As the prime minister issued advice telling people to self-isolate if members of their households have a cough or temperature, a new model of the pandemic suggested early intervention may not be the best option.
Delaying interventions to slow the spread of the coronavirus could save lives in the long run, according to the new model.
Although more aggressive action to reduce transmission such as school closures and home working appear to reduce cases in the short term, they increase the risk of a rebound later on.
That is the conclusion of a simple model devised by Dr Thomas House, a reader in mathematics at Manchester University.
Dr House tested the impact of social distancing measures lasting three weeks.
If they were started 40 days into the outbreak the total number of cases in the subsequent few weeks were significantly lower than if they were started later.
That would reduce the immediate load on the NHS.
But the computer model suggests cases would rise rapidly once the measures were relaxed, in effect simply delaying the peak in cases.
By contrast, bringing in the same measures later in the outbreak resulted in a second wave of cases, but the peak for each was lower.
It cut in half the maximum number of people who were sick at any moment in time and dramatically cut the total infected, which early interventions failed to do.
He concludes that delaying action can allow immunity in the population to build up, reducing the number of people vulnerable to infection.
Similar modelling is likely to underpin the UK government strategy, which may explain why it has simply urged those with symptoms to stay at home, while other countries have been more aggressive in their approach, closing bars or banning public gatherings.
Dr House warns there are large uncertainties, but early intervention is not always better.
Source: Read Full Article