ZPP Newsletter
Warsaw, 20th January 2021
Memorandum of the Union of Entrepreneurs and Employers on the impact of restrictions on coronavirus transmission: opening the economy is associated with a moderate risk of increase in the number of infections
Abstract
In this document, we summarise the results of two independent studies that look at the effectiveness of government restrictions on reducing coronavirus transmissions. These studies show that among the non-pharmaceutical interventions used, the ban on public gatherings of more than ten people and the closure of schools both have the greatest impact on reducing the number of cases. Meanwhile, the impact of restrictions on economic activity, such as food catering industry or services, is limited. Similarly, in terms of easing restrictions, a significant increase in the number of infections was recorded only in the case of reopening schools and allowing public gatherings. The results of the reserach discussed compel to question the validity of the order of easing the restrictions adopted by the government, within which it was decided to partially reopen school, while maintaining restrictions for business activity.
The first coronavirus case was diagnosed in December 2019. Thirteen months later, a total of nearly 100 million coronavirus cases have been reported and 2 million people have died of COVID-19.
To contain the spread of the new virus, governments around the world imposed a number of restrictions on economic and social activity. Restrictions, formally known as non-pharmaceutical interventions, unfortunately have severe consequences. In Q2 2020, which saw the majority of restrictions, the GDP of the European Union fell by 13.9% y-o-y, and unemployment increased by 2.7%. These were the sharpest recorded economic declines since measurements began in 1995.
The pandemic came as a shock to countries and economies around the world. However, data is collected over time that allow for the evaluation of the effectiveness of specific actions. Two independent studies can be cited as examples thereof. The first was conducted by a team of researchers led by Jan M. Brauner Ph.D. from the University of Oxford and published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It examines the effectiveness of restrictions introduced by the governments of 34 European and 7 non-European countries in the period from January to May 2020 [1].
The other study, conducted by a group of researchers appointed especially for the purposes of scientific evaluation of the evidence for the coronavirus pandemic from the Usher Network for Covid-19 Evidence Reviews at the University of Edinburgh, UNCOVER for short, examines the effectiveness of measures introduced between 1st January and 1st July 2020 in 131 countries. [2] Most importantly, scientists from the Usher Institute scrutinised not only the effectiveness of restrictions in reducing viral transmissions, but also the impact of easing restrictions on renewed outbreaks of the disease.
The most important conclusions by researchers led by Brauner are the following:
- the only measures with a significant impact on infection reduction (over 35%) are the closure of schools and colleges, and the restriction of gatherings to 10 people or less;
- the closure of businesses offering non-basic products and services had a moderate impact on reducing the number of infections (17.5-35%);
- stay-at-home orders proved to have little effect (less than 17.5%) in reducing the number of cases;
- the closure of bars, restaurants and nightclubs had little effect on virus transmission in 42% of cases and moderate in 58% of cases.
In terms of the effectiveness of stay-at-home orders, one should keep in mind that these measures were usually imposed last, following other restrictions. Brauner et al. took that into account and calculated that in the event of early school closures, a ban on mass events and the closure of some enterprises, the stay-at-home order had little effect on a further reduction of coronavirus transmissions.
Turning to the main conclusions of the team at the Usher Institute, the following points should be mentioned:
- the introduction of a ban on mass events is associated with the biggest drop in coronavirus transmissions;
- in terms of easing the restrictions, a significant upward trend in infections was recorded only after the relaxation of restrictions on school closings and the ban on public gatherings for more than 10 people;
- the reopening of schools is associated with the highest increase of cases diagnosed on the 7th and 14th day after restrictions were eased;
- the possibility of organising gatherings of more than ten people is associated with the largest increase on the 28th day after the ban was relaxed.
The following three basic conclusions can be dound in both studies.
First of all, the most effective means of reducing viral transmission appears to be limiting public gatherings and the on-site activities of educational institutions.
Secondly, the closure of economic activities such as the food catering industry and services has only a limited (low to moderate) impact on the number of infections.
Third, the greatest increase in the number of cases is related to the easing of restrictions on public gatherings above 10 people and the reopening of schools.
The research results summarised above question the validity of the strategy chosen to fight the coronavirus. Maintaining restrictions on economic activity, which have at most a moderate impact on the increase in the number of infections, is associated with an enormous economic and social cost. In spite of the aforementioned conclusions, the plan to lift the restrictions, presented in November, was abandoned – the economic lockdown is still in force, and at the same time, it was decided to partially reopen schools, even though research indicates that it is associated with a significant risk of an increase in the number of infections.
Considering the data and research results presented above, we once again call for the opening of the economy and a revision of the strategy to combat the coronavirus. Restrictions on economic activity have at best a moderate effect on the number of infections. Meanwhile, the prolonged lockdown increases the risk of a massive wave of bankruptcies and layoffs, the negative economic and social costs of which are currently impossible to predict and estimate.
Bibliography:
You Li, Harry Campbell, Durga Kulkarni, Alice Harpur, Madhurima Nundy, Xin Wang, Harish Nair, for the Usher Network for COVID-19 Evidence Reviews (UNCOVER) group, The temporal association of introducing and lifting non-pharmaceutical interventions with the time-varying reproduction number (R) of SARS-CoV-2: a modelling study across 131 countries, in Lancet Infectious Diseases 2020, available online: https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1473-3099%2820%2930785-4
Jan M. Brauner, Sören Mindermann, Mrinank Sharma, David Johnston, John Salvatier, Tomáš Gavenčiak, Anna B. Stephenson, Gavin Leech, George Altman, Vladimir Mikulik, Alexander John Norman, Joshua Teperowski Monrad, Tamay Besiroglu, Hong Ge, Meghan A. Hartwick, Yee Whye Teh, Leonid Chindelevitch, Yarin Gal, Jan Kulveit, Inferring the effectiveness of government interventions against COVID-19, in Science Magazine 2020, available online: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/12/15/science.abd9338
[1] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/12/15/science.abd9338
ProEXR File Description
