Optimal social distancing in epidemic control: cost prioritization, adherence and insights into preparedness principles

Abstract

Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic experience has highlighted the importance of developing general control principles to inform future pandemic preparedness based on the tension between the different control options, ranging from elimination to mitigation, and related costs. Similarly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, social distancing has been confirmed to be the critical response tool until vaccines become available. Open-loop optimal control of a transmission model for COVID-19 in one of its most aggressive outbreaks is used to identify the best social distancing policies aimed at balancing the direct epidemiological costs of a threatening epidemic with its indirect (i.e., societal level) costs arising from enduring control measures. In particular, we analyse how optimal social distancing varies according to three key policy factors, namely, the degree of prioritization of indirect costs, the adherence to control measures, and the timeliness of intervention. As the prioritization of indirect costs increases, (i) the corresponding optimal distancing policy suddenly switches from elimination to suppression and, finally, to mitigation; (ii) the “effective” mitigation region—where hospitals’ overwhelming is prevented—is dramatically narrow and shows multiple control waves; and (iii) a delicate balance emerges, whereby low adherence and lack of timeliness inevitably force ineffective mitigation as the only accessible policy option. The present results show the importance of open-loop optimal control, which is traditionally absent in public health preparedness, for studying the suppression–mitigation trade-off and supplying robust preparedness guidelines.