Policy determinants of COVID-19 pandemic–induced fatality rates across nations

Silva, Jaime A. Teixeira da; Tsigaris, Panagiotis

doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2020.08.008

Cited by 21 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the present study, it was observed that Argentina and Colombia have a CDR of 51.6 and 52.2 in people over 30 and under 100 years old, respectively. Results similar analyzing data from 121 countries, 46 high-income, 36 upper-middle-income and 39 low, they found that the CDR of high countries is 2.16 times higher compared to upper-middle-income countries (166 vs. 77) and 6.1 times higher than poor countries (166 vs. 27) were recently reported (6).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

The role of population structure when measuring COVID-19 impact across countries

Bramajo

Infantino

Unda³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The search for accurate indicators to compare the pandemic impact between countries is still a challenge. The crude death rate, case fatality rate by country and sex, standardized fatality rate, and standardized death rate were calculated using data from Argentina and Colombia countries. We show that even when frequently used indicator as deaths per million are quite similar, 512 deaths per million in Argentina and 522 deaths per million in Colombia, a significant heterogeneity can be found when the mortality data is decomposed by sex or age.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

The role of population structure when measuring COVID-19 impact across countries

Bramajo

Infantino

Unda³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We included two observational 43 44 and thirteen modeling studies 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 .…”

Section: Findings Of Included Studies On Effectiveness (N=65)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Da Silva et al found that delaying policies for international travel restrictions led to a higher case fatality rate to similar degrees as public information campaigns and testing. 56 .…”

Section: Findings Of Included Studies On Effectiveness (N=65)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Public health effects of travel-related policies on the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods systematic review

Bou-Karroum¹,

Khabsa²,

Jabbour³

et al. 2021

Journal of Infection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To map travel policies implemented due to COVID-19 during 2020, and conduct a mixed-methods systematic review of health effects of such policies, and related contextual factors. Design Policy mapping and systematic review Data sources and eligibility criteria for the policy mapping, we searched websites of relevant government bodies and used data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker for a convenient sample of 31 countries across different regions. For the systematic review, we searched Medline (Ovid), PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and COVID-19 specific databases. We included randomized controlled trial, non-randomized studies, modeling studies, and qualitative studies. Two independent reviewers selected studies, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Results Most countries adopted a total border closure at the start of the pandemic. For the remainder of the year, partial border closure banning arrivals from some countries or regions was the most widely adopted measure, followed by mandatory quarantine and screening of travelers. The systematic search identified 69 eligible studies, including 50 modeling studies. Both observational and modeling evidence suggest that border closure may reduce the number of COVID-19 cases, disease spread across countries and between regions, and slow the progression of the outbreak. These effects are likely to be enhanced when implemented early, and when combined with measures reducing transmission rates in the community. Quarantine of travelers may decrease the number of COVID-19 cases but its effectiveness depends on compliance and enforcement and is more effective if followed by testing, especially when less than 14 day-quarantine is considered. Screening at departure and/or arrival is unlikely to detect a large proportion of cases or to delay an outbreak. Effectiveness of screening may be improved with increased sensitivity of screening tests, awareness of travelers, asymptomatic screening, and exit screening at country source. While four studies on contextual evidence found that the majority of the public is supportive of travel restrictions, they uncovered concerns about the unintended harms of those policies. Conclusion Most countries adopted full or partial border closure in response to COVID-19 in 2020. Evidence suggests positive effects on controlling the COVID-19 pandemic for border closure (particularly when implemented early), as well as quarantine of travelers (particularly with higher levels of compliance). While these positive effects are enhanced when implemented in combination with other public health measures, they are associated with concerns by the public regarding some unintended effects.

show abstract

“…A recent study estimated the cost of a future major epidemic or pandemic, including the valuation of lives lost, at 720,000 deaths per year at an annual loss of US$0.5 trillion per year equivalent to a cost of 0.6% of global income per year [11]. In a cross-sectional study of 121 nations, evidence showed that a delay in policy enactment, such as international travel restrictions and testing policies, led to a higher fatality rate relative to not delaying such mandates [12].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating worldwide costs of premature mortalities caused by COVID-19

Silva¹,

Tsigaris

2021

JHR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to provide an estimate of the costs of premature mortality caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.Design/methodology/approachUsing COVID-19 pandemic-derived mortality data for November 9, 2020 (globally 1,303,215 deaths) and applying a country-based value of statistical life (VSL), the worldwide cost of premature mortality was assessed. The cost was assessed based on income groups until November 9, 2020 and projected into the future until March 1, 2021 using three scenarios from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME).FindingsThe global cost of premature mortality is currently estimated at Int$5.9 trillion. For the high-income group, the current estimated cost is Int$ $4.4 trillion or $3,700 per person. Using IHME projections until March 1, 2021, global premature mortality costs will increase to Int$13.7 trillion and reach Int$22.1 trillion if policies are relaxed, while the cost with 95% universal masks is Int$10.9 trillion. The richest nations will bear the largest burden of these costs, reaching $15,500 per person by March 1, 2021 if policies are relaxed.Originality/valueThe cost of human lives lost due to the pandemic is unprecedented. Preparedness in the future is the best policy to avoid many premature deaths and severe recessions in order to combat pandemics.

show abstract

Policy determinants of COVID-19 pandemic–induced fatality rates across nations

Cited by 21 publications

References 9 publications

The role of population structure when measuring COVID-19 impact across countries

The role of population structure when measuring COVID-19 impact across countries

Public health effects of travel-related policies on the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods systematic review

Estimating worldwide costs of premature mortalities caused by COVID-19

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About