Non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI) currently holds a fort against the causative agents of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemics. Some NPIs adopted worldwide are travel restrictions, social distance, and personal protective equipment.
Currently, there is no successful treatment for COVID-19 disease or an effective vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. The virus infects more than 58.5 million people and kills more than 1.38 million people, but such NPIs are primarily responsible for avoiding even more serious crises everywhere. NPIs are implemented to slow down and mitigate the spread of the virus within a population.
In the face of rapidly changing epidemiological conditions in the face of COVID-19, governments around the world have implemented diverse NPIs. These interventions were adopted with a combination of the effectiveness of these measures, the degree of population compliance, and the social impression, with or without scientific evidence of the individual.
Recent articles published in the journal Natural human behaviorQuantitatively analyze the NPIs implemented in different regions and their impact on the effective reproduction number R.t, COVID-19. In this study, Dr. Peter Klemik and his team use a comprehensive, hierarchically coded dataset of 6,068 NPI implemented in 79 regions from March to April 2020. This was the time when most European countries and the United States experienced the first SARS-CoV-2 infection wave.
It also investigates the impact of country-specific management strategies and selected country-specific indicators. In this study, the authors analyze and elaborate on the direct and concomitant consequences of these interventions.
Analyze the impact of government intervention on Rt, The author studied using harmonious results from multimethod applications. They propose a modeling approach that combines four computational methods that combine statistical, inference, and artificial intelligence tools.
From the 6,068 NPI taxonomic dataset, the authors observe that the themes of social distance and travel restrictions are at the top of all ways. In contrast, environmental measures (for example, cleaning and disinfecting shared surfaces) are ranked as the least effective.
The author found that it had the greatest impact on Rt Below: Cancellation of small meetings, closure of educational institutions, border restrictions, improved medical and public health capabilities, restrictions on the movement of individuals, blockades of the country (including a stay-at-home order in US states).
They also find additional NPI categories agreed on in their way: mass gathering cancellations, risk communication activities to inform and educate vulnerable people of public and government assistance.
In contrast, the least effective interventions they have found: government actions to provide or receive international support, measures to strengthen testing capabilities, or measures to improve case detection strategies. (May lead to short-term increase in cases), follow-up and follow-up measures, border and airport health checks and environmental cleaning.
The most effective communication strategies include round-trip warnings to high-risk areas and some measures to actively communicate with the general public. For example, social distance, workplace safety measures, voluntary quarantine of people with mild respiratory symptoms, and information campaigns (news media, leaflets, social media, or telephone messages) to encourage staying at home. Through various channels including).
In this study, the author uses an external dataset to validate the findings and find the most complete consensus measurements.
The analysis from this study also shows the substantial variation between geographic regions of the world in terms of NPI effectiveness. The authors present this as a measure of the heterogeneity of NPI rankings in different regions by the entropy approach. While social distance measurements and travel restrictions are most effective, they show high entropy. In other words, the effect varies considerably from country to country. However, case identification, contact tracing, and medical care show significantly less country dependence.
None of the individual NPIs are independent. Therefore, the impact of a particular NPI cannot be assessed alone. Therefore, the author quantifies whether the effectiveness of a particular NPI depends on the epidemic age of its implementation. For each country and each NPI, the author gets the curve of the most likely change in R.t Recruitment time for a specific NPI.
The author presents a detailed discussion of R changest As a function of the hiring time of the selected NPIs, the average across the countries where those NPIs were hired.
The results of this study show that the proper combination of NPIs is needed to suppress the spread of the virus-a single NPI cannot reduce R.t One down. There are destructive and inexpensive NPIs that are as effective as more intrusive and radical NPIs, such as national blockades. With this study, policy makers have definitive NPIs tailored to specific countries and their epidemic ages to intelligently combat the resurgence of COVID-19 and other future respiratory outbreaks. can do.
“The ensemble of these results requires strong efforts to simulate what-if scenarios at the national level to plan the most likely effectiveness of future NPIs, individual countries and countries. In the situation, thanks to the possibility of going down to a unique level, our approach is the first contribution towards this goal. “-Dr. Peter Kremik and his team
Ranking the effectiveness of global COVID-19 government intervention
Source link Ranking the effectiveness of global COVID-19 government intervention