Strict Physical Distancing May Be More Efficient: A Mathematical Argument for Making Lockdowns Count

  1. Scott R Sheffield
  2. Anna York
  3. Nicole A Swartwood
  4. Alyssa Bilinski
  5. Anne Williamson
  6. Meagan C Fitzpatrick

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

COVID-19 created a global public health and economic emergency. Policymakers acted quickly and decisively to contain the spread of disease through physical distancing measures. However, these measures also impact physical, mental and economic well-being, creating difficult trade-offs. Here we use a simple mathematical model to explore the balance between public health measures and their associated social and economic costs. Across a range of cost-functions and model structures, commitment to intermittent and strict social distancing measures leads to better overall outcomes than temporally consistent implementation of moderate physical distancing measures. With regard to the trade-offs that policymakers may soon face, our results emphasize that economic and health outcomes do not exist in full competition. Compared to consistent moderation, intermittently strict policies can better mitigate the impact of the pandemic on both of these priorities for a range of plausible utility functions.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.19.20107045: (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

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    4.2 Caveats and limitations: Our work is also subject to a number of 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 10.1101/2020.05.19.20107045v2 on medRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.19.20107045v1 on medRxiv