![]() ![]() “This analysis allows us to draw more reliable conclusions than numerous previous studies, because the data were collected over a longer period and from a very wide range of countries,” says Ralph Hertwig, Director of the Center for Adaptive Rationality at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and member of the expert panel that advises the German government on the Covid-19 pandemic. The study highlights the complexity of the issues at hand and the need to empirically test hypotheses about policy impact, as well as the importance of revisiting studies when further data is available in order to examine the robustness of early findings. Second, people’s behavioral changes (e.g., social distancing, mask-wearing, switching to alternative safer transport) may have been effective enough to allow people to continue to commute and have limited contact with others without a significant increase in transmission. ![]() First, while the spread of the virus outside the home may have been reduced, infection within the home may have been facilitated as families or roommates spent more time together. Two prominent explanations are consistent with this observation. Surprisingly, the study also shows that a significant reduction in people’s external mobility did not have the positive impact that was originally anticipated. “In terms of rebalancing the policy mix for future pandemics, we should seriously consider leaning more heavily on early extensive testing and targeted public campaigns aimed at helping people make informed voluntary behavioral changes,” Spiliopoulos says. The study also highlights the importance of extensive testing, which attained 50 percent of the impact of the optimal NPIs, without the significant negative societal disruption associated with the latter. This range included restrictions on public gatherings of more than roughly 100 people, quarantine regulations for travelers from high-risk areas, public information campaigns, and various recommendations such as working from home, canceling events, or closing schools. “In this range, the positive effects of these measures on the current pandemic dynamics were close to the practically achievable maximum whilst minimizing the impact on physical and mental health and the economic costs,” says Spiliopoulos. Moderately severe measures with a Stringency Index in the 31–40 range accounted for about 90% of the maximum effectiveness of NPIs. The scale ranges from 0 (no restrictions at all) to 100 (the most extreme restrictions). This index, developed by Oxford University, gauges the stringency of various NPIs-including school closures, stay-at-home mandates, cancellation or restriction of public events, international travel restrictions, and information campaigns-on a single measure to allow for easier comparisons across countries. The dataset includes information on confirmed cases and deaths, mobility data, testing rates, and the Covid-19 Stringency Index. Spiliopoulos analyzed data from 132 countries collected between Februand April 14, 2021. The second is the impressive success of extensive testing policies, which significantly reduced Covid-19 case and death growth rates without the negative social impact associated with many NPIs. The first is the voluntary behavioral changes that people make in response to both their personal assessment of the pandemic’s severity and the signaling effect of political decisions. The study, published in BMC Public Health, uncovers two important factors that can positively influence pandemic dynamics. ![]() Spiliopoulos examined the effectiveness of lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in curbing the spread of Covid-19 and limiting the number of deaths. “Pan metron ariston”-everything in moderation: Author Leonidas Spiliopoulos of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development uses this Greek phrase in the title of his current study. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |