Abstract
Objective: To provide an early global assessment of the impact of government stringency measures on the rate of growth in deaths from COVID-19. We hypothesized that the overall stringency of a government's interventions and the speed of implementation would affect the growth and level of deaths related to COVID-19 in that country. Design: Observational study based on an original database of global governmental responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Daily data was collected on a range of containment and closure policies for 170 countries from January 1, 2020 until May 27, 2020 by a team of researchers at Oxford University, UK. These data were combined into an aggregate stringency index (SI) score for each country on each day (range: 0-100). Regression was used to show correlations between the speed and strength of government stringency and deaths related to COVID-19 with a number of controls for time and country-specific demographic, health system, and economic characteristics. Interventions: Nine non-pharmaceutical interventions such as school and work closures, restrictions on international and domestic travel, public gathering bans, public information campaigns, as well as testing and contact tracing policies. Main outcomes measures: The primary outcome was deaths related to COVID-19, measured both in terms of maximum daily deaths and growth rate of daily deaths. Results: For each day of delay to reach an SI 40, the average daily growth rate in deaths was 0.087 percentage points higher (0.056 to 0.118, P<0.001). In turn, each additional point on the SI was associated with a 0.080 percentage point lower average daily growth rate (-0.121 to -0.039, P<.001). These daily differences in growth rates lead to large cumulative differences in total deaths. For example, a week delay in enacting policy measures to SI 40 would lead to 1.7 times as many deaths overall. Conclusions: A lower degree of government stringency and slower response times were associated with more deaths from COVID-19. These findings highlight the importance of non-pharmaceutical responses to COVID-19 as more robust testing, treatment, and vaccination measures are developed.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No funding was received for this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Because the study did not involve human subjects or data, ethics board approval was not required.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All underlying data are freely available, and continuously updated, on the website of the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker: https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/research-projects/coronavirus-government-response-tracker
https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/research-projects/coronavirus-government-response-tracker
