The relative power of individual distancing efforts and public policies to curb the COVID-19 epidemics
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Lockdown curbs the COVID-19 epidemics but at huge costs. Public debates question its impact compared to reliance on individual responsibility. We study how rationally chosen self-protective behavior impacts the spread of the epidemics and interacts with policies. We first assess the value of lockdown in terms of mortality compared to a counterfactual scenario that incorporates self-protection efforts; and second, assess how individual behavior modify the epidemic dynamics when public regulations change. We couple an SLIAR model, that includes asymptomatic transmission, with utility maximization: Individuals trade off economic and wellbeing costs from physical distancing with a lower infection risk. Physical distancing effort depends on risk aversion, perceptions of the epidemics and average distancing effort in the population. Rational distancing effort is computed as a Nash Equilibrium. Equilibrium effort differs markedly from constant, stochastic or proportional contacts reduction. It adjusts to daily incidence of hospitalization in a way that creates a slightly decreasing plateau in epidemic prevalence. Calibration on French data shows that a business-as-usual benchmark yields an overestimation of the number of deaths by a factor of 10 compared to benchmarks with equilibrium efforts. However, lockdown saves nearly twice as many lives as individual efforts alone. Public policies post-lockdown have a limited impact as they partly crowd out individual efforts. Communication that increases risk salience is more effective.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.06.20147033: (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…
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.06.20147033: (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.
-
