The impact of local and national restrictions in response to COVID-19 on social contacts in England: a longitudinal natural experiment.


Journal

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

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
19 02 2021
Historique:
received: 15 10 2020
accepted: 21 01 2021
entrez: 19 2 2021
pubmed: 20 2 2021
medline: 2 3 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

England's COVID-19 response transitioned from a national lockdown to localised interventions. In response to rising cases, these were supplemented by national restrictions on contacts (the Rule of Six), then 10 pm closing for bars and restaurants, and encouragement to work from home. These were quickly followed by a 3-tier system applying different restrictions in different localities. As cases continued to rise, a second national lockdown was declared. We used a national survey to quantify the impact of these restrictions on epidemiologically relevant contacts. We compared paired measures on setting-specific contacts before and after each restriction started and tested for differences using paired permutation tests on the mean change in contacts and the proportion of individuals decreasing their contacts. Following the imposition of each measure, individuals tended to report fewer contacts than they had before. However, the magnitude of the changes was relatively small and variable. For instance, although early closure of bars and restaurants appeared to have no measurable effect on contacts, the work from home directive reduced mean daily work contacts by 0.99 (95% confidence interval CI] 0.03-1.94), and the Rule of Six reduced non-work and school contacts by a mean of 0.25 (0.01-0.5) per day. Whilst Tier 3 appeared to also reduce non-work and school contacts, the evidence for an effect of the lesser restrictions (Tiers 1 and 2) was much weaker. There may also have been some evidence of saturation of effects, with those who were in Tier 1 (least restrictive) reducing their contacts markedly when they entered lockdown, which was not reflected in similar changes in those who were already under tighter restrictions (Tiers 2 and 3). The imposition of various local and national measures in England during the summer and autumn of 2020 has gradually reduced contacts. However, these changes are smaller than the initial lockdown in March. This may partly be because many individuals were already starting from a lower number of contacts.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
England's COVID-19 response transitioned from a national lockdown to localised interventions. In response to rising cases, these were supplemented by national restrictions on contacts (the Rule of Six), then 10 pm closing for bars and restaurants, and encouragement to work from home. These were quickly followed by a 3-tier system applying different restrictions in different localities. As cases continued to rise, a second national lockdown was declared. We used a national survey to quantify the impact of these restrictions on epidemiologically relevant contacts.
METHODS
We compared paired measures on setting-specific contacts before and after each restriction started and tested for differences using paired permutation tests on the mean change in contacts and the proportion of individuals decreasing their contacts.
RESULTS
Following the imposition of each measure, individuals tended to report fewer contacts than they had before. However, the magnitude of the changes was relatively small and variable. For instance, although early closure of bars and restaurants appeared to have no measurable effect on contacts, the work from home directive reduced mean daily work contacts by 0.99 (95% confidence interval CI] 0.03-1.94), and the Rule of Six reduced non-work and school contacts by a mean of 0.25 (0.01-0.5) per day. Whilst Tier 3 appeared to also reduce non-work and school contacts, the evidence for an effect of the lesser restrictions (Tiers 1 and 2) was much weaker. There may also have been some evidence of saturation of effects, with those who were in Tier 1 (least restrictive) reducing their contacts markedly when they entered lockdown, which was not reflected in similar changes in those who were already under tighter restrictions (Tiers 2 and 3).
CONCLUSIONS
The imposition of various local and national measures in England during the summer and autumn of 2020 has gradually reduced contacts. However, these changes are smaller than the initial lockdown in March. This may partly be because many individuals were already starting from a lower number of contacts.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33602244
doi: 10.1186/s12916-021-01924-7
pii: 10.1186/s12916-021-01924-7
pmc: PMC7892289
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

52

Subventions

Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_19065
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : H2020 European Research Council
ID : 101003688

Investigateurs

Kaja Abbas (K)
C Julian Villabona-Arenas (CJ)
Kathleen O'Reilly (K)
Matthew Quaife (M)
Alicia Rosello (A)
Adam J Kucharski (AJ)
Hamish P Gibbs (HP)
Katherine E Atkins (KE)
Rosanna C Barnard (RC)
Nikos I Bosse (NI)
Simon R Procter (SR)
Sophie R Meakin (SR)
Fiona Yueqian Sun (FY)
Sam Abbott (S)
James D Munday (JD)
Timothy W Russell (TW)
Stefan Flasche (S)
Katharine Sherratt (K)
Rosalind M Eggo (RM)
Nicholas G Davies (NG)
Billy J Quilty (BJ)
Megan Auzenbergs (M)
Joel Hellewell (J)
Thibaut Jombart (T)
Yalda Jafari (Y)
Quentin J Leclerc (QJ)
Rachel Lowe (R)
Anna M Foss (AM)
Mark Jit (M)
Arminder K Deol (AK)
Stéphane Hué (S)
Gwenan M Knight (GM)
Akira Endo (A)
Kiesha Prem (K)
Jon C Emery (JC)
Samuel Clifford (S)
Graham Medley (G)
Sebastian Funk (S)
Frank G Sandmann (FG)
Damien C Tully (DC)
Carl A B Pearson (CAB)
Georgia R Gore-Langton (GR)
Alicia Showering (A)
Rein M G J Houben (RMGJ)
Emily S Nightingale (ES)
Petra Klepac (P)
Naomi R Waterlow (NR)
Yung-Wai Desmond Chan (YD)
James W Rudge (JW)
David Simons (D)
Charlie Diamond (C)
Jack Williams (J)
Oliver Brady (O)
Yang Liu (Y)

Références

BMC Med. 2020 May 7;18(1):124
pubmed: 32375776
Lancet Public Health. 2020 Jul;5(7):e375-e385
pubmed: 32502389
Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7820):257-261
pubmed: 32512579

Auteurs

Christopher I Jarvis (CI)

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

Amy Gimma (A)

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

Kevin van Zandvoort (K)

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

Kerry L M Wong (KLM)

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

W John Edmunds (WJ)

Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and 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