Adherence and sustainability of interventions informing optimal control against COVID-19 pandemic

Di Domenico, L.; Sabbatini, C. E.; Boëlle, P.-Y.; Poletto, C.; Crepey, P.; Paireau, J.; Cauchemez, S.; Beck, F.; Noel, H.; Levy-Bruhl, D.; Colizza, V.

After one year of stop-and-go COVID-19 mitigation, some European countries still experience sustained viral circulation due to the B.1.1.7 variant. As the prospect of phasing out this stage through vaccination draws closer, it is critical to balance the efficacy of long-lasting interventions and their impact on the quality of life. Focusing on the current situation in France, we show that moderate interventions require a much longer time to achieve the same result as high intensity lockdowns, with the additional risk of deteriorating control as adherence wanes. Integrating intensity and duration of social distancing in a data-driven "distress" index, we show that shorter strict lockdowns are largely more performant than longer moderate lockdowns, for similar intermediate distress and infringement on individual freedom. Our study shows that favoring milder interventions over more stringent short approaches on the basis of perceived acceptability could be detrimental in the long term, especially with waning adherence.