Effectiveness of controlling COVID-19 epidemic by implementing soft lockdown policy and extensive community screening in Taiwan

Abstract

Strict and repeated lockdowns have caused public fatigue regarding policy compliance and had a large impact on several countries’ economies. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a soft lockdown policy and the strategy of active community screening for controlling COVID-19 in Taiwan. We used village-based daily confirmed COVID-19 statistics in Taipei City and New Taipei City, between May 2, 2021, and July 17, 2021. The temporal Gi* statistic was used to compute the spatiotemporal hotspots. Simple linear regression was used to evaluate the trend of the epidemic, positivity rate from community screening, and mobility changes in COVID-19 cases and incidence before and after a level three alert in both cities. We used a Bayesian hierarchical zero-inflated Poisson model to estimate the daily infection risk. The cities accounted for 11,403 (81.17%) of 14,048 locally confirmed cases. The mean effective reproduction number (Re) surged before the level three alert and peaked on May 16, 2021, the day after the level three alert in Taipei City (Re = 3.66) and New Taipei City (Re = 3.37). Mobility reduction and a lower positive rate were positively associated with a lower number of cases and incidence. In the spatiotemporal view, seven major districts were identified with a radial spreading pattern from one hard-hit district. Villages with a higher inflow degree centrality among people aged ≥ 60 years, having confirmed cases, specific land-use types, and with a higher aging index had higher infection risks than other villages. Early soft lockdown policy and detection of infected patients showed an effective strategy to control COVID-19 in Taiwan.

COVID-19 Outbreak in Taiwan: Spring 2022

“…In Taiwan, this was achieved with public health policies aimed at reducing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, including a level-3 response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 3,4…”

“…Businesses and public arenas were closed, except for essential services such as hospitals, emergency medical services, police departments, and government buildings. 3 Businesses and public institutions that remained open were required to practice crowd control, mask used, and social distancing. No lockdown was imposed, but people were encouraged to stay at home.…”

Covid-19, Eating Behaviour and Related Limited Physical Activity in University Students of Islamabad

“…On account of this pandemic and it is affecting the global village a cumulative study (Chan, 2022) was also performed under the term of global research in the same context not just by one or two countries but simultaneously by number of countries. It was performed by a total number of 35 organizations altogether consisting of the countries such as those from Europe, North-Africa, Western Asia and the Americans who had promoted this survey immensely through their networks to the general society.…”

Association of Digital Health Literacy with Future Anxiety as Mediated by Information Satisfaction and Fear of COVID-19: A Pathway Analysis among Taiwanese Students

“…In Taiwan, the COVID-19 pandemic was attributed to more than 7.7 million cases and nearly 13 thousand deaths by 31 October 2022 [ 2 ]. The highest COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates were mainly located in the northern part of Taiwan, particularly in Taipei city and New Taipei city [ 3 ]. In response of pandemic, Taiwanese government implemented a wide range of non-pharmaceutical interventions such as border control, home quarantine, and contact tracing [ 3 ].…”

“…The highest COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates were mainly located in the northern part of Taiwan, particularly in Taipei city and New Taipei city [ 3 ]. In response of pandemic, Taiwanese government implemented a wide range of non-pharmaceutical interventions such as border control, home quarantine, and contact tracing [ 3 ]. Implementing these measures emphasized harmonization and flexibility to avoid hard lockdowns, which often caused restriction of civil freedom and negative economic impacts [ 3 , 4 ].…”