HAS COUNTRYWIDE LOCKDOWN WORKED AS A FEASIBLE MEASURE IN BENDING THE COVID-19 CURVE IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES?

  1. Khondoker Nazmoon Nabi
  2. Md. Robiul Islam

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

In the absence of any effective vaccine and clinically proven treatment, experts thought that strict lockdown measures could be an effective way to slow down the spread of novel coronavirus. Despite the strict lockdown measures in several developing countries, the number of newly infected cases is getting unbridled as time progresses. This anomaly ignites questions about the effectiveness of the prolonged strict confinement measures. In light of the above view, with an aim to find the answer to this question, trends of four epidemiological parameters: growth factor of daily reported COVID-19 cases, daily incidence proportion, daily cumulative index and effective reproduction number in five developing countries named Bangladesh, Brazil, Chile, Pakistan and South Africa have been analysed meticulously considering the different phases of their national lockdowns. Any compelling evidence has not been found in favor of countrywide lockdown effectiveness in the above-mentioned countries. Numerical results illustrate that stringent nationwide lockdown measures have failed bringing the epidemic threshold ( R e ) of COVID-19 under unity. In addition, citizens of the aforementioned countries have been struggling with catastrophic socio-economic consequences due to prolonged confinement measures. Our study suggests that a new policy should be proposed for developing countries to battle against future disease outbreaks ensuring a perfect balance between saving lives and confirming livelihoods.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.23.20138685: (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: 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 10.1101/2020.06.23.20138685v1 on medRxiv