Flatten the curve: Empirical evidence on how non-pharmaceutical interventions substituted pharmaceutical treatments during COVID-19 pandemic

To vaccinate or to isolate? Establishing which intervention leads to measurable mortality reduction during the COVID-19 Delta wave in Poland

Background

During the Delta variant COVID-19 wave in Poland there were serious regional differences in vaccination rates and discrepancies in the enforcement of pandemic preventive measures, which allowed us to assess the relative effectiveness of the policies implemented.

Methods

Creating a model that would predict mortality based on vaccination rates among the most vulnerable groups and the timing of the wave peak enabled us to calculate to what extent flattening the curve reduced mortality. Subsequently, a model was created to assess which preventive measures delayed the peak of infection waves. Combining those two models allowed us to estimate the relative effectiveness of those measures.

Results

Flattening the infection curve worked: according to our model, each week of postponing the peak of the wave reduced excess deaths by 1.79%. Saving a single life during the Delta wave required one of the following: either the vaccination of 57 high-risk people, or 1,258 low-risk people to build herd immunity, or the isolation of 334 infected individuals for a cumulative period of 10.1 years, or finally quarantining 782 contacts for a cumulative period of 19.3 years.

Conclusions

Except for the most disciplined societies, vaccination of high-risk individuals followed by vaccinating low-risk groups should have been the top priority instead of relying on isolation and quarantine measures which can incur disproportionately higher social costs. Our study demonstrates that even in a country with uniform policies, implementation outcomes varied, highlighting the importance of fine-tuning policies to regional specificity.

Pandemic control - do's and don'ts from a control theory perspective

Managing a pandemic is a difficult task. Pandemics are part of the dynamics of nonlinear systems with multiple different interactive features that co-adapt to each other (such as humans, animals, and pathogens). The target of controlling such a nonlinear system is best achieved using the control system theory developed in engineering and applied in systems biology. But is this theory and its principles actually used in controlling the current coronavirus disease-19 pandemic? We review the evidence for applying principles in different aspects of pandemic control related to different goals such as disease eradication, disease containment, and short- or long-term economic loss minimization. Successful policies implement multiple measures in concordance with control theory to achieve a robust response. In contrast, unsuccessful policies have numerous failures in different measures or focus only on a single measure (only testing, vaccines, etc.). Successful approaches rely on predictions instead of reactions to compensate for the costs of time delay, on knowledge-based analysis instead of trial-and-error, to control complex nonlinear systems, and on risk assessment instead of waiting for more evidence. Iran is an example of the effects of delayed response due to waiting for evidence to arrive instead of a proper risk analytical approach. New Zealand, Australia, and China are examples of appropriate application of basic control theoretic principles and focusing on long-term adaptive strategies, updating measures with the evolution of the pandemic.