Public Health Intervention Framework for Reviving Economy Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic (2): Use of Personalized Mitigation Measures Beyond the Epidemiological Model Limits

Abstract

We previously proposed a public intervention framework concept that would allow people to resume personal and economic activities. We showed that intervention measures are used in a quantitative scale to reduce transmission probabilities and disease severity. In this article, we systematically examine the origin, assumptions, performance and limitations of epidemiological models from different views used in past review. We found that nearly all model assumptions fail to hold or are remote from reality; R0 does not exit or has no utility in guiding treatment options; personalized intervention measures are vitally important to COVID-19 due to its transmission characteristic; and current epidemiological models are unable to accurately assess the true benefits of personalized intervention measures. We suggest that poor performance of the models are attributed to flawed assumption that health/disease properties can be treated as transferable properties. The flaw creates a fiction that disease properties such as infection probabilities and death risks can be transferred from any vulnerable persons to anyone in the population and thus severely limit societal ability to fight the pandemic. We finally show that the benefits of personalized mitigation measures could be determined directly by using variable Ri values for infected persons (or nodes) together assessment of death rate and disability rate; the attempt of avoiding the disease by defeating all potential transmission probabilities is unrealistic; but mitigating disease severity for specific persons is more feasible and reliable. A most reliable strategy for reviving economy is using personalized protective measures and improving person health before effective vaccine is available. Conflict of interest: None