.jpg/2000px-MCO_covid19_Penang_Malaysia_(49687038551).jpg)
Recent from talks
COVID-19 lockdowns
Knowledge base stats:
Talk channels stats:
Members stats:
COVID-19 lockdowns
During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of non-pharmaceutical interventions, particularly lockdowns (encompassing stay-at-home orders, curfews, quarantines, cordons sanitaires and similar societal restrictions), were implemented in numerous countries and territories around the world. By April 2020, about half of the world's population was under some form of lockdown, with more than 3.9 billion people in more than 90 countries or territories having been asked or ordered to stay at home by their governments.
In addition to the health effects of lockdown restrictions, researchers had found the lockdowns may have reduced crime and violence by armed non-state actors, such as the Islamic State, and other terrorist groups. In addition, lockdowns had increased the uptake of telecommuting, reduced airborne pollution, and increased adoption of digital payment systems.
Research has also documented profound negative economic impacts, in addition to worsened school academic performance and unforeseen immunological consequences. Lockdowns were met with major protests around the world.
Several researchers, from modeling and demonstrated examples, have concluded that lockdowns were somewhat effective at reducing the spread of, and deaths caused by, COVID-19.[non-primary source needed] Lockdowns are thought[by whom?] to be most effective at containing or preventing COVID-19 community transmission, healthcare costs and deaths when implemented earlier, with greater stringency, and when not lifted too early.
A study investigating the spread based on studies of the most common symptoms such as loss of taste and smell in France, Italy and the UK showed a marked decrease in new symptoms just a few days after the start of confinement on the countries (Italy and France) with the strongest lockdowns. Modelling on the United States pandemic suggested "the pandemic would have been almost completely suppressed from significantly taking off if the lockdown measures were implemented two weeks earlier" and that the second wave would have been less severe had the lockdown lasted another two weeks.
The stringent lockdown in Hubei in early 2020 proved effective at controlling the COVID-19 outbreak in China. The relatively high number of cases and deaths in Sweden, which kept much of its society open during the pandemic, when compared to its neighbours with comparable demographics Norway, Denmark and Finland that did enforce lockdowns, is thought to be at least partly attributable to this difference in policy. Similarly, modelling on Australian data concluded that achieving zero community transmission through a strict lockdown lowers healthcare and economic costs compared to less stringent measures that allow transmission to continue, and warned that early relaxation of restrictions have greater costs. This "zero community transmission" approach was adopted in Australia, and a strict four-month lockdown in the state of Victoria during an outbreak in Melbourne, combined with other measures, averted a wider outbreak in the country in 2020. New Zealand and Vietnam also adopted a "Zero-COVID" strategy throughout 2020 that included targeted lockdowns. A natural experiment study finds that the partial lockdown in Kyrgyzstan (with curfews) was just as effective as the full lockdown in Kazakhstan (with many business closures) at reducing the spread of the virus.
The emergence of the highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in 2021 led some commentators to suggest that although lockdowns continue to reduce the spread of COVID-19, they have become less effective at containing it. Lockdowns in Australia and Vietnam in response to Delta outbreaks proved less effective at containment than previous lockdowns were against the spread of other variants.
One study led by an economist at the University of Chicago found that involuntary lockdowns had little impact, with voluntary distancing making up nearly 90% of the fall in consumer traffic as people feared the virus itself. Similarly, a National Bureau of Economic Research study found stay-at-home orders increased staying at home by just 5–10%. Another study from Yale University found that most social distancing was voluntary, driven primarily by "media coverage of morbidity and mortality".
Hub AI
COVID-19 lockdowns AI simulator
(@COVID-19 lockdowns_simulator)
COVID-19 lockdowns
During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of non-pharmaceutical interventions, particularly lockdowns (encompassing stay-at-home orders, curfews, quarantines, cordons sanitaires and similar societal restrictions), were implemented in numerous countries and territories around the world. By April 2020, about half of the world's population was under some form of lockdown, with more than 3.9 billion people in more than 90 countries or territories having been asked or ordered to stay at home by their governments.
In addition to the health effects of lockdown restrictions, researchers had found the lockdowns may have reduced crime and violence by armed non-state actors, such as the Islamic State, and other terrorist groups. In addition, lockdowns had increased the uptake of telecommuting, reduced airborne pollution, and increased adoption of digital payment systems.
Research has also documented profound negative economic impacts, in addition to worsened school academic performance and unforeseen immunological consequences. Lockdowns were met with major protests around the world.
Several researchers, from modeling and demonstrated examples, have concluded that lockdowns were somewhat effective at reducing the spread of, and deaths caused by, COVID-19.[non-primary source needed] Lockdowns are thought[by whom?] to be most effective at containing or preventing COVID-19 community transmission, healthcare costs and deaths when implemented earlier, with greater stringency, and when not lifted too early.
A study investigating the spread based on studies of the most common symptoms such as loss of taste and smell in France, Italy and the UK showed a marked decrease in new symptoms just a few days after the start of confinement on the countries (Italy and France) with the strongest lockdowns. Modelling on the United States pandemic suggested "the pandemic would have been almost completely suppressed from significantly taking off if the lockdown measures were implemented two weeks earlier" and that the second wave would have been less severe had the lockdown lasted another two weeks.
The stringent lockdown in Hubei in early 2020 proved effective at controlling the COVID-19 outbreak in China. The relatively high number of cases and deaths in Sweden, which kept much of its society open during the pandemic, when compared to its neighbours with comparable demographics Norway, Denmark and Finland that did enforce lockdowns, is thought to be at least partly attributable to this difference in policy. Similarly, modelling on Australian data concluded that achieving zero community transmission through a strict lockdown lowers healthcare and economic costs compared to less stringent measures that allow transmission to continue, and warned that early relaxation of restrictions have greater costs. This "zero community transmission" approach was adopted in Australia, and a strict four-month lockdown in the state of Victoria during an outbreak in Melbourne, combined with other measures, averted a wider outbreak in the country in 2020. New Zealand and Vietnam also adopted a "Zero-COVID" strategy throughout 2020 that included targeted lockdowns. A natural experiment study finds that the partial lockdown in Kyrgyzstan (with curfews) was just as effective as the full lockdown in Kazakhstan (with many business closures) at reducing the spread of the virus.
The emergence of the highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in 2021 led some commentators to suggest that although lockdowns continue to reduce the spread of COVID-19, they have become less effective at containing it. Lockdowns in Australia and Vietnam in response to Delta outbreaks proved less effective at containment than previous lockdowns were against the spread of other variants.
One study led by an economist at the University of Chicago found that involuntary lockdowns had little impact, with voluntary distancing making up nearly 90% of the fall in consumer traffic as people feared the virus itself. Similarly, a National Bureau of Economic Research study found stay-at-home orders increased staying at home by just 5–10%. Another study from Yale University found that most social distancing was voluntary, driven primarily by "media coverage of morbidity and mortality".
Recent media