• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Arch Clin Biomed Res . Strict Lockdown versus Flexible Social Distance Strategy for COVID-19 Disease: a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Arch Clin Biomed Res


. 2023;7(1):58-63.
doi: 10.26502/acbr.50170319. Epub 2023 Feb 1.
Strict Lockdown versus Flexible Social Distance Strategy for COVID-19 Disease: a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis


Ben W Mol[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Jonathan Karnon[SUP] 2 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Objectives: To balance the costs and effects comparing a strict lockdown versus a flexible social distancing strategy for societies affected by Coronavirus-19 Disease (COVID-19).
Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis.
Participants: We used societal data and COVID-19 mortality rates from the public domain.
Interventions: The intervention was a strict lockdown strategy that has been followed by Denmark. Reference strategy was flexible social distancing policy as was applied by Sweden. We derived mortality rates from COVID-19 national statistics, assumed the expected life years lost from each COVID-19 death to be 11 years and calculated lost life years until 31[SUP]st[/SUP] August 2020. Expected economic costs were derived from gross domestic productivity (GDP) statistics from each country's official statistics bureau and forecasted GDP. The incremental financial costs of the strict lockdown were calculated by comparing Sweden with Denmark using externally available market information. Calculations were projected per one million inhabitants. In sensitivity analyses we varied the total cost of the lockdown (range -50% to +100%).
Main outcome measure: Financial costs per life years saved.
Results: In Sweden, the number of people who died with COVID-19 was 577 per million inhabitants, resulting in an estimated 6,350 life years lost per million inhabitants. In Denmark, where a strict lockdown strategy was installed for months, the number of people dying with COVID-19 was on average 111 per million, resulting in an estimated 1,216 life years per million inhabitants lost. The incremental costs of strict lockdown to save one life year was US$ 137,285, and higher in most of the sensitivity analyses.
Conclusions: Comparisons of public health interventions for COVID-19 should take into account life years saved and not only lost lives. Strict lockdown costs more than US$ 130,000 per life year saved. As our all our assumptions were in favour of strict lockdown, a flexible social distancing policy in response to COVID19 is defendable.

Keywords: COVID-19; Cost-Effectiveness Analysis; Flexible Social Distancing; Lockdown Strategy.
 
Back
Top Bottom