Adherence and sustainability of interventions informing optimal control against the COVID-19 pandemic

BackgroundAfter one year of stop-and-go COVID-19 mitigation, in the spring of 2021 European countries still experienced sustained viral circulation due to the Alpha variant. As the prospect of entering a new pandemic phase through vaccination was drawing closer, a key challenge remained on how to balance the efficacy of long-lasting interventions and their impact on the quality of life.MethodsFocusing on the third wave in France during spring 2021, we simulate intervention scenarios of varying intensity and duration, with potential waning of adherence over time, based on past mobility data and modeling estimates. We identify optimal strategies by balancing efficacy of interventions with a data-driven "distress" index, integrating intensity and duration of social distancing.ResultsWe show that moderate interventions would require a much longer time to achieve the same result as high intensity lockdowns, with the additional risk of deteriorating control as adherence wanes. Shorter strict lockdowns are largely more effective than longer moderate lockdowns, for similar intermediate distress and infringement on individual freedom.ConclusionsOur study shows that favoring milder interventions over more stringent short approaches on the basis of perceived acceptability could be detrimental in the long term, especially with waning adherence.Plain language summaryIn the spring of 2021, social distancing measures were strengthened in France to control the third wave of COVID-19 cases. While such measures are needed to slow the spread of the virus, they have a significant impact on the population's quality of life. Here, we use mathematical modelling based on hospital admission data and behavioural and health data (including data on mobility, indicators of social distancing, risk perception, and mental health) to evaluate optimal COVID-19 control strategies. We look at the effects of interventions, their sustainability and the population's adherence to them over time. We find that shorter, more stringent measures are likely to have similar effects on viral circulation and healthcare burden to long-lasting, less stringent but less sustainable interventions. Our findings have implications for the design and implementation of public health measures to control future COVID-19 waves.Di Domenico and Sabbatini et al. model the impact of lockdowns of varying duration and intensity on the control of COVID-19, using data from the third wave of the epidemic in the Paris region of France. The authors introduce a measure of policy-induced fatigue, the 'distress index', that helps to explain why shorter, more stringent restrictions might be more effective.