Xu Chong, Kumar Sameer, Yang Muer, Ghildayal Nidhi, Chandra Charu
School of Engineering, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN, USA.
Department of Operations and Supply Chain Management, Opus College of Business, University of St. Thomas, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Sci Rep. 2025 Jan 22;15(1):2844. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-87566-8.
Non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI) policies, ranging from mild measures to total isolation, were implemented worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic. We adopt a systematic approach to guide policymakers in deploying NPI policies to mitigate the pandemic's effects while balancing their social and economic impacts. Our results show that each NPI has an optimal duration, beyond which its effectiveness plateaus. Stricter policies require longer durations, and when sustained for the optimal period, earlier implementation is more effective. However, when this duration is unattainable, timing becomes critical, as both early and late implementation reduce efficacy. Stringent policies with insufficient durations may perform worse than less restrictive measures applied over the same period, and an NPI policy aimed at minimizing overall healthcare burden under a fixed policy duration may significantly intensify peak-time strains. Finally, as the virus becomes more transmissible and less lethal, the effectiveness gap between stringent and less restrictive policies narrows, with targeted interventions for vulnerable groups outperforming universal strict measures.
在新冠疫情期间,全球实施了从温和措施到全面隔离的非药物干预(NPI)政策。我们采用系统方法来指导政策制定者部署NPI政策,以减轻疫情影响,同时平衡其社会和经济影响。我们的结果表明,每种NPI都有一个最佳持续时间,超过这个时间其效果就会趋于平稳。更严格的政策需要更长的持续时间,并且在最佳时期持续实施时,更早实施会更有效。然而,当这个持续时间无法实现时,时机就变得至关重要,因为过早和过晚实施都会降低效果。持续时间不足的严格政策可能比同期实施的限制较少的措施表现更差,并且在固定政策持续时间内旨在最小化总体医疗负担的NPI政策可能会显著加剧高峰时期的压力。最后,随着病毒传播性增强且致死性降低,严格政策与限制较少政策之间的效果差距缩小,针对弱势群体的有针对性干预措施优于普遍的严格措施。