What is the effectiveness of commercial closures and home confinement? the ESCI study and its surprising results

Is there a study indicating the true effectiveness of closures and stay-at-home orders? Yes, there is something, and the results are amazing.

The European Journal of Clinical Investigation published a study, " Assessing mandatory Stay-at-home and business closure effects on the spread of COVID-19" , by Eran Bendavid, Christopher Oh, Jay Bhattacharyam John PA Joannidis, which can be translated as " We test the effects of closure orders and stay-at-home orders on the spread of Covid-19 "

This paper can be summarized as follows : the most restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for controlling the spread of COVID – 19 are mandatory closures in homes and businesses. Given the consequences of these policies, it is important to assess their effects. Therefore, in this paper we want to evaluate the effects on the growth of the most restrictive NPI epidemics (mrNPI), above and beyond those of the least restrictive NPI (lrNPI).

What are the methods applied? First of all, the growth of Covid-19 was estimated in all regional areas of 10 countries: England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, South Korea, Sweden and the United States. Therefore, with statistical methods, the researchers purified the effects of the more restrictive methods (mrNPI) and the less restrictive ones (IrNPI). South Korea and Sweden are taken as control samples, as they have not applied

What were the results ? The implementation of any "Non-Pharmacological Initiatives" (NPIs) was associated with significant reductions in case growth in 9 out of 10 countries studied, including South Korea and Sweden which only implemented NPIs (Spain had an effect not significant). After subtracting the epidemic and lrNPI effects, no clear and significant beneficial effect of mrNPI on case growth was found in any country. In France, for example, the effect of mrNPIs was + 7% (95% CI: −5% ‐19%) compared to Sweden and + 13% (−12% ‐38%) compared to South Korea. (positive averages per contagion). The 95% confidence intervals excluded a 30% drop in all 16 comparisons and a 15% drop in 11/16 comparisons.

What are the conclusions to be drawn ? While small benefits cannot be ruled out, no significant case growth benefits are found from applying more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth can be achieved with less restrictive interventions.

Strange that this paper is little used by the Scientific Technical Committee, it goes on par with other research, which we have already published, which presented as more effective not the closedown, but the prohibition of gatherings of more than 10 people. If I wanted to make a comparison, it looks a bit like the euro: the papers in its favor are very few, almost nil, compared to the opposite ones, yet it is untouchable. then, often, there is talk of leaving the guide to science. Which ?

Thanks to our Telegram channel you can stay updated on the publication of new articles of Economic Scenarios.

⇒ Register now

The article What is the effectiveness of commercial closures and home confinement? the ESCI study and its surprising results come from ScenariEconomici.it .

This is a machine translation of a post published on Scenari Economici at the URL https://scenarieconomici.it/quale-lefficacia-dei-closedown-e-della-reclusione-in-casa-lo-studio-esci-ed-i-suoi-sorprendenti-risultati/ on Tue, 09 Mar 2021 09:00:34 +0000.