logo

Chinese Science Bulletin, Volume 65 , Issue 11 : 1009-1015(2020) https://doi.org/10.1360/TB-2020-0159

Quantitative evaluation on control measures for an epidemic: A case study of COVID-19

More info
  • ReceivedFeb 22, 2020
  • AcceptedMar 1, 2020
  • PublishedMar 24, 2020

Abstract

The spread of an epidemic should be a phenomenon governed by the natural growth law: More infected beget more infections. This basic rule would be useful especially when an outbreak is caused by a novel virus with its basic characteristics full of unknowns so much that there would be too many uncertainties that would be impossible for anyone to run the traditional epidemiological model meaningfully. The natural growth law does not depend on the detailed characteristics of the virus. When it is employed, a transmission rate can be defined and determined directly from clinical field data, which can change following the course of the epidemic development. Such a data driven natural growth model has been developed to track the development for any epidemic. It can yield useful information on the propagation pattern of the epidemic dynamically. The transmission rate so determined is sensitive enough not only to track the course of the epidemic but also to reveal the effects of control measures quantitatively. Importantly, it offers the potential to make predictions for epidemic management. In December 2019, a severe epidemic, the novel coronavirus epidemic, now designated as the COVID-19, broke out in Wuhan, China. It spread quickly in and around Wuhan. To complicate the situation, the outbreak initial period also coincided with the travel peak related with the Spring Festival. To prevent its spreading, Chinese government has instituted strict quarantine by lockdown the City and the surrounding Hubei Province. This drastic quarantine measure seemed to have slowed down the spread of the COVID-19 markedly. However, to evaluate the control effects quantitatively remains a challenge. In this paper, we propose to quantify the effectiveness of the quarantine using the natural growth model. Based on the model, we first estimated the transmission rates of the COVID-19 for different typical periods as follows: In December 2019, the transmission rate is about 0.26; in the late January 2020, it is between 0.40 and 0.46. Therefore, if the strict quarantine measures had not been instituted for the epidemic at all, 16.98 million to 76.11 million people would have been infected under the transmission rate between 0.40 and 0.46, as of February 18, 2020, according to the model. Even for a very low transmission rate as 0.26, there would have been 513 thousand infected as of February 18, 2020, far greater than the actual data of some 58 thousand reported by the Chinese National Health Commission. The model can also be used to estimate the consequence of putting off the control measures. We conducted a hypothetical study as follows. We divided the development of the epidemic into three stages: Before January 24, 2020, the infection grew as the actual situation does; from January 25, 2020 to the day before the supposed date of the start of the control measures, the infection grew with a transmission rate of 0.45; from the supposed date of the start of the control measure onwards, the infection took the actual transmission rate starting from January 25 on. Our model results indicate that the more days delayed for the quarantine measures, the faster increase of the infections. If the strict control measures were pushed back by one day (or 7 days), there would be 27 (or 785) thousand more infected cases than the reported as of February 18, 2020 in the whole China, in which 12 (or 493) thousand are in the Hubei Province. The above estimation is quite conservative. Less infected is easier to control; therefore, putting the measure control off we will have even more infected than estimated that would made the epidemic even harder to contain.


Funded by

国家自然科学基金(41821004)

山东省自然科学基金(ZR2017MD011)


References

[1] Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet, 2020, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5. Google Scholar

[2] Jones J H. Notes on R0. Califonia: Department of Anthropological Sciences, 2007. Google Scholar

[3] van den Driessche P, Watmough J. Further notes on the basic reproduction number. In: Allen L J S, Brauer F, Van den Driessche P, eds. Mathematical Epidemiology. Berlin, Herdelberg: Springer Press, 2008. 159−178. Google Scholar

[4] Li Q, Guan X, Wu P, et al. Early transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China, of novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia. N Engl J Med, 2020, : doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001316 CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar

[5] Zhao S, Lin Q, Ran J, et al. Preliminary estimation of the basic reproduction number of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in China, from 2019 to 2020: A data-driven analysis in the early phase of the outbreak. Int J Infect Dis, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.01.050. Google Scholar

[6] Wu J T, Leung K, Leung G M. Nowcasting and forecasting the potential domestic and international spread of the 2019-nCoV outbreak originating in Wuhan, China: A modelling study. Lancet, 2020, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30260-9. Google Scholar

[7] Sanche S, Lin Y T, Xu C, et al. The novel coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, is highly contagious and more infectious than initially estimated. 2020, arXiv: 2002.03268. arXiv Google Scholar

[8] Chowell G, Hengartner N W, Castillo-Chavez C, et al. The basic reproductive number of Ebola and the effects of public health measures: The cases of Congo and Uganda. J Theor Biol, 2004, 229: 119-126 CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar

[9] Zhou Y, Ma Z, Brauer F. A discrete epidemic model for SARS transmission and control in China. Math Comput Model, 2004, 40: 1491-1506 CrossRef Google Scholar

[10] Ding L, Cai W, Ding J Q, et al. An interim review of lessons from the Novel Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak in China (in Chinese). Sci Sin Vitae, 2020, doi: 10.1360/SSV-2020-0044 [丁蕾, 蔡伟, 丁健青, 等. 新型冠状病毒感染疫情下的思考. 中国科学: 生命科学, 2020, doi: 10.1360/SSV-2020-0044]. Google Scholar

[11] Maier B F, Brockmann D. Effective containment explains sub-exponential growth in confirmed cases of recent COVID-19 outbreak in Mainland China. 2020, arXiv: 2002.07572v1. arXiv Google Scholar

[12] Kucharski A J, Russell T W, Diamond C, et al. Early dynamics of transmission and control of COVID-19: A mathematical modelling study. medRxiv, 2020, doi: 10.1101/2020.01.31.20019901. Google Scholar

[13] Yan Y, Chen Y, Liu K J, et al. Modeling and prediction for the trend of outbreak of NCP based on a time-delay dynamic system (in Chinese). Sci Sin Math, 2020, 50: 385−392 [严阅, 陈瑜, 刘可伋, 等. 基于一类时滞动力学系统对新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情的建模和预测. 中国科学: 数学, 2020, 50: 385−392]. Google Scholar

[14] Wang X, Tang S Y, Chen Y, et al. When will be the resumption of work in Wuhan and its surrounding areas during COVID-19 epidemic? A data-driven network modeling analysis (in Chinese). Sci Sin Math, 2020, doi: 10.1360/SSM-2020-0037 [王霞, 唐三一, 陈勇, 等. 新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情下武汉及周边地区何时复工? 数据驱动的网络模型分析. 中国科学: 数学, 2020, doi: 10.1360/SSM-2020-0037]. Google Scholar

[15] Huang E N, Qiao F. A data driven time-dependent transmission rate for tracking an epidemic: A case study of 2019-nCov. Sci Bull, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2020.02.005. Google Scholar

  • Figure 1

    The number of existing infected cases from January 20 to February 18, 2020 plotted on a semi-log coordinate (a) and the transmission rate of the COVID-19 epidemic (b). The dotted line in (b) is the best fitting of the transmission rate for the whole China

  • Figure 2

    The difference of the existing infected case between model estimation and the reported. If the strict control measures were pushed back by one day (7 days), there would be 27 (785) thousand more existing infected cases than the reported in the whole China (a) as of February 18, 2020. Among it, 12 (493) thousand in Hubei Province (b) and 25 (292) thousand in China except Hubei (c)

  • Table 1   Estimated transmission rate of the COVID-19 in typical periods

    序号

    时间段

    初值

    终值

    数据来源

    增长率

    1

    2019.12.10~2019.12.23

    1

    29

    文献[1]

    0.26

    2

    2020.1.16~2020.1.25

    45

    1870

    国家卫健委

    0.46

    3

    2020.1.20~2020.1.25

    260

    1870

    国家卫健委(全国)

    0.40

    4

    2020.1.20~2020.1.25

    239

    958

    国家卫健委(湖北)

    0.28

    5

    2020.1.20~2020.1.25

    21

    912

    国家卫健委(湖北以外全国其他地区)

    0.75

Copyright 2020  CHINA SCIENCE PUBLISHING & MEDIA LTD.  中国科技出版传媒股份有限公司  版权所有

京ICP备14028887号-23       京公网安备11010102003388号