Department of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
School of Traditional Chinese Medicine Healthcare, Guangdong Food and Drug Vocational College, Guangzhou, 510520, China.
BMC Infect Dis. 2021 Aug 16;21(1):820. doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-06502-z.
To fight against COVID-19, many policymakers are wavering on stricter public health interventions. Examining the different strategies both in and out of China's Hubei province, which contained the epidemic in late February 2020, could yield valuable guidance for the management of future pandemics. This study assessed the response process and estimated the time-varying effects of the Hubei control strategy. Analysis of these strategies provides insights for the design and implementation of future policy interventions.
We retrospectively compared the spread and control of COVID-19 between China's Hubei (excluding Wuhan) and non-Hubei areas using data that includes case reports, human mobility, and public health interventions from 1 January to 29 February 2020. Static and dynamic risk assessment models were developed to statistically investigate the effects of the Hubei control strategy on the virus case growth after adjusting importation risk and policy response timing with the non-Hubei strategy as a control.
The analysis detected much higher but differential importation risk in Hubei. The response timing largely coincided with the importation risk in non-Hubei areas, but Hubei areas showed an opposite pattern. Rather than a specific intervention assessment, a comprehensive comparison showed that the Hubei control strategy implemented severe interventions characterized by unprecedentedly strict and 'monitored' self-quarantine at home, while the non-Hubei strategy included physical distancing measures to reduce contact among individuals within or between populations. In contrast with the non-Hubei control strategy, the Hubei strategy showed a much higher, non-linear and gradually diminishing protective effect with at least 3 times fewer cases.
A risk-based control strategy was crucial to the design of an effective response to the COVID-19 outbreak. Our study demonstrates that the stricter Hubei strategy achieves a stronger controlling effect compared to other strategies. These findings highlight the health benefits and policy impacts of precise and differentiated strategies informed by constant monitoring of outbreak risk.
为了对抗 COVID-19,许多政策制定者在是否采取更严格的公共卫生干预措施上犹豫不决。研究中国湖北省(不含武汉)和湖北省以外地区在 2020 年 2 月下旬控制疫情的不同策略,可能为未来大流行的管理提供宝贵的指导。本研究评估了湖北省的应对过程并估计了该控制策略的时变效果。对这些策略的分析为未来政策干预的设计和实施提供了参考。
我们使用包括病例报告、人员流动和公共卫生干预措施在内的数据,对中国湖北省(不含武汉)和非湖北省地区的 COVID-19 传播和控制情况进行了回顾性比较,这些数据来自 2020 年 1 月 1 日至 2 月 29 日。我们采用静态和动态风险评估模型,在调整输入风险和政策响应时间的基础上,统计调查了湖北省控制策略对病毒病例增长的影响,将非湖北省的策略作为对照。
分析发现湖北省的输入风险更高且存在差异。湖北省的响应时机与非湖北省的输入风险基本吻合,但模式相反。与其说是对特定干预措施的评估,不如说是对综合性措施的比较,湖北省实施了前所未有的严格和“受监控”的居家自我隔离措施,而非湖北省则采取了减少人群内或人群间个体接触的物理距离措施。与非湖北省的控制策略相比,湖北省的控制策略表现出更高、非线性且逐渐减弱的保护作用,其病例数至少减少了 3 倍。
基于风险的控制策略对于制定有效的 COVID-19 应对措施至关重要。本研究表明,与其他策略相比,更为严格的湖北省策略具有更强的控制效果。这些发现突出了基于对疫情风险的持续监测制定精准和差异化策略的健康效益和政策影响。