Mandatory Public Health Measures for Coronavirus-19 Are Associated With Improved Mortality, Equity and Economic Outcomes
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
The impact of public health measures on the coronavirus-2019 pandemic was analyzed by comparing mandatory versus voluntary nonpharmaceutical interventions between 2 comparable European countries and among 3 U.S. states. Using an ecological retrospective cohort study design, we examine differences in mortality, economic impact, and equity. Compared to voluntary policies, mandatory shelter-in-place policies were associated with a 3- to 5-fold lower population-adjusted mortality in the U.S. model and between 11- to 12-fold lower in the European one. Voluntary shelter-in-place measures were associated with overall increased mortality cost, as measured by value of a statistical life; somewhat greater decreases in gross domestic product; and substantial negative impacts on minority communities, who experienced markedly increased mortality rates (the percentage of minority deaths was 2.3 and 4 times greater in the U.S. model and 14.5 times higher in the European one) and mortality cost (2.7- and 4.5-fold higher in the U.S. model and 11.1-fold higher in the European one). We conclude that voluntary policies are less effective than mandatory ones, based on historical precedent and the current analysis. Negative effects on health equity mirrored the increased mortality outcomes of voluntary policies, and there was no apparent economic benefit associated with voluntary measures.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.11.21251580: (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 10.1101/2021.02.11.21251580: (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.
-
