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

IF 3.7 2区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Journal of The Royal Society Interface Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-11 DOI:10.1098/rsif.2024.0301
Justin M Calabrese, Lennart Schüler, Xiaoming Fu, Erik Gawel, Heinrich Zozmann, Jan Bumberger, Martin Quaas, Gerome Wolf, Sabine Attinger
{"title":"A novel, scenario-based approach to comparing non-pharmaceutical intervention strategies across nations.","authors":"Justin M Calabrese, Lennart Schüler, Xiaoming Fu, Erik Gawel, Heinrich Zozmann, Jan Bumberger, Martin Quaas, Gerome Wolf, Sabine Attinger","doi":"10.1098/rsif.2024.0301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":17488,"journal":{"name":"Journal of The Royal Society Interface","volume":"21 218","pages":"20240301"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11463227/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of The Royal Society Interface","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2024.0301","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

一种基于情景的新方法,用于比较各国的非药物干预策略。
比较各国的 COVID-19 应对策略是为未来流行病做准备的关键一步。传统的比较对单个非药物干预(NPI)效果进行排序,但受到以下因素的限制:(i) 侧重于流行病学结果;(ii) 非药物干预通常作为一揽子干预措施;(iii) 各国的政治、经济和社会条件不同。在此,我们开发了一个流行病学-行为学-宏观经济耦合模型,可将非传染性疾病的影响从参照国转移到重点国家。这种方法可以量化流行病学、行为和经济结果,同时考虑到打包的非传染性疾病和国家间的不同条件。作为第一个概念验证,我们将德国作为 2020 年春季的重点国家,将新西兰和瑞士作为参照国,并采用截然不同的非传染性疾病战略。我们的研究结果表明,虽然新西兰更为激进的策略会在德国的流行病学方面带来一定的收益,但会导致经济成本大幅提高,同时社会接触也会显著减少。相比之下,瑞士更为宽松的策略会延长德国的第一波疫情,但也会增加相对成本。总体而言,这些研究结果表明,我们的方法可以为大流行病应对策略的有效性提供新颖、多方面的见解,因此值得进一步探索和发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
Journal of The Royal Society Interface 综合性期刊-综合性期刊
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
2.60%
发文量
234
审稿时长
2.5 months
期刊介绍: J. R. Soc. Interface welcomes articles of high quality research at the interface of the physical and life sciences. It provides a high-quality forum to publish rapidly and interact across this boundary in two main ways: J. R. Soc. Interface publishes research applying chemistry, engineering, materials science, mathematics and physics to the biological and medical sciences; it also highlights discoveries in the life sciences of relevance to the physical sciences. Both sides of the interface are considered equally and it is one of the only journals to cover this exciting new territory. J. R. Soc. Interface welcomes contributions on a diverse range of topics, including but not limited to; biocomplexity, bioengineering, bioinformatics, biomaterials, biomechanics, bionanoscience, biophysics, chemical biology, computer science (as applied to the life sciences), medical physics, synthetic biology, systems biology, theoretical biology and tissue engineering.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信