparing these, we estimated the change in reproduction number as a consequence of the physical distancing measures imposed. We used a meta-analysis of published estimates to inform our estimates of the reproduction number before interventions were put in place.

Findings

We found a 73% reduction in the average daily number of contacts observed per participant (from 10.2 to 2.9). This would be sufficient to reduce R0 from 2.6 prior to lockdown to 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 - 0.89) after the lockdown, based on all types of contact and 0.37 (95% CI = 0.22 - 0.53) for physical contacts only.

Interpretation

The physical distancing measures adopted by the UK public have substantially reduced contact levels and will likely lead to a substantial impact and a decline in cases in the coming weeks. However, this projected decline in incidence will not occur immediately as there are significant delays between infection, the onset of symptomatic disease and hospitalisation, as well as further delays to these events being reported. Tracking behavioural change can give a more rapid assessment of the impact of physical distancing measures than routine epidemiological surveillance.

Research in context

Evidence before this study

Many governments have adopted physical distancing measures to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is unclear to what extent these measures reduce the number of contacts and therefore transmission. We searched PubMed and medRxiv on March 28, 2020, with the terms “ (coronavirus OR COVID-19 OR influenza) AND ((school OR work) AND (closure OR holiday)) AND (contact OR mixing)” and identified 59 and 17 results, respectively. Only one study conducted in China during the COVID-19 pandemic reported a reduction in daily contacts outside the home during the period of “ lockdown”. We found no other published articles that empirically quantify the impact of these measures on age- and location-specific mixing patterns.

Added value of this study

By surveying adults’ behaviour in the UK during a period of stringent physical distancing (“ lockdown”) and comparing the results to previously collected data, we found a large reduction in daily contacts particularly outside the home, resulting in a marked reduction in the estimated reproduction number from 2.6 to 0.62 (95% bootstrapped confidence interval [CI] 0.37 - 0.89). This method allows for rapid assessment of changes in the reproduction number that is unaffected by reporting delays.

Implications of all the available evidence

Changes in human contact behaviour drive respiratory infection rates. Understanding these changes at different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic allows us to rapidly quantify the impact of physical distancing measures on the transmission of pathogens.