Effectiveness of Non-hospital Measures for COVID-19

In this 21st century world full of technology and scientific advances, non-pharmaceutical and non-hospital measures are playing a key role in controlling the pandemic generated by SARS-CoV-2. Although taken with different harshness in different countries, it seems undeniable that they work, if we refer to the data. However, the scientific mind accustomed to checking things experimentally has led a research group to analyze contagion data depending on the different measures adopted by the governments. The most detailed study in this regard has been carried out by B. Verheyden's Luxembourg team and published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature in January 2021. They use the infections data of more than 175 countries, almost all of the recognized nations, and have used the mobility data of the citizens available by the GPS of their mobiles from 123 countries.

From the outset, it must be remembered that on the one hand the measures can be very restrictive but that there is always a part of the population that refuses to comply with the rules established by the government of their own country. So no matter how effective these measures are, they will never be 100% effective, which is why the virus has always continued to spread. In this regard, it could be said that the study suffers from not weighing the government measures for the social acceptance they have had, but it is fair to understand that this is almost impossible to model at a mathematical level. Maybe using the number of infractions of those measures for country? Undoubtedly, this added complication would in turn be a source of new discrepancies. At the moment the model works very well and leaves clear results.

The closure of restaurants and pubs is an effective part of the measures to prevent the spread

During the pandemic, many health policies have been adopted. Although each country may have adopted specific measures, the truth is that there are some common ones, either because of their historical use in other pandemics, or because of their simplicity of application. The first measures adopted by most countries are the cancellation of public events and meetings, the temporary closure of schools and the closure of face-to-face workplaces. These measures, being the first of all to be adopted as a general rule, have shown to be the most effective according to the statistical study.

The quarantine and close of the cities has demonstrated to be the best measure to prevent the pandemic spread

The study used the day of the first confirmed case by country as the start date. Afterwards, it has used the implementation date of the different measures to check their effect on the infection rate, but only in those countries that acted before having more than 300 confirmed cases of COVID-19. This was done for two reasons, the first being that it ensured that countries were comparable by acting at a similar time. Second, by taking the countries that used restrictions before the 300 confirmed cases, they mitigate as much as possible the effect of the severity of the measures taken at different stages of the pandemic. At different points on the contagion curve, the confinement measures have been more or less severe.

According to the study, the rest of the actions carried out to control the spread of the virus are taken after these measures - the cancellation of public events and meetings, the temporary closure of schools and the closure of face-to-face workplaces - therefore that their effectiveness alone was almost nil. We refer to restrictions on public transport or movements within or outside the geography itself. Since most people move to work, these second restrictions did not have a significant effect. Other trips, such as going to buy food or to the pharmacy or the park, have been taken into account, but being a lower percentage than trips for work which are underestimated. This does not mean that these measures are not effective, but rather that their effectiveness is low considering that the other movement restriction measures have been taken before. It should not be forgotten that the only moment in which the spread of the disease was stopped was when all movement was restricted and it was necessary to stay at home in isolation - the only other requirement that has proven its effectiveness.

On the other hand, the restrictions on international travel adopted during the first phases of the pandemic were tepid and therefore their effects on the spread of the virus were almost nil. Measures of this type continued to allow human transit for too long in most territories, perhaps taken earlier and more harshly would have worked better to prevent spread. However, in today's fully connected world, it seems unlikely that the movement of infected people could be prevented in the early stages. Because during that period we knew almost nothing about the virus. So we can conclude that the most effective measures are those that avoid the closest contact. In the long run, stay home as much as possible, avoid crowds and the closed sites are what is preventing the pandemic, far from stopping, at least slowing it down.

Biblio:

Askitas, N., Tatsiramos, K. & Verheyden, B. Estimating worldwide effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 incidence and population mobility patterns using a multiple-event study. Sci Rep 11, 1972 (2021).

Bonaccorsi, G. et al. Economic and social consequences of human mobility restrictions under COVID-19. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.(2020).

Siegenfeld, A. F., Taleb, N. N. & Bar-Yam, Y. Opinion: what models can and cannot tell us about covid-19. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (2020).

Lazarus, J. . e. a. Keeping governments accountable: the COVID-19 Assessment Scorecard (COVID-SCORE). Nat. Med. 26, 1005–1008. (2020).

Related Articles

New Strain of SARS-CoV-2 and Vaccines
Anything to worry about new mutations on SARS-CoV-2?
Wastewater and blood samples tell a different story about COVID-19