Assessing mandatory stay‐at‐home and business closure effects on the spread of COVID‐19

Abstract

Background and Aims The most restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for controlling the spread of COVID‐19 are mandatory stay‐at‐home and business closures. Given the consequences of these policies, it is important to assess their effects. We evaluate the effects on epidemic case growth of more restrictive NPIs (mrNPIs), above and beyond those of less‐restrictive NPIs (lrNPIs). Methods We first estimate COVID‐19 case growth in relation to any NPI implementation in subnational regions of 10 countries: England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, South Korea, Sweden and the United States. Using first‐difference models with fixed effects, we isolate the effects of mrNPIs by subtracting the combined effects of lrNPIs and epidemic dynamics from all NPIs. We use case growth in Sweden and South Korea, 2 countries that did not implement mandatory stay‐at‐home and business closures, as comparison countries for the other 8 countries (16 total comparisons). Results Implementing any NPIs was associated with significant reductions in case growth in 9 out of 10 study countries, including South Korea and Sweden that implemented only lrNPIs (Spain had a nonsignificant effect). After subtracting the epidemic and lrNPI effects, we find no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs on case growth in any country. In France, for example, the effect of mrNPIs was +7% (95% CI: −5%‐19%) when compared with Sweden and + 13% (−12%‐38%) when compared with South Korea (positive means pro‐contagion). The 95% confidence intervals excluded 30% declines in all 16 comparisons and 15% declines in 11/16 comparisons. Conclusions While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less‐restrictive interventions.

Predicting the effects of COVID-19 related interventions in urban settings by combining activity-based modelling, agent-based simulation, and mobile phone data

“…Decreasing marginal effect of interventions Our approach clarifies why the marginal effect of stay-at-home interventions decreases [13]: Assume, for example, that each morning each school child throws a coin and goes to school only when it shows heads; this means that school participation is reduced by 50%. In consequence, if there is an infectious person at school, only half as many other persons have a chance to get infected.…”

“…[12]). The model also explains why there are decreasing marginal returns to stay-at-home interventions [13]. Finally, the model makes a prediction concerning the magnitude of the difference between summer and winter, caused by moving activities indoors during winter.…”

COVID-19 and the Political Economy of Mass Hysteria

“…Naturally, the COVID-19 example is indicative rather than representative and its lessons cannot be generalized. During the COVID-19 crisis, several authors have argued that from a public health point of view, these invasive interventions such as lockdowns have been unnecessary [128][129][130][131] and, indeed, detrimental to overall public health [132,133]. In fact, prior scientific research on disease mitigation measures during a possible influenza pandemic had warned against such invasive interventions and recommended a more normal social functioning [134].…”

Viral RNA in City Wastewater as a Key Indicator of COVID-19 Recrudescence and Containment Measures Effectiveness

“…The results that we report here on the fact that the epidemic linked to the majority clone of the period begins to decrease independently of these measures suggest that for SARS-CoV-2, other factors than containment measures, may play a role. Identifying them could have a major effect on the control of the current pandemic and should avoid the most restrictive that were not proven to be efficient as compared to less restrictive (Bendavid et al, 2021).…”