A novel, scenario-based approach to comparing non-pharmaceutical intervention strategies across nations

Author:

Calabrese Justin M.1234ORCID,Schüler Lennart1256ORCID,Fu Xiaoming12,Gawel Erik78,Zozmann Heinrich7,Bumberger Jan569,Quaas Martin89,Wolf Gerome10,Attinger Sabine11

Affiliation:

1. Center for Advanced Systems Understanding (CASUS), Untermarkt 20 , Görlitz 02826, Germany

2. Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Bautzner Landstraße 400 , Dresden 01328, Germany

3. Department of Ecological Modelling, UFZ—Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research , Leipzig, Germany

4. Department of Biology, University of Maryland , College Park, MD, USA

5. Research Data Management—RDM, UFZ—Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research , Leipzig, Germany

6. Department Monitoring and Exploration Technologies, UFZ—Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research , Leipzig, Germany

7. Department of Economics, UFZ—Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research , Leipzig, Germany

8. Institute for Infrastructure and Resources Management, Leipzig University , Leipzig, Germany

9. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) , Halle–Jena–Leipzig, Germany

10. ifo Institute—Leibniz Institute for Economic Research , Munich, Germany

11. Department of Computational Hydrosystems, UFZ—Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research , Leipzig, Germany

Abstract

Comparing COVID-19 response strategies across nations is a key step in preparing for future pandemics. Conventional comparisons, which rank individual non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI) effects, are limited by: (i) a focus on epidemiological outcomes; (ii) NPIs typically being applied as packages of interventions; and (iii) different political, economic and social conditions among nations. Here, we develop a coupled epidemiological–behavioural–macroeconomic model that can transfer NPI effects from a reference nation to a focal nation. This approach quantifies epidemiological, behavioural and economic outcomes while accounting for both packaged NPIs and differing conditions among nations. As a first proof of concept, we take Germany as our focal nation during Spring 2020, and New Zealand and Switzerland as reference nations with contrasting NPI strategies. Our results suggest that, while New Zealand’s more aggressive strategy would have yielded modest epidemiological gains in Germany, it would have resulted in substantially higher economic costs while dramatically reducing social contacts. In contrast, Switzerland’s more lenient strategy would have prolonged the first wave in Germany, but would also have increased relative costs. More generally, these findings indicate that our approach can provide novel, multifaceted insights on the efficacy of pandemic response strategies, and therefore merits further exploration and development.

Funder

Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung

Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Wissenschaft und Kunst

Publisher

The Royal Society

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3