Table 1

Simulation outcomes of no intervention, school closure and rigorous social distancing (School Closure+WR+CCR) scenarios

Albany modelMadang modelMadang-nnh model
No intervention
R01.51.881.74
(1.47 to 1.54)(1.84 to 1.93)(1.70 to 1.79)
Illness attack rate31.7%46.6%40.8%
(31.3 to 32.0)(46.4 to 46.7)(40.6 to 41.0)
Illness locations
 Households37.8%48.7%51.8%
(37.5 to 38.0)(48.6 to 48.9)(51.6 to 52.0)
 Hubs32.5%30.5%25%
(32.3 to 32.7)(30.3 to 30.6)(24.8 to 25.1)
 Community27.9%20.1%22.2%
(27.7 to 28.1)(19.9 to 20.1)(22.1 to 22.3)
 Imported1.8%0.7%1%
(1.7 to 1.8)(0.72 to 0.76)(0.96 to 1.01)
Intervention: school closure
Illness attack rate16.3%42.2%35.4%
(15.9 to 16.7)(42.0 to 42.4)(35.2 to 35.7)
Illness locations
 Households42.8%53.2%56.4%
(42.2 to 43.4)(53.0 to 53.4)(56.2 to 56.6)
 Hubs20.9%24.9%19%
(20.5 to 21.3)(24.8 to 25.0)(18.9 to 19.2)
 Community31.8%21%23.3%
(31.3 to 32.3)(20.8–21.0)(23.2 to 23.5)
 Imported4.5%0.9%1.3%
(4.4 to 4.6)(0.92 to 0.96)(1.26 to 1.32)
Intervention: school closure+WR+CCR
Illness attack rate5.4%17.4%12.5%
(5.2 to 5.7)(17.1 to 17.7)(12.3 to 12.7)
Illness locations
 Households42.1%67.9%67.9%
(40.8 to 43)(67.3 to 68.5)(67.0 to 68.5)
 Hubs27.4%13.2%10.7%
(25.8 to 28.8)(13.0 to 13.4)(10.4 to 10.9)
 Community15.1%15.2%16%
(14.6 to 15.5)(15.0 to 15.4)(15.8 to 16.2)
 Imported15.4%3.7%5.4%
(15.1 to 15.7)(3.6 to 3.8)(5.3 to 5.5)
  • Mean simulation outcomes of no intervention, school closure and rigorous social distancing presented as percentages and their corresponding 95% CI (presented in parentheses, shaded rows). WR, workforce reduction and CCR, community contact reduction; Hubs represent schools, workplaces and neighbourhoods together; Community represents general community;  Imported represents seeded cases.