Imperial College London
Alternate

DrLucyOkell

Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health

Senior Lecturer & Royal Society Dorothy Hodgkin Fellow
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

l.okell Website

 
 
//

Location

 

410School of Public HealthWhite City Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@techreport{Ferguson:2020:10.25561/77482,
author = {Ferguson, N and Laydon, D and Nedjati, Gilani G and Imai, N and Ainslie, K and Baguelin, M and Bhatia, S and Boonyasiri, A and Cucunuba, Perez Z and Cuomo-Dannenburg, G and Dighe, A and Dorigatti, I and Fu, H and Gaythorpe, K and Green, W and Hamlet, A and Hinsley, W and Okell, L and van, Elsland S and Thompson, H and Verity, R and Volz, E and Wang, H and Wang, Y and Walker, P and Walters, C and Winskill, P and Whittaker, C and Donnelly, C and Riley, S and Ghani, A},
doi = {10.25561/77482},
title = {Report 9: Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID19 mortality and healthcare demand},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.25561/77482},
year = {2020}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - RPRT
AB  - The global impact of COVID-19 has been profound, and the public health threat it represents is the most serious seen in a respiratory virus since the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic. Here we present the results of epidemiological modelling which has informed policymaking in the UK and other countries in recent weeks. In the absence of a COVID-19 vaccine, we assess the potential role of a number of public health measures – so-called non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) – aimed at reducing contact rates in the population and thereby reducing transmission of the virus. In the results presented here, we apply a previously published microsimulation model to two countries: the UK (Great Britain specifically) and the US. We conclude that the effectiveness of any one intervention in isolation is likely to be limited, requiring multiple interventions to be combined to have a substantial impact on transmission.  Two fundamental strategies are possible: (a) mitigation, which focuses on slowing but not necessarily stopping epidemic spread – reducing peak healthcare demand while protecting those most at risk of severe disease from infection, and (b) suppression, which aims to reverse epidemic growth, reducing case numbers to low levels and maintaining that situation indefinitely. Each policy has major challenges. We find that that optimal mitigation policies (combining home isolation of suspect cases, home quarantine of those living in the same household as suspect cases, and social distancing of the elderly and others at most risk of severe disease) might reduce peak healthcare demand by 2/3 and deaths by half. However, the resulting mitigated epidemic would still likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems (most notably intensive care units) being overwhelmed many times over. For countries able to achieve it, this leaves suppression as the preferred policy option.  We show that in the UK and US context, suppression will minimally requi
AU  - Ferguson,N
AU  - Laydon,D
AU  - Nedjati,Gilani G
AU  - Imai,N
AU  - Ainslie,K
AU  - Baguelin,M
AU  - Bhatia,S
AU  - Boonyasiri,A
AU  - Cucunuba,Perez Z
AU  - Cuomo-Dannenburg,G
AU  - Dighe,A
AU  - Dorigatti,I
AU  - Fu,H
AU  - Gaythorpe,K
AU  - Green,W
AU  - Hamlet,A
AU  - Hinsley,W
AU  - Okell,L
AU  - van,Elsland S
AU  - Thompson,H
AU  - Verity,R
AU  - Volz,E
AU  - Wang,H
AU  - Wang,Y
AU  - Walker,P
AU  - Walters,C
AU  - Winskill,P
AU  - Whittaker,C
AU  - Donnelly,C
AU  - Riley,S
AU  - Ghani,A
DO  - 10.25561/77482
PY  - 2020///
TI  - Report 9: Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID19 mortality and healthcare demand
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.25561/77482
UR  - https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2020-03-16-COVID19-Report-9.pdf
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/77482
ER  -
Download