European governments use non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to control resurging waves of COVID-19. However, they only have outdated estimates for how effective individual NPIs were in the first wave. We estimate the effectiveness of 17 NPIs in Europe’s second wave from subnational case and death data by introducing a flexible hierarchical Bayesian transmission model and collecting the largest dataset of NPI implementation dates across Europe. Business closures, educational institution closures, and gathering bans reduced transmission, but reduced it less than they did in the first wave. This difference is likely due to organisational safety measures and individual protective behaviours—such as distancing—which made various areas of public life safer and thereby reduced the effect of closing them. Specifically, we find smaller effects for closing educational institutions, suggesting that stringent safety measures made schools safer compared to the first wave. Second-wave estimates outperform previous estimates at predicting transmission in Europe’s third wave.

As European governments face resurging waves of COVID-19, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) continue to be the primary tool for infection control. However, updated estimates of their relative effectiveness have been absent for Europe's second wave, largely due to a lack of collated data that considers the increased subnational variation and diversity of NPIs. We collect the largest dataset of NPI implementation dates in Europe, spanning 114 subnational areas in 7 countries, with a systematic categorisation of interventions tailored to the second wave. Using a hierarchical Bayesian transmission model, we estimate the effectiveness of 17 NPIs from local case and death data. We manually validate the data, address limitations in modelling from previous studies, and extensively test the robustness of our estimates. The combined effect of all NPIs was smaller relative to estimates from the first half of 2020, indicating the strong influence of safety measures and individual protective behaviours--such as distancing--that persisted after the first wave. Closing specific businesses was highly effective. Gathering restrictions were highly effective but only for the strictest limits. We find smaller effects for closing educational institutions compared to the first wave, suggesting that safer operation of schools was possible with a set of stringent safety measures including testing and tracing, preventing mixing, and smaller classes. These results underscore that effectiveness estimates from the early stage of an epidemic are measured relative to pre-pandemic behaviour. Updated estimates are required to inform policy in an ongoing pandemic.

During the second half of 2020, many European governments responded to the resurging transmission of SARS-CoV-2 with wide-ranging non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). These efforts were often highly targeted at the regional level and included fine-grained NPIs. This paper describes a new dataset designed for the accurate recording of NPIs in Europe’s second wave to allow precise modelling of NPI effectiveness. The dataset includes interventions from 114 regions in 7 European countries during the period from the 1st August 2020 to the 9th January 2021. The paper includes NPI definitions tailored to the second wave following an exploratory data collection. Each entry has been extensively validated by semi-independent double entry, comparison with existing datasets, and, when necessary, discussion with local epidemiologists. The dataset has considerable potential for use in disentangling the effectiveness of NPIs and comparing the impact of interventions across different phases of the pandemic.

Background. Creatine is an organic compound that facilitates the recycling of energy-providing adenosine triphosphate (ATP) in muscle and brain tissue. It is a safe, well-studied supplement for strength training. Previous studies have shown that supplementation increases brain creatine levels, which might increase cognitive performance. The results of studies that have tested cognitive performance differ greatly, possibly due to different populations, supplementation regimens and cognitive tasks. This is the largest study on the effect of creatine supplementation on cognitive performance to date. As part of our study, we replicated Rae et al. (2003). Methods. Our trial was cross-over, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and randomised, with daily supplementation of 5g for six weeks each. Like Rae et al. (2003), we tested participants on Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (RAPM) and on the Backward Digit Span (BDS). In addition, we included eight exploratory cognitive tests. About half of our 123 participants were vegetarians and half were omnivores. Results. There was no indication that vegetarians benefited more from creatine than omnivores, so we merged the two groups. Participants' scores after creatine and after placebo differed to an extent that was not statistically significant (BDS: p = 0.064, partial eta squared = 0.029; RAPM: p = 0.327, partial eta squared = 0.008). Compared to the null hypothesis of no effect, Bayes factors indicate weak evidence in favour of a small beneficial creatine effect and strong evidence against a large creatine effect. There was no indication that creatine improved the performance of our exploratory cognitive tasks. Side effects were reported significantly more often for creatine than for placebo supplementation (p = 0.002, RR = 4.25). Conclusions. Our results do not support large effects of creatine on the selected measures of cognition. However, our study, in combination with the literature, implies that creatine might have a small beneficial effect. Larger studies are needed to confirm or rule out this effect. Given the safety and broad availability of creatine, this is well worth investigating; a small effect could have large benefits when scaled over time and over many people.

The aim of this study was to explore the effects and interactions of mood, self-affirmation and a moral argument for donating called Drowning Child Argument (DCA) on attitudes concerning charitable donations. The design was a between subjects, randomised 2x2x2. The survey population consisted of 298 adults. This design made it possible to test, among other things, if self-affirmation would decrease defensiveness about the Drowning Child Argument and thus lead to more favourable attitudes on donating. It did. Both self-affirmed and not self-affirmed participants in the DCA condition agreed significantly more that it was wrong not to donate than did control participants, but self-affirmed DCA participants agreed more than not self-affirmed DCA participants. Self-affirmed DCA participants reported a higher intent to donate than not self-affirmed DCA participants and self-affirmed control participants. The findings of this study support the idea that defensiveness prevents people from accepting the conclusion of the Drowning Child Argument. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.