How efficient are the lockdown measures taken for mitigating the Covid-19 epidemic?
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Various lockdown measures have been taken in different countries to mitigate the Covid-19 pandemic. But, for citizens, it is not always simple to understand how these measures have been taken. Should they have been more (or less) restrictive? Should the lockdown period have been longer (or shorter)? What would have been the benefits of starting to confine the population earlier? To provide some elements of response to these questions, we propose a simple behavior model for the government decision-making operation. Although simple and obviously improvable, the proposed model has the merit to implement in a pragmatic and insightful way the tradeoff between health and macroeconomic aspects. For a given tradeoff between the assumed cost functions for the economic and health impacts, it is then possible to determine the best lockdown starting date, the best lockdown duration, and the optimal severity levels during and after lockdown. The numerical analysis is based on a standard SEIR model and performed for the case of France but the adopted approach can be applied to any country. Our analysis, based on the proposed model, shows that for France it would have been possible to have just a quarter of the actual number of people infected (over [March 1, August 31]), while simultaneously having a Gross Domestic Product loss about 30% smaller than the one expected with the current policy
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.02.20120089: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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 …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.02.20120089: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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.
-