Stay at Home! Governance Quality and Effectiveness of Lockdown

When the antidote is the poison: Investigating the relationship between people's social media usage and loneliness when face-to-face communication is restricted

When governments mandated lockdowns to limit the spread of the coronavirus, the resulting reduction of face-to-face communication threatened many people's psychological well-being by fostering feelings of loneliness. Given social media's eponymous social nature, we study the relationship between people's social media usage and their loneliness during these times of physical social restrictions. We contrast literature highlighting the social value of social media with a competing logic based on the "internet paradox," according to which increased social media usage may paradoxically be associated with increasing, not decreasing, levels of loneliness. As the extant literature provides opposing correlational insights into the general relationship of social media usage and loneliness, we offer competing hypotheses and offer novel longitudinal insights into the phenomenon of interest. In the empirical context of Germany's initial lockdown, our research uses survey panel data from February 2020 (before the lockdown) and April 2020 (during the lockdown) to contribute longitudinal evidence to the matter. We find that more usage of social media in the studied lockdown setting is indeed associated with more, not less loneliness. Thus, our results suggest a "social media paradox" when physical social restrictions are mandated and caution social media users and policy makers to not consider social media as a valuable alternative for social interaction. A post-hoc analysis suggests that more communication via richer digital media which are available during physical lockdowns (e.g., video chats) softens the "social media paradox". Conclusively, this research provides deeper insights into the social value of social interactions via digital media during lockdowns and contributes novel insights into the relationship between social media and loneliness during such times when physical social interaction is heavily restricted.

Unlocking the importance of perceived governance: The impact on COVID-19 in NUTS-2 European regions

In the immediate aftermath of the pandemic, governments implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). Previous literature suggests that NPI effectiveness is influenced by governance quality. The acceptance and perceived necessity of these measures by the public are crucial to their success, as NPIs cannot be easily enforced without public support. Does regional governance also play a role? This study examines the correlation between the quality of governance in European NUTS-2 regions and the spread of COVID-19. The findings indicate that overall perceived governance, and its perceived quality and corruption pillars, significantly impact the effectiveness of these interventions. This effect was pronounced during the first wave and then diminished in importance, disappearing before vaccines were available, suggesting that regional governance matters especially in the immediate aftermath of an exogenous shock.

Assessing the effectiveness of international government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic

This paper examines the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical measures adopted by governments to control the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a Panel VAR model for the OECD countries, we test for Granger causality between the 7-day cumulative incidence, mortality rate, and government response indexes. Granger-type statistics reveal evidence that the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the measures taken by governments. However, limited or nonexistent evidence supports the reverse situation. This suggests that government measures were not highly effective in controlling the pandemic. While not implying total ineffectiveness, our results indicate a considerable lack of efficacy, emphasizing a lesson for governments to learn from and correct in preparation for similar events in the future.

Effectiveness of social distancing measures and lockdowns for reducing transmission of COVID-19 in non-healthcare, community-based settings

Social distancing measures (SDMs) are community-level interventions that aim to reduce person-to-person contacts in the community. SDMs were a major part of the responses first to contain, then to mitigate, the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the community. Common SDMs included limiting the size of gatherings, closing schools and/or workplaces, implementing work-from-home arrangements, or more stringent restrictions such as lockdowns. This systematic review summarized the evidence for the effectiveness of nine SDMs. Almost all of the studies included were observational in nature, which meant that there were intrinsic risks of bias that could have been avoided were conditions randomly assigned to study participants. There were no instances where only one form of SDM had been in place in a particular setting during the study period, making it challenging to estimate the separate effect of each intervention. The more stringent SDMs such as stay-at-home orders, restrictions on mass gatherings and closures were estimated to be most effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Most studies included in this review suggested that combinations of SDMs successfully slowed or even stopped SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the community. However, individual effects and optimal combinations of interventions, as well as the optimal timing for particular measures, require further investigation. This article is part of the theme issue 'The effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic: the evidence'.

Governmental anti-pandemic policies, vaccination, population mobility, Twitter narratives, and the spread of COVID-19: Evidence from the European Union countries

We provide large-scale empirical evidence on the effects of multiple governmental regulatory and health policies, vaccination, population mobility, and COVID-19-related Twitter narratives on the spread of a new coronavirus infection. Using multiple-level fixed effects panel data model with weekly data for 27 European Union countries in the period of March 2020-June 2021, we show that governmental response policies were effective both in reducing the number of COVID-19 infection cases and deaths from it, particularly, in the countries with higher level of rule of law. Vaccination expectedly helped to decrease the number of virus cases. Reductions in population mobility in public places and workplaces were also powerful in fighting the pandemic. Next, we identify four core pandemic-related Twitter narratives: governmental response policies, people's sad feelings during the pandemic, vaccination, and pandemic-related international politics. We find that sad feelings' narrative helped to combat the virus spread in EU countries. Our findings also reveal that while in countries with high rule of law international politics' narrative helped to reduce the virus spread, in countries with low rule of law the effect was strictly the opposite. The latter finding suggests that trust in politicians played an important role in confronting the pandemic.

Unmasking the COVID-19 pandemic prevention gains: excess mortality reversal in 2022

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess the long-term effectiveness of COVID-19 pandemic prevention measures in saving lives after European governments began to lift restrictions.

STUDY DESIGN

Excess mortality interrupted time series.

METHODS

Country-level weekly data on deaths were fitted to the Poisson mixed linear model to estimate excess deaths. Based on this estimate, the percentage of excess deaths above the baseline during the pandemic (week 11 in 2020 to week 15 in 2022) (when public health interventions were in place) and during the post-pandemic period (week 16 in 2022 to week 52 in 2022) were calculated. These results were fitted to the linear regression model to determine any potential relationship between mortality during these two periods.

RESULTS

The model used in this study had high predictive value (adjusted R2 = 59.4%). Mortality during the endemic (post-pandemic) period alone increased by 7.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.7, 8.6) above baseline, while each percentage increase in mortality during the pandemic corresponded to a 0.357% reduction (95% CI: 0.243, 0.471) in mortality during the post-pandemic period.

CONCLUSIONS

The most successful countries in terms of protective measures also experienced the highest mortality rates after restrictions were lifted. The model used in this study clearly shows a measure of bidirectional mortality displacement that is sufficiently clear to mask any impact of long COVID on overall mortality. Results from this study also seriously impact previous cost-benefit analyses of pandemic prevention measures, since, according to the current model, 12.2% (95% CI: 8.3, 16.1) of the gains achieved in pandemic containment were lost after restrictions were lifted.

To vaccinate or to isolate? Establishing which intervention leads to measurable mortality reduction during the COVID-19 Delta wave in Poland

Background

During the Delta variant COVID-19 wave in Poland there were serious regional differences in vaccination rates and discrepancies in the enforcement of pandemic preventive measures, which allowed us to assess the relative effectiveness of the policies implemented.

Methods

Creating a model that would predict mortality based on vaccination rates among the most vulnerable groups and the timing of the wave peak enabled us to calculate to what extent flattening the curve reduced mortality. Subsequently, a model was created to assess which preventive measures delayed the peak of infection waves. Combining those two models allowed us to estimate the relative effectiveness of those measures.

Results

Flattening the infection curve worked: according to our model, each week of postponing the peak of the wave reduced excess deaths by 1.79%. Saving a single life during the Delta wave required one of the following: either the vaccination of 57 high-risk people, or 1,258 low-risk people to build herd immunity, or the isolation of 334 infected individuals for a cumulative period of 10.1 years, or finally quarantining 782 contacts for a cumulative period of 19.3 years.

Conclusions

Except for the most disciplined societies, vaccination of high-risk individuals followed by vaccinating low-risk groups should have been the top priority instead of relying on isolation and quarantine measures which can incur disproportionately higher social costs. Our study demonstrates that even in a country with uniform policies, implementation outcomes varied, highlighting the importance of fine-tuning policies to regional specificity.

Fear itself. Is fear a determinant of the efficacy oflockdowns?

Among non-pharmaceutical measures for fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the most important is the implementation of lockdowns. The cost and effectiveness of this policy remains a much-debated topic in economics. In this study we investigate whether a 'fear effect' is at work in influencing the effectiveness of lockdowns. According to previous contributions on the topic, fear can increase protective habits, and for this reason we may imagine that a high number of COVID-19-caused deaths creates fear among the population, which may make people more likely to follow government prescriptions and observe lockdowns strictly. By means of a qualitative-quantitative analysis, we find that among the 46 countries that reported coronavirus-caused deaths before the implementation of a lockdown, the top quartile for per capita deaths has better results in terms of reducing new COVID-19 cases after a lockdown, compared to the worst quartile. This suggests that the number of reported deaths, as well as its communication to the population, are important determinants of the effectiveness of a lockdown.

COVID-19 Pandemic: Did Strict Mobility Restrictions Save Lives and Healthcare Costs in Maharashtra, India?

INTRODUCTION

Maharashtra, India, remained a hotspot during the COVID-19 pandemic. After the initial complete lockdown, the state slowly relaxed restrictions. We aim to estimate the lockdown's impact on COVID-19 cases and associated healthcare costs.

METHODS

Using daily case data for 84 days (9 March-31 May 2020), we modeled the epidemic's trajectory and predicted new cases for different phases of lockdown. We fitted log-linear models to estimate the growth rate, basic (R₀), daily reproduction number (R_e), and case doubling time. Based on pre-restriction and Phase 1 R₀, we predicted new cases for the rest of the restriction phases, and we compared them with the actual number of cases during each phase. Furthermore, using the published and gray literature, we estimated the costs and savings of implementing these restrictions for the projected period, and we performed a sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The estimated median R₀ during the different phases was 1.14 (95% CI: 0.85, 1.45) for pre-lockdown, 1.67 (95% CI: 1.50, 1.82) for phase 1 (strict mobility restrictions), 1.24 (95% CI: 1.12, 1.35) for phase 2 (extension of phase 1 with no restrictions on agricultural and essential services), 1.12 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.23) for phase 3 (extension of phase 2 with mobility relaxations in areas with few infections), and 1.05 (95% CI: 0.99, 1.123) for phase 4 (implementation of localized lockdowns in high-case-load areas with fewer restrictions on other areas), respectively. The corresponding doubling time rate for cases (in days) was 17.78 (95% CI: 5.61, -15.19), 3.87 (95% CI: 3.15, 5.00), 10.37 (95% CI: 7.10, 19.30), 20.31 (95% CI: 10.70, 212.50), and 45.56 (95% CI: 20.50, -204.52). For the projected period, the cases could have reached 631,819 without the lockdown, as the actual reported number of cases was 64,975. From a healthcare perspective, the estimated total value of averted cases was INR 194.73 billion (USD 2.60 billion), resulting in net cost savings of 84.05%. The Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) for implementing the lockdown, rather than observing the natural course of the pandemic, was INR 33,812.15 (USD 450.83).

CONCLUSION

Maharashtra's early public health response delayed the pandemic and averted new cases and deaths during the first wave of the pandemic. However, we recommend that such restrictions be carefully used while considering the local socio-economic realities in countries like India.

COVID-19 vaccination and governance in the case of low, middle and high-income countries

BACKGROUND

Global crises, regardless of the place where they started to spread or of the factors that triggered them, require a comprehensive approach, primarily based on good communication, cooperation and mutual support. No individual and no institution should remain indifferent to crises but, on the contrary, be fully aware that any involvement in curbing them matters. Although humanity can be affected by various types of crises, in this paper we refer to the one related to COVID-19 pandemic. There are certain reasons that come to justify our choice: first of all, being a shock with a strong impact on people, its analysis should be performed from several angles; this may bring to light an image with its disparate propagation and measures to counteract it both in developed countries, and especially in those with a shortage of resources. Secondly, in the context of the emergence of vaccines against COVID-19, it is helpful to have an overview of COVID-19 through the lens of the relationship between the vaccination process and the elements that characterize governance, with a differentiated dashboard by country categories worldwide: low, middle and high-income countries. Our study is far from capturing the complexity arising from such social problem, but rather aims to outline the defining role of governance when it comes to providing firm reactions to the COVID-19 crisis.

METHODS

Given that our sample consists of a large number of countries, namely 170, first, examined all together, and then, split into three groups (high, middle and low-income), it is challenging to address governance in association with COVID-19 vaccination, in order to see how much they interact and how each of the six aggregate governance indicators of the World Bank (Worldwide Governance Indicators) is reflected in this process. Even if they do not oscillate strongly over relatively short periods of time, reporting on health issues requires a sequential inventory, considering closer time intervals, so as to be able to act promptly. Thus, to better distinguish how the COVID-19 vaccination process evolved in low, middle and high-income countries, but also how it was imprinted by governance, we present the situation quarterly (March, June, September and December), in 2021, the year when the immunization campaigns were the most intense at the global level. Regarding the applied methods, we mention both OLS regressions with robust estimators and a panel model, used to investigate the determinants of COVID-19 vaccination, some of them describing the good governance, as well as other dimensions.

RESULTS

The findings point out that the influence of governance on COVID-19 vaccination differs depending on whether a country belongs to high, middle or low-income typology: the strongest determinism of governance on vaccination is encountered in high-income countries, and the weakest in low-income ones; in some cases, governance does not matter significantly. However, exploring the three groups of states included in the research, it is observed that the most relevant factors in this relationship are government effectiveness, regulatory quality and control of corruption.

CONCLUSIONS

Besides the order of importance of governance indicators on COVID-19 vaccination, our study indicates that, overall, governance positively shapes the vaccination rate at the level of the chosen sample. In normative terms, these findings can be translated particularly by the fact that they can serve as information to raise awareness on the relevance of the existence of an institutional framework that allows the formulation of strategies according to the patterns of each country, especially since the actionable tools depend on the available resources. As a general conclusion, public policies should be designed in such a way as to strengthen trust in vaccination regulations and in governments, to reduce the multifaceted negative effects of this health crisis and to hope for its total end.

Your vaccine attitude determines your altitude. What are the determinants of attitudes toward vaccination?

Attitudes toward vaccination are doubtless an important determinant of public health, and this became evident after the first year of the last COVID-19 pandemic. The issue, long-debated within European societies, especially with respect to occasional surges of diseases in given years, has become a crucial determinant of the wellbeing of a country since 2021. In this study, using microdata from a 2019 Eurobarometer survey, we frame and deepen our knowledge about the main determinants of vaccination attitudes as observed by the related literature. We argue that a positive attitude toward vaccination may be due to individualistic or altruistic reasons, or various incentives; our analysis aims to improve our knowledge about the determinants of such a complex decision. Our findings, obtained by means of a quantitative analysis that employs Ordered Probit, Ordered Logit and Generalized Ordered Logit estimations, provide complete support for some of the theories that have been debated in the literature, limited support for others because of mixed evidence, and no support for some.

Carrot and stick: Economic support and stringency policies in response to COVID-19

To address the economic losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, countries have implemented, together with policies aimed at stopping the spread of the virus, a mixture of fiscal and monetary measures. This work investigates the effect of containment policies and economic support measures on economic growth in the short run, investigating a time window of six quarters in a cross country perspective. Our results confirm the existence of a negative effect of stringency measures on GDP; we also detect a positive effect from economic support measures. Moreover, looking at the interaction between these two kinds of interventions, our findings suggest that up to a relatively low level of stringency policies, economic support measures are able to positively counterbalance the negative impact of containment and closure policies. When the level of closures became more severe, however, the economic support measures that countries adopt are not able to completely recoup, in the short run, the economic losses due to stringency policies. Results suggest that in order to have a positive net effect, policymakers should take into account the level of stringency measures implemented before investing in economic support.

The Association of Social Emotions, Perceived Efficiency, Transparency of the Government, Concerns about COVID-19, and Confidence in Fighting the Pandemic under the Week-Long Lockdown in Shenzhen, China

The outbreak and spread of the COVID-19 pandemic have had a far-reaching impact. The present study investigated the factors primarily affecting the execution of the control measures, including social emotions, concerns about the pandemic, perceived efficiency, transparency of the government in publishing the pandemic-related information, and confidence in fighting the pandemic. Specifically, we examined the differences in these factors across four areas (i.e., lockdown area, control area, prevention area, and safe area) according to different COVID control measures under the week-long lockdown in Shenzhen. We found that social emotions, concerns about the pandemic, perceived efficiency of the government, and confidence in fighting the pandemic were more negative in the lockdown area than that in other areas. More importantly, after controlling for areas and education level of participants, the emotion of optimism, concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic, perceived efficiency, and perceived transparency of the government in releasing COVID-19 relevant information positively predicted confidence in fighting the pandemic, while anger negatively predicted confidence in fighting the pandemic. Therefore, the government and communities could make efforts at effective communication and find innovative approaches to make individuals (especially in the lockdown area) maintain social connections, reduce negative emotions, and enhance confidence in combating the pandemic.

Back to school or … back to lockdown? The effects of opening schools on the diffusion of COVID-19 in Italian regions

The opening of schools that coincided with the beginning of fall 2020 and the arrival of the second wave of COVID-19 in continental Europe has fostered significant debate in several countries. Some contributions have suggested that youngsters play a minor role in the spread of the virus, given the specific characteristics of this infection; other scholars have raised concerns about the necessary movement that involves keeping schools open, and the consequent potential spread of the virus. In this study, we focus on the Italian case, an interesting setting in which to test the impact of opening schools on the spread of COVID-19, because of the different dates at which schools have opened in the various Italian provinces, and because of the different rates at which the virus has spread across Italy. Our results suggest that open schools have a positive impact on COVID-19 cases, whose spread occurs between 10 and 14 days after opening. While closing schools or using distance learning have other social and economic consequences, making it necessary for policymakers to adopt a holistic evaluation, it should be taken into account that open schools have an impact on the spread of the pandemic.

Work ethics, stay-at-home measures and COVID-19 diffusion : How is the pandemic affected by the way people perceive work?

Non-pharmaceutical interventions aimed at reducing the spread of COVID-19 rely largely on voluntary compliance among the target population to be effective, since such measures, which are aimed at the entire population, are very hard to enforce. In this paper, we focus on the impact of different work ethics on the spread of COVID-19. There are indeed reasons to believe that populations with different attitudes toward work will react differently to stay-at-home orders and other policies that forbid people from working. By means of a quantitative analysis, using hybrid model estimators, we test the impact of different work ethics on COVID-19 diffusion in a sample of 30 European countries. Results show that the more a population holds certain beliefs about work-namely, that it is humiliating to receive money without working, that people who do not work become lazy, and that work always comes first-the higher contagion rates of COVID-19 are, ceteris paribus. On the other hand, the more a population perceives work as a social duty, the lower contagion rates are. All this suggests that different work ethics matter in the containment of COVID-19.

Association of Republican partisanship with US citizens’ mobility during the first period of the COVID crisis

While Republican states have been criticized for their limited efforts to contain the spread of COVID-19, it is important to consider that political orientation can modify human behaviour via complex effects that are still poorly understood. During the first period of the pandemic, we found that the association of Republican partisanship with US citizens' mobility varied depending on the nature of the exposure being considered. First, Republican partisanship was associated with increased mobility when the stringency of anti-COVID measures increased. Second, Republican partisanship was associated with decreased mobility when COVID-related deaths increased. Third, Republican partisanship was associated with increased mobility over time, i.e. as time went by, citizens living in Republican states were more mobile than those in Democratic states. These findings raise caution on any over-interpretation of the impact of polarization in US politics on COVID-related behaviour. They prompt consideration of persuasive tools that emphasize risk perception to promote social distancing in Republican states, rather than relying heavily on stringent anti-COVID interventions.

Death takes no bribes: Impact of perceived corruption on the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions at combating COVID-19

Corruption is considered in the literature as an activity with several externalities and spillover effects. Adding to the recent research on the corruption-COVID-19 nexus, we study the impact of corruption on coronavirus cases. High perceived levels of corruption have been proven to lead to lower institutional trust, and hence possibly to lower levels of citizen compliance with non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), such as lockdowns, imposed by the authorities during the first wave of the pandemic to reduce the spread of coronavirus. Applying quantitative analysis with the use of hybrid models, we find that in countries with higher levels of perceived corruption, across alternative corruption measures, more COVID-19 cases are observed, ceteris paribus. This suggests that corruption has a detrimental effect on the spread of COVID-19, and that countries experiencing higher levels of corruption should pay extra attention when implementing NPIs.

Fighting COVID in Central Asia: Governance Quality and Non-Pharmaceutical Effectiveness in the 'stans

To fight coronavirus disease 2019, non-pharmaceutical interventions were adopted all over the world. Non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI) effectiveness also depends on governments’ capacity to implement sound policies. Stay-at-home orders are binding measures that can raise serious concerns among the population. The perceived quality and effective need for these measures are therefore crucial for the willingness of the citizens to accept NPIs. This study investigates the relationship between the efficacy of NPIs and governance quality in Central Asia. Results suggest that overall governance quality matters and that in this relationship regulatory quality is more important than rule of law, which matters more than government effectiveness.

The Effects of School Closures on COVID-19: A Cross-Country Panel Analysis

BACKGROUND

There has been much debate about the effects and importance of closing, keeping closed, or not opening schools in order to prevent COVID-19 contagion. This policy has been questioned regarding both its efficacy and the social cost it entails, including the possible asymmetric impact it has on genders in many societies due to traditional childcare roles. To the best of our knowledge no existing contribution has attempted to gauge the effectiveness of such a policy over time, in a longitudinal cross-country perspective.

OBJECTIVES

This paper aimed to fill the gap in the literature by assessing, at a European level, the effect of school closures (or the lack of such measures) on the numbers of new COVID-19 infections, in the absence of vaccines. Given this policy's expected change in effectiveness over time, we also measured the effectiveness of having schools closed after a given number of days (from 7 to 100).

METHODS

We pursued our objectives by means of a quantitative panel analysis, building a longitudinal dataset with observations from countries in Europe, from 1 January to 30 September, and estimating the impact of school closure via feasible-generalised least-squares fixed effect and random effect estimators, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed models.

RESULTS

Our results show that having schools closed is effective in reducing the number of new cases. Countries that implement closure have fewer new COVID-19 cases than those that do not. This becomes a reality around 20 days after the implementation of the policy. Its efficacy continues to be detectable up to 100 days after implementation. The result is robust to controls for other forms of social distancing.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that school closure is effective in reducing the number of people who are infected with COVID-19. Unlike what has been suggested in previous analyses or with regard to other diseases, its efficacy continues to be detectable up to 100 days after the introduction of the policy.

One year of COVID-19 in Italy: are containment policies enough to shape the pandemic pattern?

A successful fight against COVID-19 greatly depends on citizens' adherence to the restrictive measures, which may not suffice alone. Making use of a containment index, data on sanctions, and Google's movement trends across Italian provinces, complemented by other sources, we investigate the extent to which compliance with the mobility limitations has affected the number of infections and deaths over time, for the period running from February 24, 2020 to February 23, 2021. We find proof of a deterrent effect on mobility given by the increase in sanction rate and positivity rate among the population. We also show how the pandemic dynamics have changed between the first and the second wave of the emergency. Lots of people could be spared by incorporating greater interventions and many more are at stake, despite the recent boost in vaccinations. Informing citizens about the effects and purposes of the restrictive measures has become increasingly important throughout the various phases of the pandemic.

Does social capital enforce social distancing? The role of bridging and bonding social capital in the evolution of the pandemic

By shaping the way people look at members of their networks as well as strangers, social capital affects the behavior of a population during a pandemic. Over the course of 2020, various countries implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI), imposing restrictions that were difficult to enforce (due to the scale of the policies) in order to protect the public from the threat of COVID-19. This is an interesting quasi-experimental setting in which to test the compliance of populations with different levels of social capital with government suggestions and prescriptions. With the help of European Social Survey data, and the John Hopkins University dataset on the spread of COVID-19 around the world, the present work aims to test the impact within a sample of European countries with different social capital stocks on the spread of coronavirus. The results show that countries with higher social capital have fewer COVID-19 cases, ceteris paribus for NPI. This is especially true if this capital is of the bonding kind.