key: cord-1034132-kgltct0v
authors: Murphy, M. M.; Jeyaseelan, S. M.; Howitt, C.; Greaves, N.; Harewood, H.; Quimby, K. R.; Sobers, N.; Landis, R. C.; Rocke, K. D.; Hambleton, I. R.
title: COVID-19 containment in the Caribbean: The experience of Small Island developing states
date: 2020-08-04
journal: nan
DOI: 10.1016/j.resglo.2020.100019
sha: acb62fd70346c3b12bb28c5c1e528db3ebe68327
doc_id: 1034132
cord_uid: kgltct0v

Abstract Background Small island developing states (SIDS) have limited absolute resources for responding to national disasters, including health emergencies. Since the first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the Caribbean on 1st March 2020, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) have been widely used to control the resulting COVID-19 outbreak. We document the variety of government measures introduced across the Caribbean and explore their impact on aspects of outbreak control. Methods Drawing on publically available information, we present confirmed cases and confirmed deaths to describe the extent of the Caribbean outbreak. We document the range of outbreak containment measures implemented by national Governments, focussing on measures to control movement and gatherings. We explore the temporal association of containment measures with the start of the outbreak in each country, and with aggregated information on human movement, using smartphone positioning data. We include a set of comparator countries to provide an international context. Results As of 25th May, the Caribbean reported 18,755 confirmed cases and 631 deaths. There have been broad similarities but also variation in the number, the type, the intensity, and particularly the timing of the NPIs introduced across the Caribbean. On average, Caribbean governments began controlling movement into countries 27 days before their first confirmed case and 23 days before comparator countries. Controls on movement within country were introduced 9 days after the first case and 36 days before comparators. Controls on gatherings were implemented 1 day before the first confirmed case and 30 days before comparators. Confirmed case growth rates and numbers of deaths have remained low across much the Caribbean. Stringent Caribbean curfews and stay-at-home orders coincided with large reductions in community mobility, regularly above 60%, and higher than most international comparator countries. Conclusion Stringent controls to limit movement, and specifically the early timing of those controls has had an important impact on containing the spread of COVID-19 across much of the Caribbean. Very early controls to limit movement into countries may well be particularly effective for small island developing states. With much of the region economically reliant on international tourism, and with steps to open borders now being implemented, it is critical that the region draws on a solid evidence-base to balance the competing demands of economic wellbeing and public health.

One in five members of the United Nations (UN) are small island developing states (SIDS); 38 countries with a combined population of around 61 million. (1) The majority of SIDS are in the Caribbean and Pacific, and in addition to common social, economic and environmental vulnerabilities they share limitations related to healthcare provision for rapidly aging populations with high burdens of noncommunicable disease. (2) (3) (4) In the Caribbean, there are 16 UN recognised SIDS, with a further 13 island territories without UN status and with formal ties to extra-regional UN members (USA, UK, France, Netherlands). Despite this variation in geo-political affiliations, one regional body, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), includes 20 Caribbean countries and territories as members. Serving a combined population of around 16 million people, CARICOM represents the dominant structure for regional cooperation on economic, political, health and disaster response. (5, 6) Although many of the island states in the Caribbean are classified as high or middle income -a classification that reduces the available international support -there is now global recognition that SIDS represent a further vulnerable country grouping due to specific economic and climate change disadvantages. (7) They have limited absolute resources to systematically tackle the complexities of their national health burdens, including responding to acute health emergencies.

On March 1 st 2020 the first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the Caribbean, an Italian tourist, was reported in the Dominican Republic; one month after the first case in Italy, and three months after patient zero in China. (8, 9) By that time, 87 thousand cases in 59 countries had been confirmed, and the Caribbean region, whose economies are heavily dependent on tourist arrivals from Europe and North America, was on high alert. On March 11 th 2020, the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic. As of May 25 2020, there were 5.3 million confirmed cases worldwide, including 2.4 million cases in the Americas. (10) Since March, CARICOM had been actively developing regional public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. (11) At the time of the first identified cases among CARICOM J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f member states, the regional response was in its infancy, and CARICOM members were also relying on local expertise and international evidence.

Implemented measures can be broadly classed as non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). Globally, NPIs are typically introduced as public health responses to outbreaks, and in the case of COVID-19 have been the main method of outbreak control due to the lack of vaccine or pharmaceutical treatment options. (12) These containment measures are expected to slow the spread of the virus and reduce the severity of the epidemic peak by reducing physical contact, which in turn can reduce disease transmission, and has an ultimate goal of keeping healthcare demand below health system capacity.

While there have been many similarities in the decisions by CARICOM countries to quickly implement NPIs, there has been distinct variation in the number, the type, the intensity, and particularly the timing of the NPIs. Here we compare national responses across the Caribbean (20 CARICOM and two nonmember countries) and explore the potential impact of implemented NPIs. We focus on NPIs affecting human movement. In particular, we examine policies related to movement into countries, movement within countries, and control of mass gatherings, against the dynamics of confirmed cases, confirmed deaths, outbreak growth rates, and population mobility. Understanding how combinations and timing of NPIs work, and in which contexts, can inform the continued response to COVID-19 as well as future virulent outbreaks within SIDS.

J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f METHODS Our main goal was to present a COVID-19 situation analysis for the Caribbean region during the initial outbreak period (April and May 2020). This period broadly represents the time before governments in the Caribbean began to gently ease their national containment measures. We present confirmed cases and confirmed deaths to describe the extent of the outbreak across the Caribbean. We document the range of containment measures implemented by Governments and explore the time between the start of the outbreak in each country and the start of containment. We describe the temporal association of key containment measures and aggregated information on human movement, using smartphone positioning data. Included countries and territories. Our Caribbean surveillance work during the COVID-19 outbreak has centred on the 15 CARICOM member states and 5 associate members (See Table 1 ). We included all 20 members in this review and included 2 further Caribbean countries that have experienced major COVID- Statistical Methods. Our analyses are descriptive. We explored the extent of the Caribbean outbreak in two ways. First, we plotted the cumulative cases and deaths across the Caribbean as of 25-May-2020, stratifying into CARICOM and non-CARICOM states. Second, we calculated the growth rate for confirmed cases in each country by using the logarithm of the new daily cases then plotted a 7-day smoothed average growth rate over time for each country on a heatmap. We described the NPIs implemented in each country, grouping measures into those controlling movement into the country (border controls, and border closures), those controlling movement within a country (mobility restrictions, curfews, lockdown), and those controlling gatherings (limiting public gatherings, closing public services, and closing schools). These NPI groups are described in more detail in Box 1. Last, we explored the temporal association of containment measures with outbreak data and with movement data. For each country and for each broad containment group (controlling movement into a country, controlling movement within a country, controlling gatherings), we plotted the number of days between the date of first case and the date of the containment measure. Using Google data on community movements, we plotted the J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f daily movement reduction (see Supplement) and the maximum average weekly movement reduction achieved by each country with available data, linking this timing with the implementation of two key containment measures associated with human movement control (curfews, lockdowns).

Taxonomy of government-initiated non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) 1

Measure Description of Measure

Border controls Any measure to intensify border controls, including health checks at border, visa restrictions or suspensions, and requirements for additional health documents.

Border closure: full All points of entry closed including complete suspension of international flights and/or full airport closure Border closure: partial Some points of entry into country closed and/or passengers from certain destinations not permitted entry. This also includes any flight suspensions from specific destinations

Mobility restrictions Includes domestic travel restrictions with or without structured or ad-hoc security checks.

Government order for people to remain in their home between specified hours (mostly at night).

Lockdown / stay-at-home order: full 24-hour curfew and/or country under emergency "stay at home" order, and closure of public spaces. Only movement of essential workers allowed. Only essential services open.

Lockdown / stay-at-home order: partial

As full lockdown, except that some public spaces remain open and/or specific businesses remain open, in addition to essential services.

Limit public gatherings Any measure to ban or reduce the number of people allowed at public gatherings (such as weddings, funerals, religious worship) and social occasions.

Close businesses or public services Any measure to close or limit public access to nonhealthcare public services, and/or private businesses. 

In Figure 1 we visualise the cumulative numbers of confirmed cases and deaths across the Caribbean. As 

In Figure 2 we visualise outbreak growth rates by country. Growth rates varied markedly over time in most countries and territories, reflecting periods in each country when higher or lower numbers of cases were identified. CARICOM countries experienced the outbreak later than comparator countries and have so far maintained lower levels of growth than those seen in comparator countries. As of 25-May-2020, twelve out of 22 Caribbean territories had kept their maximum growth rates below 10% and of the remaining ten Caribbean territories, maximum growth rates ranged between 13% (The Bahamas, J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f Jamaica) and 40% (Dominican Republic). Most Caribbean growth rate trajectories were similar in magnitude to those seen in two Asian comparator countries, Vietnam (13%) and Singapore (16%), indicative of good initial outbreak control. Comparator countries saw higher growth rates and a wider range of growth, between 13% (Vietnam) and 63% (Italy).

In Figure 3 we present containment measures in our three broad categories: measures to control movement into a country, measures to control movement within a country, and measures to control mass gatherings. Sixteen out of the 22 Caribbean countries implemented a full border closure, compared to 1 of 9 comparator countries (New Zealand). Roughly equal proportions of Caribbean and comparator countries initiated some form of lockdown, but only Caribbean countries implemented strict evening and overnight curfews. All countries implemented measures to control gatherings.

In Figure 4 we present the timing of NPIs, relative to the date of first confirmed case in each country.

Broadly, Caribbean countries and territories tended to implement NPIs earlier, compared to the international comparator countries. Within the Caribbean the order of implementing measures has been control of movement into countries, followed by control of gatherings, and then control of movement within countries. Comparator countries tended to follow the same pattern but waited longer before implementation. When examining the spread of NPI timings across the Caribbean, many Caribbean territories followed similar timings to New Zealand and Iceland. On average, Caribbean countries began controlling movements into countries 27 days before the first confirmed case (inter-quartile range (IQR) 48 to 4 days before). This compares to 4 days before the first confirmed case among comparator countries (IQR 23 days before to 22 days after). Caribbean countries began controlling movement within a country 9 days after the first confirmed case (IQR 2 days to 15 days after), compared to 45 days after among comparator countries (IQR 24 to 55 days after). Caribbean countries began controlling gatherings 1 day before the first confirmed case (IQR 5 days before to 2 days after), compared to 29 days after among comparator countries (IQR 22 to 42 days after).

In Figure 5 we present the maximum reduction in weekly community movement data in selected Caribbean and comparator countries. With the exception of Haiti (39% maximum reduction) and J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f Jamaica (50% maximum reduction), the largest weekly reductions in movement over a full week were above 60% in all Caribbean countries, over 70% in 5/8 Caribbean countries, and over 80% in 1 Caribbean country (Barbados). In the 8 comparator countries with available movement data, maximum movement reductions were over 70% in only 2/8 countries (Italy, New Zealand). The implementation of a major NPI to limit movement (curfews and/or lockdowns) was largely followed by a fall in population mobility, but there was much variation in this effect. Several countries saw a sharp fall in mobility co-incident with the date of either curfew and/or lockdown implementation (Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, New Zealand, Singapore), while for others the decline was either more gradual or less week "head-start" by Caribbean countries may be partly attributed to the region having seen the J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f outbreak unfold in other parts of the world, and the longer 'grace period' before COVID-19 arrival in the region. It may also reflect Governments' recognising the potential for hospitalisations to overwhelm vulnerable health system infrastructures, spurring them into strong and early outbreak suppression. (19) Of the 193 countries in the ACAPS database, 96 initiated a curfew order, with 59% of those countries in Africa and the Americas. In the Caribbean, governments quickly passed emergency laws that allowed for enforceable curfews and stay-at-home orders. Curfews were common in the Caribbean, with

populations not allowed to leave their homes for any reason except emergencies (or emergency work).

Associated punitive measures were regularly significant; in Barbados for example, a fine of 50,000

Barbados dollars (USD 25,000) or 1-year in prison were possible. Curfews were mostly applied during the hours of darkness, and a logic to this would have been be an attempt to prevent evening gatherings.Movement restrictions are used as a safety measure by Caribbean governments as seasonal storms approach the islands, and a psychological readiness might have contributed to a general willingness among the public to accept similarly stringent government controls applied to the COVID-19

outbreak. (20) Although curfews were not officially implemented in any of our comparator countries, this may reflect the semantics of terminology, with curfews possibly seen by some governments as sounding overly authoritarian. Some countries, without using the term "curfew", operated near curfewlike conditions. Italy for example required those leaving their homes to carry movement exemption forms, with fines for breaches of these rules. The stringency of national lockdowns, including curfews seem to impact heavily on community mobility, with countries implementing strict measures seeing stark drops in post-implementation mobility. The extent of a Government's willingness to implement and enforce stringent movement restrictions will have been a compromise between the desire to limit transmission and the perceived success of the intervention given known societal norms. A full examination of these influences is important, but beyond the scope of this initial work. Among countries for which human mobility data were available ( a priority is to safely but effectively re-invigorate international tourism as Caribbean islands look to reopen their economies for business. Increased tourism from the European and North American markets increases the opportunity for imported cases and subsequent local transmission. Consequently, modified NPIs that minimise the chance of a renewed outbreak without negatively impacting the tourist experience will need to be envisaged. One potential option is the concept of travel corridors allowing free movement between countries or cities that have good containment, but restricting movement from higher-risk locations to safeguard public health. As timing of NPIs has emerged as an important factor in containing the outbreak, it should now encourage a proactive approach as countries plan to encourage tourism. National evidence-based risk assessments, drawing on country-level goals and limitations are a priority. Continued outbreak surveillance remains a critical tool to enable swift action following accelerated transmission. As always, it could be sensible to learn from successful models implemented elsewhere.

This descriptive study has limitations. We focus only on NPIs related to movement and we recognize that other NPIs such as contact tracing, and isolation and quarantine protocols will have also helped to 

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f 

World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision, Methodology of the United Nations Population Estimates and Projections

Chronic disease and ageing in the Caribbean: opportunities knock at the door

Achieving universal health coverage in small island states: could importing health services provide a solution?

The 2007 Caribbean Community Port-of-Spain Declaration on noncommunicable diseases: an overview of a multidisciplinary evaluation

Determinants of the lethality of climate-related disasters in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM): a cross-country analysis

Monitoring compliance with high-level commitments in health: the case of the CARICOM Summit on Chronic Non-Communicable Diseases

United Nations General Assembly. SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action (SAMOA) Pathway. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 14

Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan

First cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the WHO European Region

World Health Organization. Coronovirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports

CARICOM Today. CARICOM Heads, Ministers Agree On COVID19 Protocol

Nonpharmaceutical interventions for pandemic influenza, international measures

ACAPS COVID-19 Government Measures Database

Daily data download on the geographic distribution of COVID19 cases worldwide

Google COVID-19 community mobility reports: Anonymization process description (version 1.0)

Reinterpreting the Caribbean

Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand

COVID-19 in the Caribbean small island developing states: lessons learnt from extreme weather events

Emerging COVID-19 success story: South Korea learned the lessons of MERS

The role of environmental factors to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)

World Bank Country and Lending Groups

Access date

World Bank Open Data. Access date

European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC)

J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f