Timing social distancing to avert unmanageable COVID-19 hospital surges

</p

Effects of COVID-19 Vaccination Timing and Risk Prioritization on Mortality Rates, United States

During rollout of coronavirus disease vaccination, policymakers have faced critical trade-offs. Using a mathematical model of transmission, we found that timing of vaccination rollout would be expected to have a substantially greater effect on mortality rate than risk-based prioritization and uptake and that prioritizing first doses over second doses may be lifesaving

Optimizing COVID-19 testing strategies on college campuses: Evaluation of the health and economic costs.

Colleges and universities in the US struggled to provide safe in-person education throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing coupled with isolation is a nimble intervention strategy that can be tailored to mitigate the changing health and economic risks associated with SARS-CoV-2. We developed a decision-support tool to aid in the design of university-based screening strategies using a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Applying this framework to a large public university reopening in the fall of 2021 with a 60% student vaccination rate, we find that the optimal strategy, in terms of health and economic costs, is twice weekly antigen testing of all students. This strategy provides a 95% guarantee that, throughout the fall semester, case counts would not exceed twice the CDC's original high transmission threshold of 100 cases per 100k persons over 7 days. As the virus and our medical armament continue to evolve, testing will remain a flexible tool for managing risks and keeping campuses open. We have implemented this model as an online tool to facilitate the design of testing strategies that adjust for COVID-19 conditions as well as campus-specific populations, resources, and priorities

Disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 in a large US city.

COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted individuals depending on where they live and work, and based on their race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Studies have documented catastrophic disparities at critical points throughout the pandemic, but have not yet systematically tracked their severity through time. Using anonymized hospitalization data from March 11, 2020 to June 1, 2021 and fine-grain infection hospitalization rates, we estimate the time-varying burden of COVID-19 by age group and ZIP code in Austin, Texas. During this 15-month period, we estimate an overall 23.7% (95% CrI: 22.5-24.8%) infection rate and 29.4% (95% CrI: 28.0-31.0%) case reporting rate. Individuals over 65 were less likely to be infected than younger age groups (11.2% [95% CrI: 10.3-12.0%] vs 25.1% [95% CrI: 23.7-26.4%]), but more likely to be hospitalized (1,965 per 100,000 vs 376 per 100,000) and have their infections reported (53% [95% CrI: 49-57%] vs 28% [95% CrI: 27-30%]). We used a mixed effect poisson regression model to estimate disparities in infection and reporting rates as a function of social vulnerability. We compared ZIP codes ranking in the 75th percentile of vulnerability to those in the 25th percentile, and found that the more vulnerable communities had 2.5 (95% CrI: 2.0-3.0) times the infection rate and only 70% (95% CrI: 60%-82%) the reporting rate compared to the less vulnerable communities. Inequality persisted but declined significantly over the 15-month study period. Our results suggest that further public health efforts are needed to mitigate local COVID-19 disparities and that the CDC's social vulnerability index may serve as a reliable predictor of risk on a local scale when surveillance data are limited

Design of COVID-19 staged alert systems to ensure healthcare capacity with minimal closures

Selection of COVID-19 mitigation measures requires balancing health outcomes with economic impacts. Here, the authors derive a system to set triggers for increasing mitigation measures to preserve healthcare capacity, and describe how it has been used to support public health decision making in Austin, Texas

Multiple models for outbreak decision support in the face of uncertainty

Policymakers must make management decisions despite incomplete knowledge and conflicting model projections. Little guidance exists for the rapid, representative, and unbiased collection of policy-relevant scientific input from independent modeling teams. Integrating approaches from decision analysis, expert judgment, and model aggregation, we convened multiple modeling teams to evaluate COVID-19 reopening strategies for a mid-sized United States county early in the pandemic. Projections from seventeen distinct models were inconsistent in magnitude but highly consistent in ranking interventions. The 6-mo-ahead aggregate projections were well in line with observed outbreaks in mid-sized US counties. The aggregate results showed that up to half the population could be infected with full workplace reopening, while workplace restrictions reduced median cumulative infections by 82%. Rankings of interventions were consistent across public health objectives, but there was a strong trade-off between public health outcomes and duration of workplace closures, and no win-win intermediate reopening strategies were identified. Between-model variation was high; the aggregate results thus provide valuable risk quantification for decision making. This approach can be applied to the evaluation of management interventions in any setting where models are used to inform decision making. This case study demonstrated the utility of our approach and was one of several multimodel efforts that laid the groundwork for the COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub, which has provided multiple rounds of real-time scenario projections for situational awareness and decision making to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since December 2020

Multiple models for outbreak decision support in the face of uncertainty.

Policymakers must make management decisions despite incomplete knowledge and conflicting model projections. Little guidance exists for the rapid, representative, and unbiased collection of policy-relevant scientific input from independent modeling teams. Integrating approaches from decision analysis, expert judgment, and model aggregation, we convened multiple modeling teams to evaluate COVID-19 reopening strategies for a mid-sized United States county early in the pandemic. Projections from seventeen distinct models were inconsistent in magnitude but highly consistent in ranking interventions. The 6-mo-ahead aggregate projections were well in line with observed outbreaks in mid-sized US counties. The aggregate results showed that up to half the population could be infected with full workplace reopening, while workplace restrictions reduced median cumulative infections by 82%. Rankings of interventions were consistent across public health objectives, but there was a strong trade-off between public health outcomes and duration of workplace closures, and no win-win intermediate reopening strategies were identified. Between-model variation was high; the aggregate results thus provide valuable risk quantification for decision making. This approach can be applied to the evaluation of management interventions in any setting where models are used to inform decision making. This case study demonstrated the utility of our approach and was one of several multimodel efforts that laid the groundwork for the COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub, which has provided multiple rounds of real-time scenario projections for situational awareness and decision making to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since December 2020

Mechanical Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke Amid the COVID-19 Outbreak

International audienceBackground and Purpose: The efficiency of prehospital care chain response and the adequacy of hospital resources are challenged amid the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, with suspected consequences for patients with ischemic stroke eligible for mechanical thrombectomy (MT). Methods: We conducted a prospective national-level data collection of patients treated with MT, ranging 45 days across epidemic containment measures instatement, and of patients treated during the same calendar period in 2019. The primary end point was the variation of patients receiving MT during the epidemic period. Secondary end points included care delays between onset, imaging, and groin puncture. To analyze the primary end point, we used a Poisson regression model. We then analyzed the correlation between the number of MTs and the number of COVID-19 cases hospitalizations, using the Pearson correlation coefficient (compared with the null value). Results: A total of 1513 patients were included at 32 centers, in all French administrative regions. There was a 21% significant decrease (0.79; [95%CI, 0.76–0.82]; P <0.001) in MT case volumes during the epidemic period, and a significant increase in delays between imaging and groin puncture, overall (mean 144.9±SD 86.8 minutes versus 126.2±70.9; P <0.001 in 2019) and in transferred patients (mean 182.6±SD 82.0 minutes versus 153.25±67; P <0.001). After the instatement of strict epidemic mitigation measures, there was a significant negative correlation between the number of hospitalizations for COVID and the number of MT cases ( R 2 −0.51; P =0.04). Patients treated during the COVID outbreak were less likely to receive intravenous thrombolysis and to have unwitnessed strokes (both P <0.05). Conclusions: Our study showed a significant decrease in patients treated with MTs during the first stages of the COVID epidemic in France and alarming indicators of lengthened care delays. These findings prompt immediate consideration of local and regional stroke networks preparedness in the varying contexts of COVID-19 pandemic evolution