Assessing mandatory stay-at-home and business closure effects on the spread of COVID-19.
Assessing mandatory stay-at-home and business closure effects on the spread of COVID-19.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/eci.13484
复制
发表时间：
2021-04
影响因子：
5.5
通讯作者：
Ioannidis JPA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bendavid E;Oh C;Bhattacharya J;Ioannidis JPA
控制COVID-19传播的最具限制性的非药物干预措施（NPI）是强制呆在家里和关闭企业。鉴于这些政策的后果，必须评估其影响。我们评估了限制性更强的NPIs（mrNPIs）对流行病病例增长的影响，超过了限制性较弱的NPIs（lrNPIs）。我们首先估计了10个国家的国家以下地区与任何NPI实施相关的COVID-19病例增长：英国、法国、德国、伊朗、意大利、荷兰、西班牙、韩国、瑞典和美国。使用具有固定效应的一阶差分模型，我们通过从所有NPI中减去lrNPI和流行动力学的组合效应来隔离mrNPI的效应。我们使用瑞典和韩国的案例增长，这两个国家没有实施强制性的呆在家里和关闭企业，作为其他8个国家的比较国家（总共16个比较）。实施任何NPI都与10个研究国家中的9个国家的病例增长显著减少有关，包括仅实施lrNPI的韩国和瑞典（西班牙的影响不显著）。在减去流行病和lrNPI的影响后，我们发现在任何国家，mrNPI对病例增长都没有明显的显著有益影响。例如，在法国，与瑞典相比，mrNPIs的影响为+7%（95%CI：−5%-19%），与韩国相比，为+13%（−12%-38%）（阳性意味着有利于传染）。95%置信区间排除了所有16次比较中30%的下降和11/16次比较中15%的下降。虽然不能排除小的好处，但我们没有发现更多限制性NPI的案例增长的显着好处。通过限制性较少的干预措施，病例增长可能会出现类似的下降。
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). 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). 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. 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.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5.5
作者：
Bendavid E;Oh C;Bhattacharya J;Ioannidis JPA
通讯作者：
Ioannidis JPA
影响因子：
56.3
作者：
Badr, Hamada S.;Du, Hongru;Gardner, Lauren M.
通讯作者：
Gardner, Lauren M.
DOI：
10.1073/pnas.0610941104
发表时间：
2007-05-01
影响因子：
11.1
作者：
Hatchett, Richard J.;Mecher, Carter E.;Lipsitch, Marc
通讯作者：
Lipsitch, Marc
影响因子：
13.8
作者：
Christakis DA;Van Cleve W;Zimmerman FJ
通讯作者：
Zimmerman FJ
影响因子：
2.5
作者：
Fragala MS;Kaufman HW;Meigs JB;Niles JK;McPhaul MJ
通讯作者：
McPhaul MJ