Impact of national and regional lockdowns on COVID-19 epidemic waves: Application to the 2020 spring wave in France

  1. Jonathan Roux
  2. Clément Massonnaud
  3. Vittoria Colizza
  4. Simon Cauchemez
  5. Pascal Crépey

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Several countries have implemented lockdowns to control their COVID-19 epidemic. However, questions like “where” and “when” still require answers. We assessed the impact of national and regional lockdowns considering the French first epidemic wave of COVID-19 as a case study. In a regional lockdown scenario aimed at preventing intensive care units (ICU) saturation, almost all French regions would have had to implement a lockdown within 10 days and 96% of ICU capacities would have been used. For slowly growing epidemics, with a lower reproduction number, the expected delays between regional lockdowns increases. However, the public health costs associated with these delays tend to grow exponentially with time. In a quickly growing pandemic wave, defining the timing of lockdowns at a regional rather than national level delays by a few days the implementation of a nationwide lockdown but leads to substantially higher morbidity, mortality and stress on the healthcare system.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1101/2021.04.21.21255876v2 on medRxiv
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.21.21255876: (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: Please consider improving the rainbow (“jet”) colormap(s) used on page 34. At least one figure is not accessible to readers with colorblindness and/or is not true to the data, i.e. not perceptually uniform.

    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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.04.21.21255876v1 on medRxiv