Background There has been much debate about the effectiveness of lockdown measures in containing COVID-19, and their appropriateness given the economic and social cost they entail. To the best of our knowledge, no existing contribution to the literature has attempted to gauge the effectiveness of lockdown measures over time in a longitudinal crosscountry perspective. Objectives This paper aims to fill the gap in the literature by assessing, at an international level, the effect of lockdown measures (or the lack of such measures) on the numbers of new infections. Given this policy's expected change in effectiveness over time, we also measure the effect of having a lockdown implemented over a given number of days (from 7 to 20 days). Methods We pursue our objectives by means of a quantitative panel analysis, building a longitudinal dataset with observations from countries all over the world, and estimating the impact of lockdown via feasible generalized least squares fixed effect, random effects, generalized estimating equation, and hierarchical linear models. Results Our results show that lockdown is effective in reducing the number of new cases in the countries that implement it, compared with those countries that do not. This is especially true around 10 days after the implementation of the policy. Its efficacy continues to grow up to 20 days after implementation. Conclusion Results suggest that lockdown is effective in reducing the R0, i.e. the number of people infected by each infected person, and that, unlike what has been suggested in previous analyses, its efficacy continues to hold 20 days after the introduction of the policy.

This study investigates the relationships between the experience of mobbing at work and personality traits and symptom patterns as assessed by means of the revised version of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2). Participants were 107 workers who had contacted mental health services because they perceived themselves as victims of mobbing. In line with previous research, the results showed that the MMPI-2 mean profile was characterized by a neurotic component as evidenced by elevations of Scales 1, 2, and 3 and a paranoid component as indicated by elevation of Scale 6. Contrary to previous research, a pattern of positive and significant correlations was found between the frequency of exposure to mobbing behaviors and the MMPI-2 clinical, supplementary, and content scales, including the posttraumatic stress scale. Only about half the participants showed a severity of posttraumatic stress symptoms indicative of a posttraumatic stress disorder. The frequency of exposure to mobbing predicted suicidal ideation and behavior, with depression only partially mediating this relationship.

In order to control the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, during the first wave of the pandemic numerous countries decided to adopt lockdown policies. It had been a considerable time since such measures were last introduced, and the first time that they were implemented on such a global scale in a contemporary, information intensive society. The effectiveness of such measures may depend on how citizens perceive the capacity of government to set up and implement sound policies. Indeed, lockdown and confinement policies in general are binding measures that people are not used to, and which raise serious concerns among the population. For this reason governance quality could affect the perception of the benefits related to the government’s choice to impose lockdown, making citizens more inclined to accept it and restrict their movements. In the present paper we empirically investigate the relation between the efficacy of lockdown and governance quality (measured through World Governance Indicators). Our results suggest that countries with higher levels of government effectiveness, rule of law and regulatory quality reach better results in adopting lockdown measures.

No abstract