scholarly journals The effect of multiple interventions to balance healthcare demand for controlling COVID-19 outbreaks: a modelling study

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Po Yang ◽  
Geng Yang ◽  
Jun Qi ◽  
Bin Sheng ◽  
Yun Yang ◽  
...  

AbstractFor controlling recent COVID-19 outbreaks around the world, many countries have implemented suppression and mitigation interventions. This work aims to conduct a feasibility study for accessing the effect of multiple interventions to control the COVID-19 breakouts in the UK and other European countries, accounting for balance of healthcare demand. The model is to infer the impact of mitigation, suppression and multiple rolling interventions for controlling COVID-19 outbreaks in the UK, with two features considered: direct link between exposed and recovered population, and practical healthcare demand by separation of infections. We combined the calibrated model with COVID-19 data in London and non-London regions in the UK during February and April 2020. Our finding suggests that rolling intervention is an optimal strategy to effectively control COVID-19 outbreaks in the UK for balancing healthcare demand and morality ratio. It is better to implement regional based interventions with varied intensities and maintenance periods. We suggest an intervention strategy named as “Besieged and rolling interventions” 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.

Author(s):  
Po Yang ◽  
Jun Qi ◽  
Shuhao Zhang ◽  
Xulong Wang ◽  
Gaoshan Bi ◽  
...  

SummaryBackgroundRecent 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.MethodsWe 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.FindingsWe 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.InterpretationConsidering 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.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Po Yang ◽  
Jun Qi ◽  
Shuhao Zhang ◽  
Xulong wang ◽  
Gaoshan Bi ◽  
...  

SummaryBackgroundRecent 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. We aimed to conduct a feasibility study for robustly estimating the number and distribution of infections, growth of deaths, peaks and lengths of COVID-19 breakouts by taking multiple interventions in London and the UK, accounting for reduction of healthcare demand.MethodsWe developed a model to attempt to infer the impact of mitigation, suppression and multiple rolling interventions for controlling COVID-19 outbreaks in London and 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 and critical cases. Our model was fitted and calibrated with data 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 March 2020 to estimate the number and distribution of infections, growth of deaths, and healthcare demand by using multiple interventions.FindingsWe estimated given that multiple interventions with an intensity range from 3 to 15, one optimal strategy was to take suppression with intensity 3 in London from 23rd March for 100 days, and 3 weeks rolling intervention with intensity between 3 and 5 in non-London regions. In this scenario, the total infections and deaths in the UK were limited to 2.43 million and 33.8 thousand; the peak time of healthcare demand was due to the 65th day (April 11th), where it needs hospital beds for 25.3 thousand severe and critical cases. If we took a simultaneous 3 weeks rolling intervention with intensity between 3 and 5 in all regions of the UK, the total infections and deaths increased slightly to 2.69 million and 37 thousand; the peak time of healthcare kept the same at the 65th day, where it needs equivalent hospital beds for severe and critical cases of 25.3 thousand. But if we released high band of rolling intervention intensity to 6 or 8 and simultaneously implemented them in all regions of the UK, the COVID-19 outbreak would not end in 1 year and distribute a multi-modal mode, where the total infections and deaths in the UK possibly reached to 16.2 million and 257 thousand.InterpretationOur results show that taking rolling intervention is probably an optimal strategy to effectively and efficiently control COVID-19 outbreaks in the UK. As large difference of population density and social distancing between London and non-London regions in the UK, it is more appropriate to implement consistent suppression in London for 100 days and rolling intervention in other regions. This strategy would potentially reduce the overall infections and deaths, and delay and reduce peak healthcare demand.Research in contextEvidence before this studySuppression and mitigation are two common interventions for controlling infectious disease outbreaks. Previous works show rapid suppression is able to immediately reduce infections to low levels by eliminating human-to-human transmission, but needs consistent maintenance; mitigation does not interrupt transmission completely and tolerates some increase of infections, but minimises health and economic impacts of viral spread.3 While current planning in many countries is focused on implementing either suppression or mitigation, it is not clear how and when to take which level of interventions for control COVID-19 breakouts to certain country in light of balancing its healthcare demands and economic impacts.Added value of this studyWe used a mathematical model to access the feasibility of multiple intervention to control COVID-19 outbreaks in the UK. Our model distinguished self-recovered populations, infection with mild and critical cases for estimating healthcare demand. It combined available evidence from available data source in Wuhan. We estimated how suppression, mitigation and multiple rolling interventions impact on controlling outbreaks in London and non-London regions of the UK. We provided an evidence verification point that implementing suppression in London and rolling intervention with high intensity in non-London regions is probably an optimal strategy to control COVID-19 breakouts in the UK with minimised deaths and economic impacts.Implications of all the available evidenceThe effectiveness and impact of suppression and mitigation to control outbreaks of COVID-19 depends on intervention intensity and duration, which remain unclear at the present time. Using the current best understanding of this model, implementing consistent suppression in London for 100 days and 3 weeks rolling intervention with intensity between 3 and 5 in other regions potentially limit the total deaths in the UK to 33.8 thousand. Future research on how to quantify and measure intervention activities could improve precision on control estimates.


2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 14-16
Author(s):  
Sue Cowley

With childcare in the UK now being some of the most expensive in the world, questions about the sustainability of settings and the impact of funding on social mobility are at the centre of policy debates. Sue Cowley takes a look at the current situation with government funding and assesses the impact of the 30 hours entitlement.


Author(s):  
Andrew S. Herridge ◽  
Lisa J. James

This chapter looked at the implications of Brexit on the recruitment of international faculty, students, and the ability to obtain research funding. Higher education stakeholders have legitimate concerns regarding the impact of the UK's separation from the EU. In preemptive moves, students are transferring to institutions outside the UK and EU to universities that are welcoming and accommodating the special needs and circumstances of international scholars. Researchers are prematurely dissolving collaborative partnerships with colleagues to mitigate complications and lost funding expected, as a result of Brexit. There are universities exploring possible locations for new satellite campuses in other countries. Through the development of policies and treaties such as the Bologna Process, Lisbon Strategy, European Higher Education in the World initiative, the European Union has demonstrated the importance and purpose of higher education both in Europe and at the international level.


2020 ◽  
pp. jech-2020-214730 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Edelstein ◽  
Chinelo Obi ◽  
Meera Chand ◽  
Susan Hopkins ◽  
Kevin Brown ◽  
...  

BackgroundThe UK has been one of the European countries most affected by COVID-19 pandemic. The UK implemented a lockdown in March 2020, when testing policy at the time was focusing on hospitalised cases. Limited information is therefore available on the impact of the lockdown on point prevalence in the community. We assessed COVID-19 point prevalence in London between early April and early May 2020, which approximately reflect infection around the time of the lockdown and 3–5 weeks into lockdown.MethodsWe tested 1064 participants of a community surveillance cohort for acute COVID-19 infection using PCR in London in April and May 2020 and described positivity as well as characteristics and symptoms of the participants.ResultsPoint prevalence decreased from 2.2% (95% CI 1.4 to 3.5) in early April to 0.2% (95% CI 0.03 to 1.6) in early May. 22% of those who tested positive in April were asymptomatic. Extrapolation from reports of confirmed cases suggest that 5–7.6% of total infections were confirmed by testing during this period.ConclusionCOVID-19 point prevalence in the community sharply decreased after lockdown was implemented. This study is based on a small sample and regular seroprevalence studies are needed to better characterise population-level immunity.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 488 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paola Fezzigna ◽  
Simone Borghesi ◽  
Dario Caro

International trade shifts production of a large amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions embodied in traded goods from the importing country to the exporting country. The European Union (EU) plays a prominent role in the flow of international-related emissions as it accounts for the second largest share of global exports and imports of goods. Consumption-based accountings (CBA) emerged as alternative to the traditional emission inventories based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines. According to the IPCC criteria, countries where products are consumed take no responsibility for the emissions produced by exporter countries, thus neglecting the emissions embodied in trade. By taking this aspect into account, CBA are considered of great importance in revealing emissions attributed to the final consumer. Using a CBA approach, this paper evaluates the impact of international trade in the EU in terms of CO2 emissions, looking both at the internal trade flows within the EU-28 and at the external trade flows between the EU and the rest of the world during the period 2012–2015. We find that the EU is a net importer of emissions as its emissions due to consumption exceed those due to production. In particular, in 2015 the ratio between import- and export-embodied emissions was more than 3:1 for the EU-28 that imported 1317 Mt CO2 from the rest of the world (mainly from China and Russia) while exporting only 424 Mt CO2. Concerning emissions flows among EU countries, Germany represents the largest importer, followed by the UK. To get a deeper understanding on possible environmental implications of Brexit on UK emission responsibilities, the paper also advances a few hypotheses on how trade flows could change based on the existing trade patterns of the UK. Data analysis shows that a 10% shift of UK imports from EU partners to its main non-EU trading partners (India, China, and US) would increase its emission responsibility by 5%. The increase in UK emission responsibility would more than double (+11%) in case of a 30% shift of UK imports. Similar results would apply if UK replaced its current EU partners with its main Commonwealth trading partners as a result of Brexit.


1978 ◽  
Vol 10 (S5) ◽  
pp. 101-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. P. Deschamps ◽  
G. Valantin

Pregnancy in adolescence is now a very great concern for doctors, teachers and social workers throughout the world and yet about 95% of the publications on this topic have come from the USA. The remainder are mainly from the UK and Scandinavia. Other countries have produced only a small number of papers, focusing mainly on clinical problems such as the pathological events and complications during pregnancy or delivery. In France, the first paper to appear in a paediatric journal was published in 1977 in the French journal of school health (Martin, 1977). On the other hand, teenage magazines often contain articles about sexual behaviour and pregnancy in adolescence. There is now a great concern in the adolescents' press about the problems of sexuality, contraception, abortion and pregnancy, including advertising for pregnancy tests.


1968 ◽  
Vol 45 ◽  
pp. 15-28

The growth of production in the industrial countries seems to have been less rapid in the second quarter. It must be expected to slow down further under the impact of the measures taken in the United States to reduce the budgetary deficit. We still expect the rise in the combined national outputs of the industrial countries to be around 4½ per cent this year, but on present policies it may be no more than 3½ per cent in 1969 and a good deal less than this in the twelve months to mid-1969. Unemployment is still high by the standards of most recent years; its downward movement appears to have been checked again or even reversed in a number of European countries and its general tendency over the next twelve months is likely to be upward, particularly in the United States.


2008 ◽  
Vol 205 ◽  
pp. 8-13
Author(s):  
Ray Barrell

In interesting times several things may happen simultaneously, and they may have connected roots. The financial turmoil that developed initially in the US banking sector had its roots in financial innovation that had made available cheap finance and increased demand for housing. This wave of low cost finance had spread to Europe, and house prices rose in a correlated way. The increase in demand in the world economy that resulted from strong growth in lending and high asset values helped raise output growth outside the OECD, and this in turn put upward pressure on oil prices. Markets sometimes work slowly, and the effects of the increase in demand on prices appear to be coming through just as the asset bubble is collapsing. The sequence of events was not inevitable, as low personal sector saving in the US and the UK as well as elsewhere could have been offset by tighter fiscal policy, and better prudential regulation of lenders would also definitely have helped. The desire to move financial regulation from the central bank, as in the UK, may have been for good, competition based, reasons, but it has meant that financial sector oversight has not taken account of the macroeconomic implications of a wave of lending that rested on risky financial innovation and therefore it has not properly addressed the issue of systemic risk (see Barrell and Davis, 2005). The resulting financial turmoil has meant that banks have made losses, and have been unable to trust each other's solvency when making deals. As a result three month interbank rates have risen well above central bank intervention rates, as can be seen in figure 1.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document