NEW RESEARCH — LINK TO FULL PDF HERE [MINOR REVISIONS MADE 30 MARCH 2020] 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.26.20044677

25 March 2020

 

Suppression and Mitigation Strategies for Control of COVID-19 in New Zealand

 


Executive Summary

  • Suppression strategies aim to keep the number of cases to an absolute minimum for as long as possible. This requires early and effective control interventions.
  • Suppression can only delay an epidemic, not prevent it, but may buy enough time for a vaccine or treatment to become available.
  • Mitigation strategies aim to control an epidemic so that herd immunity is acquired by the population without overwhelming healthcare systems.
  • Mitigation strategies are likely to be very high risk: they are unproven internationally, potentially sensitive to uncertainty, and it may take years for herd immunity to be acquired.
  • Strategy can be switched from suppression to mitigation. For example, once successful mitigation strategies have been tested in other countries. It is likely to be difficult or impossible to switch from a mitigation to a suppression strategy.
  • A combination of successful suppression, strong border measures, and widespread contact tracing and testing resulting in containment could allow periods when control measures can be relaxed, but only if we can reduce cases to a handful.

 


Abstract

A standard SEIR-type compartment model, parameterised for New Zealand, was used to simulate the spread of Covid19 in New Zealand and to test the effectiveness of various control strategies. Control aims can be broadly categorised as either suppression or mitigation. Suppression aims to keep cases to an absolute minimum for as long as possible. Mitigation aims to allow a controlled outbreak to occur, with the aim of preventing significant overloads on healthcare systems and gradually allowing the population to develop herd immunity.

Both types of strategy are fraught with uncertainty. Suppression strategies can succeed in delaying an outbreak, but only for as long as such control measures can be sustained. Once controls are eased or restricted, an epidemic is likely to follow as no herd immunity has been acquired. The success or failure of mitigation strategies can depend sensitively on the timing and efficacy of control measures, and require the ability to bring rapidly growing outbreaks under immediate control when needed. This is as yet untested even for a combination of national interventions including case isolation, household quarantine, population-wide social distancing and closure of schools and universities.

Although there are disadvantages to both types of approach, suppression has the advantage of buying time until a vaccine and/or treatment become available and allowing NZ to learn from rapidly unfolding events in other countries. A combination of successful suppression, strong border measures, and widespread contact tracing and testing resulting in containment could allow periods when control measures can be relaxed, but only if cases are reduced to a handful.

 


Appendix

The appendix, containing the model specification, AVAILABLE HERE [MINOR REVISIONS MADE 30 MARCH 2020].