Pareto-based evaluation of national responses to COVID-19 pandemic shows that saving lives and protecting economy are non-trade-off objectives
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Countries worldwide have adopted various strategies to minimize the socio-economic impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Stringency of imposed measures universally reflects the standpoint from which protecting public health and avoiding damage to economy are seen as contradictory objectives. Based on epidemic trajectories of 25 highly developed countries and 10 US states in the (mobility reduction)–(reproduction number) plane we showed that delay in imposition of nation-wide quarantine elevates the number of infections and deaths, surge of which inevitably has to be suppressed by stringent and sustained lockdown. As a consequence, cumulative mobility reduction and population-normalized cumulative number of COVID-19-associated deaths are significantly correlated and this correlation increases with time. Overall, we demonstrated that, as long as epidemic suppression is the aim, the trade-off between the death toll and economic loss is illusory: high death toll correlates with deep and long-lasting lockdown causing a severe economic downturn.
Article activity feed
-
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.27.20141747: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Testing density [17] is analyzed according to: the number of people tested: in Canada, Netherlands, Norway, South Korea, Sweden; the number of samples tested: in Finland, Poland and Portugal; and the number of tests performed: for all remaining countries; for Belgium and Ireland units are labeled as unclear. Portugalsuggested: NoneResults from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from Tria…
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.27.20141747: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Testing density [17] is analyzed according to: the number of people tested: in Canada, Netherlands, Norway, South Korea, Sweden; the number of samples tested: in Finland, Poland and Portugal; and the number of tests performed: for all remaining countries; for Belgium and Ireland units are labeled as unclear. Portugalsuggested: NoneResults from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-