4.7 Article

Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government interventions

Journal

NATURE HUMAN BEHAVIOUR
Volume 4, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41562-020-01009-0

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Austrian Science Promotion Agency
  2. FFG project [857136]
  3. Medizinisch-Wissenschaftlichen Fonds des Burgermeisters der Bundeshauptstadt Wien [CoVid004]
  4. Austrian Federal Ministry of Social Affairs, Health, Care and Consumer Protection
  5. University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna
  6. Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety
  7. WWTF [COV 20-001, COV 20-017, MA16-045]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Assessing the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2 is critical to inform future preparedness response plans. Here we quantify the impact of 6,068 hierarchically coded NPIs implemented in 79 territories on the effective reproduction number, R-t, of COVID-19. We propose a modelling approach that combines four computational techniques merging statistical, inference and artificial intelligence tools. We validate our findings with two external datasets recording 42,151 additional NPIs from 226 countries. Our results indicate that a suitable combination of NPIs is necessary to curb the spread of the virus. Less disruptive and costly NPIs can be as effective as more intrusive, drastic, ones (for example, a national lockdown). Using country-specific 'what-if' scenarios, we assess how the effectiveness of NPIs depends on the local context such as timing of their adoption, opening the way for forecasting the effectiveness of future interventions. Analysing over 50,000 government interventions in more than 200 countries, Haug et al. find that combinations of softer measures, such as risk communication or those increasing healthcare capacity, can be almost as effective as disruptive lockdowns.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available