In a recent study, researchers from Imperial College London developed a model to assess the effect of different measures used to curb the spread of the coronavirus. However, the model had fundamental shortcomings and cannot be used to draw the published conclusions, claim Swedish researchers from Lund University, and other institutions, in the journal Nature.
The results from Imperial indicated that it was almost exclusively the complete societal lockdown that suppressed the wave of infections in Europe during spring.
The study estimated the effects of different measures such as social distancing, self-isolating, closing schools, banning public events and the lockdown itself.
“As the measures were introduced at roughly the same time over a few weeks in March, the mortality data used simply does not contain enough information to differentiate their individual effects. We have demontrated this by conducting a mathematical analysis. Using this as a basis, we then ran simulations using Imperial College’s original code to illustrate how the model’s sensitivity leads to unreliable results,” explains Kristian Soltesz, associate professor in automatic control at Lund University and first author of the article.
The group’s interest in the Imperial College model was roused by the fact that it explained almost all of the reduction in transmission during the spring via lockdowns in ten of the eleven countries modeled. The exception was Sweden, which never introduced a lockdown.
“In Sweden the model offered an entirely different measure as an explanation to the reduction—a measure that appeared almost ineffective in the other countries. It seemed almost too good to be true that an effective lockdown was introduced in every country except one, while another measure appeared to be unusually effective in this country”, notes Soltesz.
Soltesz is careful to point out that it is entirely plausible that individual measures had an effect, but that the model could not be used to determine how effective they were.
“The various interventions do not appear to work in isolation from one another, but are often dependent upon each other. A change in behavior as a result of one intervention influences the effect of other interventions. How much and in what way is harder to know, and requires different skills and collaboration”, says Anna Jöud, associate professor in epidemiology at Lund University and co-author of the study.
Analyzes of models from Imperial College and others highlight the importance of epidemiological models being reviewed, according to the authors.
“There is a major focus in the debate on sources of data and their reliability, but an almost total lack of systematic review of the sensitivity of different models in terms of parameters and data. This is just as important, especially when governments across the globe are using dynamic models as a basis for decisions”, Soltesz and Jöud point out.
The first step is to carry out a correct analysis of the model’s sensitivities. If they pose too great a problem then more reliable data is needed, often combined with a less complex model structure.
“With a lot at stake, it is wise to be humble when faced with fundamental limitations. Dynamic models are usable as long as they take into account the uncertainty of the assumptions on which they are based and the data they are led by. If this is not the case, the results are on a par with assumptions or guesses”, concludes Soltesz.
COVID-19 in England: Analysis of the first two waves
Kristian Soltesz et al, The effect of interventions on COVID-19, Nature (2020). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-3025-y
Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe, Nature (2020). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-2405-7
Model used to evaluate lockdowns was flawed (2020, December 28)
retrieved 29 December 2020
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
- South African regulator rejects Russia’s COVID-19 vaccine - October 20, 2021
- Second wave of pandemic not receded yet, third wave feared post-Diwali: Maha health minister - October 20, 2021
- WHO chief discusses Covaxin, resumption of AstraZeneca vaccine supplies to COVAX facility with Health Minister Mandaviya - October 20, 2021
- Trivitron Healthcare in collaboration with Diagon- Vanguard Diagnostics launches Diagon’s Coagulation range in India - October 20, 2021
- Breast cancer early detection, screening, and management – what we need to know - October 20, 2021
- WHO’s technical advisory group to meet on Oct 26 to consider Covaxin - October 19, 2021
- 163 oxygen plants set up in MP after shortage during 2nd COVID-19 wave: CM Shivraj Singh Chouhan - October 19, 2021
- India’s R-value below 1 since September, researchers say - October 19, 2021
- Mumbai: Double vaccine jab not mandatory to enter theatres, colleges to reopen with 50% attendance - October 19, 2021
- Daily exercise routine, balanced diet, active lifestyle & quality sleep key to success in personal & professional lives: Experts - October 19, 2021