Contrasting and comparing the efficacy of non-pharmaceutical interventions on air-borne and vector-borne diseases

TL;DR

This paper evaluates how mobility-based non-pharmaceutical interventions differently impact airborne and vector-borne diseases, revealing potential trade-offs and proposing strategies for simultaneous control through mobility network adjustments.

Contribution

It introduces a framework combining mobility data and vulnerability matrices to assess NPI effects on both disease types, highlighting epidemiological trade-offs and proposing new intervention strategies.

Findings

Mobility policies effective for airborne diseases may increase vector-borne disease risk.

A synthetic model explains limitations of current NPIs and suggests reshaping mobility networks.

Insights support designing targeted interventions for concurrent disease control.

Abstract

Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) aimed at limiting human mobility have demonstrated success in curbing the transmission of airborne diseases. However, their effectiveness in managing vector-borne diseases remains less clear. In this study, we introduce a framework that integrates mobility data with vulnerability matrices to evaluate the differential impacts of mobility-based NPIs on both airborne and vector-borne pathogens. Focusing on the city of Santiago de Cali in Colombia, our analysis illustrates how mobility-based policies previously proposed to contain airborne disease can make cities more prone to the spread of vector-borne diseases. By proposing a simplified synthetic model, we explain the limitations of the latter policies and exploit the synergies between both types of diseases to find new interventions reshaping the mobility network for their simultaneous control. Our results thus offer valuable insights into the epidemiological trade-offs of concurrent disease management, providing a foundation for the design and assessment of targeted interventions that reshape human mobility.