ArticleJournal of theoretical biology2023
Modelling the epidemiological implications for SARS-CoV-2 of Christmas household bubbles in England.
Article in Journal of theoretical biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions as implemented in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Non-pharmaceutical interventions to reduce COVID-19 transmission in the UK: a rapid mapping review and interactive evidence gap map.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 saw severe detriments to public health being inflicted by COVID-19 disease throughout 2020. In the lead up to Christmas 2020, the UK Government sought an easement of social restrictions that would permit spending time with others over the Christmas period, whilst limiting the risk of spreading SARS-CoV-2. In November 2020, plans were published to allow individuals to socialise within 'Christmas bubbles' with friends and family. This policy involved a planned easing of restrictions in England between 23-27 December 2020, with Christmas bubbles allowing people from up to three households to meet throughout the holiday period. We estimated the epidemiological impact of both this and alternative bubble strategies that allowed extending contacts beyond the immediate household. We used a stochastic individual-based model for a synthetic population of 100,000 households, with demographic and SARS-CoV-2 epidemiological characteristics comparable to England as of November 2020. We evaluated five Christmas bubble scenarios for the period 23-27 December 2020, assuming our populations of households did not have symptomatic infection present and were not in isolation as the eased social restrictions began. Assessment comprised incidence and cumulative infection metrics. We tested the sensitivity of the results to a situation where it was possible for households to be in isolation at the beginning of the Christmas bubble period and also when there was lower adherence to testing, contact tracing and isolation interventions. We found that visiting family and friends over the holiday period for a shorter duration and in smaller groups was less risky than spending the entire five days together. The increases in infection from greater amounts of social mixing disproportionately impacted the eldest. We provide this account as an illustration of a real-time contribution of modelling insights to a scientific advisory group, the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling, Operational sub-group (SPI-M-O) for the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) in the UK, during the COVID-19 pandemic. This manuscript was submitted as part of a theme issue on "Modelling COVID-19 and Preparedness for Future Pandemics".
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.