Table 2.
School closure of 12 weeks |
R0=1.5 |
R0=2.0 |
R0=2.5 |
|||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
outp. | inp. | deaths | AR(%) | outp. | inp. | deaths | AR(%) | outp. | inp. | deaths | AR(%) | |
No intervention |
92779 |
1929 |
584 |
37 |
128932 |
2738 |
844 |
51 |
146088 |
3150 |
983 |
58 |
Scenario A (baseline) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K |
87388 |
1846 |
560 |
35 |
123904 |
2673 |
825 |
49 |
141642 |
3098 |
968 |
56 |
P |
83081 |
1779 |
540 |
33 |
121245 |
2638 |
815 |
49 |
140075 |
3080 |
962 |
56 |
S |
85718 |
1813 |
550 |
34 |
123784 |
2665 |
822 |
49 |
142328 |
3101 |
968 |
57 |
K+P |
77605 |
1692 |
514 |
31 |
115823 |
2566 |
793 |
47 |
135161 |
3022 |
945 |
54 |
K+P+S |
69989 |
1559 |
474 |
29 |
109800 |
2477 |
767 |
44 |
130661 |
2962 |
927 |
53 |
|
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS |
|||||||||||
|
R0=1.5 |
R0=2.0 |
R0=2.5 |
|||||||||
|
outp. |
inp. |
deaths |
AR(%) |
outp. |
inp. |
deaths |
AR(%) |
outp. |
inp. |
deaths |
AR(%) |
Scenario B |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K |
85200 |
1798 |
546 |
34 |
122669 |
2645 |
817 |
49 |
140911 |
3082 |
963 |
56 |
P |
79765 |
1707 |
519 |
32 |
119377 |
2597 |
803 |
48 |
138986 |
3056 |
955 |
55 |
S |
85718 |
1813 |
550 |
34 |
123784 |
2665 |
822 |
49 |
142328 |
3101 |
968 |
57 |
K+P |
71608 |
1559 |
475 |
29 |
112224 |
2487 |
770 |
45 |
133028 |
2975 |
932 |
53 |
K+P+S |
64030 |
1423 |
434 |
26 |
105671 |
2387 |
740 |
43 |
128221 |
2910 |
912 |
52 |
Scenario C |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K |
89954 |
1885 |
572 |
36 |
126502 |
2707 |
835 |
50 |
144110 |
3127 |
976 |
57 |
P |
87441 |
1847 |
560 |
35 |
125354 |
2691 |
830 |
50 |
143677 |
3121 |
974 |
57 |
S |
89346 |
1873 |
568 |
36 |
126696 |
2706 |
835 |
50 |
144607 |
3131 |
977 |
57 |
K+P |
84498 |
1801 |
547 |
34 |
122774 |
2657 |
820 |
49 |
141574 |
3097 |
967 |
56 |
K+P+S | 80744 | 1738 | 528 | 33 | 120292 | 2621 | 810 | 48 | 139934 | 3075 | 961 | 56 |
Outp= outpatient. Inp= inpatient. AR=attack rate.
Scenario A is the base case scenario; scenario B included a 50% reduction in contacts among care-taking parents absent from work based on scenario A; scenario C reduced the compliance to 50% from scenario A.