PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Lukas Boesch
TI  - Lockdown benefit varies among countries and sub-national units: a reanalysis of the data by Bendavid et al. (2021)
AID  - 10.1101/2021.02.17.21251898
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.02.17.21251898
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/09/2021.02.17.21251898.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/09/2021.02.17.21251898.full
AB  - Are the lockdown measures limiting the propagation of COVID-19? Recent analyses on the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions in reducing COVID-19 growth rates delivered conflicting conclusions. While Haug et al. (2020) did find strong empirical support for reductions in COVID-19 growth rates, Bendavid et al. (2021) did not. Here, I present the results of a reanalysis of the data by Bendavid et al. (2021). Instead of relying on pairwise comparisons between 10 countries with fixed-effects regression models to isolate the effect of lockdown measures, I modelled the development of the pandemic with and without lockdown measures for the entire period and all countries included in the data with one mixed-effects regression model. My results reconciled the conflicting conclusions of Haug et al. (2020) and Bendavid et al. (2021): while mandatory business closure orders did not affect COVID-19 growth rates, a general decrease in COVID-19 growth rates was attributable to the implementation of mandatory stay-at-home orders. However, the effect of mandatory stay-at-home orders varied, being weaker, even zero, in some countries and sub-national units and stronger in others, where COVID-19 growth rates only decreased due to the implementation of mandatory stay-at-home orders. The heterogeneity in the effect of mandatory stay-at-home orders on the spread of COVID-19 is challenging from a scientific and political point of view.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe university of Leipzig funded my researchAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:I conducted a reanalysis of the data in Bendavid et al. (2021). No oversight body approved the researchAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as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).YesI 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.YesData is already available in Bendavid et al. (2021) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484