This is Fergusons report
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
that shows, if we implimented a supression strategy (which we have) and implimented these policy options what the effect might be. The definitions of what each of these policies mean is at the bottom, it's worth paying attention with the assumed percentage rates of success/compliance o see if you think these are bing achieved. I've given the bestcase/worst case numbers, there are a wide range of factors that have an effect on both, and also the effect on the NHS.
case isolation + home quarantine + social distancing + school/university closure that could equate to as few as 5,600 total deaths in a 2 year period.
school/university closure + case isolation + social distancing could equate to as few as 6,400 total deaths in a 2 year period.
case isolation + home quarantine + social distancing could equate to as few as 47,000 total deaths in a 2 year period.
Doing nothing at all could see as few as a total of 410,000 lives being lost.
At the other end of the scale, at worst, these figures could equate to 48,000 , 71,000, 120,000 and 550,000 lives being lost respectively.
The original Mitigation strategy was thrown out because Ferguson found
' the resulting mitigated epidemic would still likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems (most notably intensive care units) being overwhelmed many times over. For countries able to achieve it, this leaves suppression as the preferred policy option.'
He noted that
'The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package – or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission – will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more) – given that we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed. We show that intermittent social distancing –
triggered by trends in disease surveillance – may allow interventions to be relaxed temporarily in relative short time windows, but measures will need to be reintroduced if or when case numbers rebound. Last, while experience in China and now South Korea show that suppression is possible in the short term, it remains to be seen whether it is possible long-term, and whether the social and economic costs of the interventions adopted thus far can be reduced.'
THese are these definitions of the policy options we have also implimented the last one now, locking up the elderly
Case isolation in the home
Symptomatic cases stay at home for 7 days, reducing nonhousehold contacts by 75% for this period. Household contacts remain unchanged. Assume 70% of household comply with the policy.
Voluntary home quarantine
Following identification of a symptomatic case in the household, all household members remain at home for 14 days. Household contact rates double during this quarantine period, contacts in the community reduce by 75%. Assume 50% of household comply with the policy.
Social distancing of entire population
All households reduce contact outside household, school or workplace by 75%. School contact rates unchanged, workplace contact rates reduced by 25%. Household contact rates assumed to increase by 25%.
Closure of schools and universities
Closure of all schools, 25% of universities remain open. Household contact rates for student families increase by 50% during closure. Contacts in the community increase by 25% during closure.
Social distancing of those over 70 years of age
Reduce contacts by 50% in workplaces, increase household contacts by 25% and reduce other contacts by 75%. Assume 75% compliance with policy.
If you can get through the paper, I'd recomend reading it. Some of it's a bit heavy going, but it's worth the effort
