Quantifying the impact of physical distance measures on the transmission of COVID-19 in the UK.


Journal

BMC medicine
ISSN: 1741-7015
Titre abrégé: BMC Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190723

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
07 05 2020
Historique:
received: 03 04 2020
accepted: 17 04 2020
entrez: 8 5 2020
pubmed: 8 5 2020
medline: 12 5 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

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 (R We asked a representative sample of UK adults about their contact patterns on the previous day. The questionnaire was conducted online via email recruitment and documents the age and location of contacts and 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, 24 March, 1 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. We found a 74% reduction in the average daily number of contacts observed per participant (from 10.8 to 2.8). This would be sufficient to reduce R 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.

Sections du résumé

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 (R
METHODS
We asked a representative sample of UK adults about their contact patterns on the previous day. The questionnaire was conducted online via email recruitment and documents the age and location of contacts and 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, 24 March, 1 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.
RESULTS
We found a 74% reduction in the average daily number of contacts observed per participant (from 10.8 to 2.8). This would be sufficient to reduce R
CONCLUSIONS
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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32375776
doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01597-8
pii: 10.1186/s12916-020-01597-8
pmc: PMC7202922
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

124

Subventions

Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Horizon 2020
ID : 101003688
Pays : International

Investigateurs

Megan Auzenbergs (M)
Kathleen O'Reilly (K)
Graham Medley (G)
Jon C Emery (JC)
Rein M G J Houben (RMGJ)
Nicholas Davies (N)
Emily S Nightingale (ES)
Stefan Flasche (S)
Thibaut Jombart (T)
Joel Hellewell (J)
Sam Abbott (S)
James D Munday (JD)
Nikos I Bosse (NI)
Sebastian Funk (S)
Fiona Sun (F)
Akira Endo (A)
Alicia Rosello (A)
Simon R Procter (SR)
Adam J Kucharski (AJ)
Timothy W Russell (TW)
Gwen Knight (G)
Hamish Gibbs (H)
Quentin Leclerc (Q)
Billy J Quilty (BJ)
Charlie Diamond (C)
Yang Liu (Y)
Mark Jit (M)
Samuel Clifford (S)
Carl A B Pearson (CAB)
Rosalind M Eggo (RM)
Arminder K Deol (AK)

Références

N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 26;382(13):1199-1207
pubmed: 31995857
PLoS Comput Biol. 2012;8(3):e1002425
pubmed: 22412366
BMC Infect Dis. 2009 Nov 27;9:187
pubmed: 19943919
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Jul 2;116(27):13174-13181
pubmed: 31209042
Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan;25(3):
pubmed: 31992388
PLoS Comput Biol. 2017 Sep 12;13(9):e1005697
pubmed: 28898249
Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan;25(4):
pubmed: 32019669
Int J Infect Dis. 2020 Mar;92:214-217
pubmed: 32007643
Mil Med Res. 2020 Feb 6;7(1):4
pubmed: 32029004
Am J Epidemiol. 2006 Nov 15;164(10):936-44
pubmed: 16968863
Wellcome Open Res. 2020 Feb 3;5:17
pubmed: 32322691
J R Soc Interface. 2010 Jun 6;7(47):873-85
pubmed: 19892718
Int J Food Microbiol. 2010 Sep 1;142(3):330-40
pubmed: 20674055
Int J Infect Dis. 2020 Apr 22;:
pubmed: 32334115
J Clin Med. 2020 Feb 14;9(2):
pubmed: 32075152
PLoS Med. 2008 Mar 25;5(3):e74
pubmed: 18366252
Science. 2020 Apr 24;368(6489):395-400
pubmed: 32144116

Auteurs

Christopher I Jarvis (CI)

Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. Christopher.Jarvis@lshtm.ac.uk.

Kevin Van Zandvoort (K)

Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.

Amy Gimma (A)

Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.

Kiesha Prem (K)

Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.

Petra Klepac (P)

Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.

G James Rubin (GJ)

Department of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, Denmark Hill, London, UK.

W John Edmunds (WJ)

Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH