Evaluating the Effectiveness of Regional Lockdown Policies in the Containment of Covid-19: Evidence from Pakistan

Abstract

To slow down the spread of Covid-19, administrative regions within Pakistan imposed complete and partial lockdown restrictions on socio-economic activities, religious congregations, and human movement. Here we examine the impact of regional lockdown strategies on Covid-19 outcomes. After conducting econometric analyses (Regression Discontinuity and Negative Binomial Regressions) on official data from the National Institute of Health (NIH) Pakistan, we find that strategies did not lead to a similar level of Covid-19 caseload (positive cases and deaths) in all regions. In terms of reduction in the overall caseload (positive cases and deaths), compared to no lockdown, complete and partial lockdown were effective in four regions: Balochistan, Gilgit Baltistan (GB), Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT), and Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK). Contrarily, complete and partial lockdowns were ineffective in containing the virus in the Punjab, Sindh, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) regions. A divided response of the government, a significant proportion of daily wagers, poor habitat conditions, religious gatherings, and public attitude towards the virus jointly contributed to the ineffectiveness of lockdowns in the three largest regions. The observed regional heterogeneity in the effectiveness of lockdowns advocates for careful use of lockdown strategies based on the political, demographic, socio-economic, and religious factors.

Comparison of Students' Mental Wellbeing, Anxiety, Depression, and Quality of Life During COVID-19's Full and Partial (Smart) Lockdowns: A Follow-Up Study at a 5-Month Interval

“…They are also consistent with the findings of other studies with similar subject matter ( 11 , 54 , 58 , 66 , 80 ). Unfortunately, the few studies conducted on the effectiveness of both partial and full lockdown on mental health issues were not consistent because of either different samples or were more of a review, in general, rather than an empirical study ( 81 , 82 ). However, recently many governments of different countries have been taking steps in implementing partial lockdown to handle the COVID-19 pandemic crisis such as many European countries like Germany, Rome, and Calabria ( 83 ).…”

Aggressive measures, rising inequalities, and mass formation during the COVID-19 crisis: An overview and proposed way forward

“…A review of over 100 studies about the COVID-19 crisis handling revealed that overall, the net effects of the policies were negative ( 87 ). Studies that suggest substantial benefits of lockdown, typically have flaws or limitations that seriously question the validity, e.g., their counterfactual is based on tenuous assumptions in forecasting models ( 88 ), they use interrupted time-series designs without a stable long-term period before and after intervention and without controlling for confounders ( 89 , 90 ), and/or have no control non-intervention group (i.e., not a difference-in-difference approach) ( 89 , 90 ), and other flaws ( 16 ). Furthermore, it was shown that lockdowns were very costly economically, but probably did not save lives ( 6 , 91 ).…”

Are We Better-Off? The Benefits and Costs of Australian COVID-19 Lockdown

“…At the beginning of the pandemic, most countries followed and defended the implementation of lockdowns, with the early calculations suggesting that benefits far outweigh the costs (3)(4)(5). Some empirical studies also observed heterogeneity in the effectiveness of lockdowns and advocated for a careful consideration of demographic, economic, and societal factors before implementing stay-athome orders, especially in developing countries in which many people rely on day-to-day economic resources (6,7). However, using more recent data, others provided a different assessment arguing that lockdowns cause more harm than good even in developing countries-with the benefit-cost ratio being significantly overestimated (8,9).…”