No abstract

Objective: To provide an early global assessment of the impact of government stringency measures on the rate of growth in deaths from COVID-19. We hypothesized that the overall stringency of a government's interventions and the speed of implementation would affect the growth and level of deaths related to COVID-19 in that country. Design: Observational study based on an original database of global governmental responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Daily data was collected on a range of containment and closure policies for 170 countries from January 1, 2020 until May 27, 2020 by a team of researchers at Oxford University, UK. These data were combined into an aggregate stringency index (SI) score for each country on each day (range: 0-100). Regression was used to show correlations between the speed and strength of government stringency and deaths related to COVID-19 with a number of controls for time and country-specific demographic, health system, and economic characteristics. Interventions: Nine non-pharmaceutical interventions such as school and work closures, restrictions on international and domestic travel, public gathering bans, public information campaigns, as well as testing and contact tracing policies. Main outcomes measures: The primary outcome was deaths related to COVID-19, measured both in terms of maximum daily deaths and growth rate of daily deaths. Results: For each day of delay to reach an SI 40, the average daily growth rate in deaths was 0.087 percentage points higher (0.056 to 0.118, P<0.001). In turn, each additional point on the SI was associated with a 0.080 percentage point lower average daily growth rate (-0.121 to -0.039, P<.001). These daily differences in growth rates lead to large cumulative differences in total deaths. For example, a week delay in enacting policy measures to SI 40 would lead to 1.7 times as many deaths overall. Conclusions: A lower degree of government stringency and slower response times were associated with more deaths from COVID-19. These findings highlight the importance of non-pharmaceutical responses to COVID-19 as more robust testing, treatment, and vaccination measures are developed.

We provide an assessment of the impact of government closure and containment measures on deaths from COVID-19 across sequential waves of the COVID-19 pandemic globally. Daily data was collected on a range of containment and closure policies for 186 countries from January 1, 2020 until March 11th, 2021. These data were combined into an aggregate stringency index (SI) score for each country on each day (range: 0–100). Countries were divided into successive waves via a mathematical algorithm to identify peaks and troughs of disease. Within our period of analysis, 63 countries experienced at least one wave, 40 countries experienced two waves, and 10 countries saw three waves, as defined by our approach. Within each wave, regression was used to assess the relationship between the strength of government stringency and subsequent deaths related to COVID-19 with a number of controls for time and country-specific demographic, health system, and economic characteristics. Across the full period of our analysis and 113 countries, an increase of 10 points on the SI was linked to 6 percentage points (P < 0.001, 95% CI = [5%, 7%]) lower average daily deaths. In the first wave, in countries that ultimately experiences 3 waves of the pandemic to date, ten additional points on the SI resulted in lower average daily deaths by 21 percentage points (P < .001, 95% CI = [8%, 16%]). This effect was sustained in the third wave with reductions in deaths of 28 percentage points (P < .001, 95% CI = [13%, 21%]). Moreover, interaction effects show that government policies were effective in reducing deaths in all waves in all groups of countries. These findings highlight the enduring importance of non-pharmaceutical responses to COVID-19 over time.

No abstract

Data collection and processing are at the core of rapidly growing business models, underpinning the activities of technology companies and acting as a source of market power. The key role played by data in the competitive dynamics of digital ecosystems has brought competition policy and data protection regulation closer together and raised important questions about the substantive relationship between these two branches of law. After identifying the specific ways in which data create and power digital ecosystems and examining the effects of digital privacy (or lack thereof) on consumer welfare, we compare the legal obligations imposed by competition policy and data protection regulation. We then map the interfaces between these two branches of law and critically assess the areas of substantive overlap between them. We show that while in the majority of situations there is an alignment of these two frameworks, opposite outcomes can sometimes be reached when competition and data protection rules are applied separately. We suggest that these two legal instruments should be considered as overlapping areas in a regulatory continuum to facilitate positive synergies and neutralize potential conflicts. We show that there is a significant scope for competition policy actors and institutions to substantially incorporate data protection considerations into their decisional practice and that this integration can inform and enhance the enforcement of competition law. We propose an integrated approach to more effectively regulate digital platform ecosystems, to support innovation, and to protect consumers and the competitive process.