Omicron-variant border bans ignore the evidence, say scientists

There is a continuing debate on relative benefits of various mitigation and suppression strategies aimed to control the spread of COVID-19. Here we report the results of agent-based modelling using a fine-grained computational simulation of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. This model is calibrated to match key characteristics of COVID-19 transmission. An important calibration outcome is the age-dependent fraction of symptomatic cases, with this fraction for children found to be one-fifth of such fraction for adults. We apply the model to compare several intervention strategies, including restrictions on international air travel, case isolation, home quarantine, social distancing with varying levels of compliance, and school closures. School closures are not found to bring decisive benefits unless coupled with high level of social distancing compliance. We report several trade-offs, and an important transition across the levels of social distancing compliance, in the range between 70% and 80% levels, with compliance at the 90% level found to control the disease within 13–14 weeks, when coupled with effective case isolation and international travel restrictions.

Objective To review the effectiveness of travel measures implemented during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic to inform changes on how evidence is incorporated in the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR). Design We used an abbreviated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols to identify studies that investigated the effectiveness of travel-related measures preprinted or published by 1 June 2020. Results We identified 29 studies, of which 26 were modelled. Thirteen studies investigated international measures, while 17 investigated domestic measures (one investigated both). There was a high level of agreement that the adoption of travel measures led to important changes in the dynamics of the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic: the Wuhan measures reduced the number of cases exported internationally by 70%–80% and led to important reductions in transmission within Mainland China. Additional travel measures, including flight restrictions to and from China, may have led to additional reductions in the number of exported cases. Few studies investigated the effectiveness of measures implemented in other contexts. Early implementation was identified as a determinant of effectiveness. Most studies of international travel measures did not account for domestic travel measures thus likely leading to biased estimates. Conclusion Travel measures played an important role in shaping the early transmission dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is an urgent need to address important evidence gaps and also a need to review how evidence is incorporated in the IHR in the early phases of a novel infectious disease outbreak.

Background Many countries/regions implemented strict border measures (e.g., 14-day quarantines) as a blanket policy to prevent COVID-19 importations, while proposed “travel bubbles” as an alternative to reduce the impact of border controls. We aim to examine the differential importation risks with departure origins and post-arrival controls. Methods We developed a Bayesian framework to model disease progress of COVID-19 and the effectiveness of travel measures and inferred the origin-specific disease prevalence among inbound travellers, using data on passengers arriving in Hong Kong and laboratory-confirmed imported cases. We estimated the origin-specific risks of releasing infectious travellers under different control strategies and traveller volumes. We also estimated the risk of having released infectious travellers when a resurgence occurs in departure locations with no imported cases during a certain period. Findings Under the then strict controls of 14-day quarantine and testing on day 12, the Philippines imposed the greatest importation risk among the studied countries/regions (95.8% of releasing at least one infectious traveller, 95% credible interval (CrI), 94.8-96.6%). This was higher than that from low prevalence countries/regions (e.g., 23.4%, 95% CrI, 21.6-25.3% for Taiwan) if controls relaxed (i.e., 7-day quarantine and test on day 5). Increased traveller volumes and resurgence in departure locations with low prevalence under relaxed controls did not impose a greater importation risk than high prevalence locations under stricter controls. Interpretation Moderate relaxation of control measures for travellers arriving from low prevalence locations did not impose higher risks of community outbreaks than strict controls on travellers from high prevalence locations. Funding Health and Medical Research Fund, Hong Kong.