Yan Ma1, Dong-Shan Zhu2,3, Shiva Raj Mishra4,5, Xi-Kun Han6,7. 1. Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China. 2. Centre for Health Management and Policy Research, School of Public Health, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, 44 Wenhuaxi Road, Jinan, 250012, Shandong, China. dongshan.zhu@uq.net.au. 3. NHC Key Lab of Health Economics and Policy Research (Shandong University), Jinan, 250012, China. dongshan.zhu@uq.net.au. 4. World Heart Federation, Rue de Malatrex 32, 1201, Geneva, Switzerland. 5. Nepal Development Society, Chitwan, Bharatpur-10, Bagmati Province, Nepal. 6. Statistical Genetics, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia. 7. School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The transmission dynamics and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is different across countries or regions. Differences in governments' policy responses may explain some of these differences. We aimed to compare worldwide government responses to the spread of COVID-19, to examine the relationship between response level, response timing and the epidemic trajectory. METHODS: Free publicly-accessible data collected by the Coronavirus Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT) were used. Nine sub-indicators reflecting government response from 148 countries were collected systematically from January 1 to May 1, 2020. The sub-indicators were scored and were aggregated into a common Stringency Index (SI, a value between 0 and 100) that reflects the overall stringency of the government's response in a daily basis. Group-based trajectory modelling method was used to identify trajectories of SI. Multivariable linear regression models were used to analyse the association between time to reach a high-level SI and time to the peak number of daily new cases. RESULTS: Our results identified four trajectories of response in the spread of COVID-19 based on when the response was initiated: before January 13, from January 13 to February 12, from February 12 to March 11, and the last stage-from March 11 (the day WHO declared a pandemic of COVID-19) on going. Governments' responses were upgraded with further spread of COVID-19 but varied substantially across countries. After the adjustment of SI level, geographical region and initiation stages, each day earlier to a high SI level (SI > 80) from the start of response was associated with 0.44 (standard error: 0.08, P < 0.001, R2 = 0.65) days earlier to the peak number of daily new case. Also, each day earlier to a high SI level from the date of first reported case was associated with 0.65 (standard error: 0.08, P < 0.001, R2 = 0.42) days earlier to the peak number of daily new case. CONCLUSIONS: Early start of a high-level response to COVID-19 is associated with early arrival of the peak number of daily new cases. This may help to reduce the delays in flattening the epidemic curve to the low spread level.
BACKGROUND: The transmission dynamics and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is different across countries or regions. Differences in governments' policy responses may explain some of these differences. We aimed to compare worldwide government responses to the spread of COVID-19, to examine the relationship between response level, response timing and the epidemic trajectory. METHODS: Free publicly-accessible data collected by the Coronavirus Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT) were used. Nine sub-indicators reflecting government response from 148 countries were collected systematically from January 1 to May 1, 2020. The sub-indicators were scored and were aggregated into a common Stringency Index (SI, a value between 0 and 100) that reflects the overall stringency of the government's response in a daily basis. Group-based trajectory modelling method was used to identify trajectories of SI. Multivariable linear regression models were used to analyse the association between time to reach a high-level SI and time to the peak number of daily new cases. RESULTS: Our results identified four trajectories of response in the spread of COVID-19 based on when the response was initiated: before January 13, from January 13 to February 12, from February 12 to March 11, and the last stage-from March 11 (the day WHO declared a pandemic of COVID-19) on going. Governments' responses were upgraded with further spread of COVID-19 but varied substantially across countries. After the adjustment of SI level, geographical region and initiation stages, each day earlier to a high SI level (SI > 80) from the start of response was associated with 0.44 (standard error: 0.08, P < 0.001, R2 = 0.65) days earlier to the peak number of daily new case. Also, each day earlier to a high SI level from the date of first reported case was associated with 0.65 (standard error: 0.08, P < 0.001, R2 = 0.42) days earlier to the peak number of daily new case. CONCLUSIONS: Early start of a high-level response to COVID-19 is associated with early arrival of the peak number of daily new cases. This may help to reduce the delays in flattening the epidemic curve to the low spread level.
Entities:
Keywords:
COVID-19; Multivariable linear regression models; Response; Stringency Index
Authors: Emilia Morawiec; Maria Miklasińska-Majdanik; Jolanta Bratosiewicz-Wąsik; Robert D Wojtyczka; Denis Swolana; Ireneusz Stolarek; Michał Czerwiński; Aleksandra Skubis-Sikora; Magdalena Samul; Agnieszka Polak; Celina Kruszniewska-Rajs; Adam Pudełko; Marek Figlerowicz; Anna Bednarska-Czerwińska; Tomasz J Wąsik Journal: Pathogens Date: 2022-07-08