On how COVID-19 mitigation measures can reshuffle the risk of infection: a case study from Montreal, Canada

International audienceTo control the spread of COVID-19, various non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) were introduced. Restrictions on mobility and activities were among the widely adopted NPIs. The introduction of these NPIs was often based on their global positive effect, with little regard to their micro-level implications. In this paper, we investigate the macro and micro implications of three NPIs: work from home, school opening and university closure, and leisure and shopping restrictions. Two hypothetical scenarios from Montreal are compared: with and without NPIs. An agent-based simulation is used to investigate the impacts of these scenarios. Results show that the three NPIs can significantly reduce the incidence rate of COVID-19 in the population. However, the benefit of this reduction is unequally distributed in the population. Some citizens benefit more from these interventions than others depending on their socio-demographic and economic characteristics or residential location. Findings suggest that these NPIs can exacerbate existing disparities in terms of exposure to COVID-19 and give less benefit to those who are most exposed to the virus. These findings can be informative to decision-makers in the design of efficient and fair COVID-19 mitigation strategies