PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Stefanie Schurer AU - Kadir Atalay AU - Nick Glozier AU - Esperanza Vera-Toscano AU - Mark Wooden TI - Zero-COVID Policies: Melbourne’s 112-Day Hard Lockdown Experiment Harmed Mostly Mothers AID - 10.1101/2022.01.30.22270130 DP - 2022 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2022.01.30.22270130 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/02/02/2022.01.30.22270130.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/02/02/2022.01.30.22270130.full AB - Lockdowns were used worldwide to mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2. We demonstrate that the 112-day hard lockdown in Melbourne, Australia, the longest among OECD jurisdictions, exclusively penalized families with young children. To identify the causal impact of lockdown, we interrogated nationally-representative longitudinal survey data and exploited quasi- experimental variation in Melbourne’s lockdown, one that left other jurisdictions unaffected. Using difference-in-differences estimation, we found that, surprisingly, most vulnerable groups (the young, poor, lonely and those with previous mental health conditions) were left unscathed. However, we found mothers experienced significant, sizable declines in health and work hours, and increases in loneliness, despite feeling safer and being more active. Zero-COVID policies are not as harmful as may have been expected but came at high cost to mothers in society.One-Sentence Summary: Melbourne’s hard lockdown left most vulnerable groups unscathed but led to greater ill- health and loneliness in mothers.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC).Author 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:We used data from the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey which is publically available. This paper uses unit record data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey, conducted by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research on behalf of the Australian Government Department of Social Services (DSS) (Release 20, doi:10.26193/PI5LPJ, ADA Dataverse.) The findings and views reported in this paper, however, are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Australian Government, the DSS, or the Melbourne Institute. The data used are available free of charge to researchers through the National Centre for Longitudinal Data Dataverse at the Australian Data Archive (https://dataverse.ada.edu.au/dataverse/ncld). Access is subject to approval by the Australian Government Department of Social Services and is conditional on signing a license specifying terms of use.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.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.YesAll data produced are available online at: https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/hilda