Hi, I’m a final year PhD student. I wrote a paper available on my profile on COVID-19 using a risk management framework. My PhD is not related to risk management although I have 20 years industrial experience in operational and strategic risk management. My University doesn’t have other risk engineers suitable for internal peer review. I feel the paper would have value in prompting Australian Federal Government in following a more aggressive elimination strategy. In Western Australia latest evidence is we are pretty close to elimination already. We have 8 days with no new COVID-19 cases and even longer with no local community spread. The paper may also be relevant to other jurisdictions who still have the potential for elimination. Thanks Simeon
The COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated a global crisis, with more than 1,430,000 confirmed cases and more than 85,000 confirmed deaths globally as of 9 April 20201. Mitigation and suppression of new infections have emerged as the two predominant public health control strategies . Both strategies focus on reducing new infections by limiting human-to-human interactions, which could be both socially and economically unsustainable in the long term. We have developed and analyzed an epidemiological intervention model that leverages serological tests to identify and deploy recovered individuals as focal points for sustaining safer interactions via interaction substitution, developing what we term ‘shield immunity’ at the population scale. The objective of a shield immunity strategy is to help to sustain the interactions necessary for the functioning of essential goods and services while reducing the probability of transmission. Our shield immunity approach could substantively reduce the length and reduce the overall burden of the current outbreak, and can work synergistically with social distancing. The present model highlights the value of serological testing as part of intervention strategies, in addition to its well-recognized roles in estimating prevalence and in the potential development of plasma-based therapies.
I've done some some work on risk factors of disease (prostate cancer). If my background seems appropriate, I'd be willing to read it. Best, David Booth
Hi Owayes Mouaffaq Alhassani, at the moment Australia seems to be settling on either controlled adapation or elimination as potential stratergies as outlined here https://go8.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Go8_Road-to-Recovery_Snapshot.pdf although the herd immunity stratergy used to be the startegy I believe.
This is my summary of the three options based on https://go8.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Go8_Road-to-Recovery_Snapshot.pdf and my paper.
1. Elimination. Fully attainable in Australia - has occurred or almost occurred accidentally in some states already. Will allow for stronger relaxation and generate a sense of safety and confidence among the Australian public. Less economically damaging as allows Australia’s internal economy to fully open faster. With suitable controls major exports can continue. Australia's tourism industry can be supported in switching to domestic rather than international customers.
2. Controlled Adaptation. A political fudge for a government that was going for herd immunity, but suddenly realised herd immunity was a political disaster. There is still a high chance it will "accidentally" lead back to herd immunity. I fail to see how controlled adaption allows lower border controls than elimination unless it’s as a pathway back to herd immunity.
3. Herd Immunity. Deadly, likely won’t work, and is a much more socially and economically damaging strategy than elimination.
I understand elimination is not an option in a lot of jurisdictions but in Australia its still a very viable option. In Western Australia it seems we may have achieved it or be very close already.