THE IMPACT OF LOCKDOWN ON PUBLIC HEALTH DURING THE FIRST WAVE OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC: LESSONS LEARNED FOR DESIGNING EFFECTIVE CONTAINMENT MEASURES TO COPE WITH SECOND WAVE
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
What is hardly known in the studies of the COVID-19 global pandemic crisis is the impact of general lockdown during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic both public health and economic system. The main goal of this study is a comparative analysis of some European countries with a longer and shorter period of national lockdown during the first wave of COVID-19 from March to August 2020. Findings suggests that: a) countries with shorter period of lockdown have a variation of confirmed cases/population (%) higher than countries with longer period of lockdown; b) countries with shorter period of lockdown have average fatality rate (5.45%) lower than countries with longer period of lockdown (12.70%), whereas variation of fatality rate from August to March 2020 suggests a higher reduction in countries with longer period of lockdown (−1.9% vs 0.72%). However, Independent Samples Test and the Mann-Whitney test reveal that the effectiveness of longer period of lockdown versus shorter one on public health is not significant. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic associated with longer period of lockdown has a higher negative impact on economic growth with consequential social issues in countries. Results of the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on public health and economies of some leading countries in Europe, during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, can provide vital information to design effective containment strategies in future waves of this pandemic to minimize the negative effects in society.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.22.20217695: (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 10.1101/2020.10.22.20217695: (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.
-
