Shut it down: a cross country panel analysis on the efficacy of lockdown measures

  1. Vincenzo Alfano
  2. Salvatore Ercolano

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Coronavirus pandemic outbreak from China in the December 2019 and since then has quickly spread all over the world. National governments introduced policies aimed to reduce the probability to contract the virus, such as lockdown measures, in order to limit the outbreak. Lockdown fostered a debate about the effective need and the optimal duration of such measures. Indeed, these policies have a high price, being characterized by the alt of many productive activities. The aim of this note is to provide preliminary evidences about the efficacy of lockdown measures all over the world, by the means of a panel data quantitative analysis. Our results confirm the efficacy of such measures, and that the average time to have effects in terms of a reduction of cases is of about ten days. Furthermore the beneficial effects of a lockdown keep reducing the new cases with a linear trend for at least the ten successive days.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.12.20062695: (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
    SentencesResources
    The remaining six countries are in the Pacific region (Australia, Fiji, French Polynesia, New Caledonia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea).
    Fiji
    suggested: (Fiji, RRID:SCR_002285)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    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.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.12.20062695v1 on medRxiv