简体中文
Policies in response to the pandemic have largely been divided between countries that mitigate against the virus and those trying to eradicate it from their borders. /AP/Jorge Saenz
According to a
study published in
The Lancet
, countries that tried to eradicate COVID-19 from their population have fared far better – registering fewer deaths and performing better economically – than those that opted to mitigate the impact of the coronavirus.
The research in the medical journal compared the UK with countries such as New Zealand, which early in the pandemic adopted a zero-cases policy, prompting early social restrictions.
The article's researchers – including leading public health experts, political scientists and economists – found that over the first 12 months of the pandemic, on average, countries that focused on mitigation suffered more deaths, negative GDP growth and more severe and longer-lasting social restrictions.
READ MORE
Happy pigs? AI learns animal emotions
The questions Boris Johnson is facing
Watch: Real-time map of space junk
The group compared countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that opted for elimination with those that went for mitigation.
They found that COVID-19 deaths per 1 million population in OECD countries that attempted elimination (Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Iceland, Australia among others) have been around 25 times lower than in those that favored mitigation.
GDP growth also never fell as far as among the mitigation countries and, for those that went with an elimination policy, is back to pre-pandemic levels.
Researcher Bary Pradelski, from the French National Centre for Scientific Research, said: "We have seen that those countries that acted pre-emptively and took swift action against local outbreaks were able to control the virus, while others were always at least one step behind."
READ MORE: Indians in UK raise funds to fight COVID-19
Researchers used the Oxford University-developed stringency index, which measures people's liberties, incorporating factors such as the opening or closing of schools, shops, restaurants and restrictions on individuals' movement. The study found that freedoms had also been more severely impinged in mitigation countries.
"Among OECD countries, liberties were most severely impacted in those that chose mitigation, whereas swift lockdown measures – in line with elimination – were less strict and of shorter duration. Importantly, elimination has been framed as a civic solidarity approach that will restore civil liberties the soonest; this focus on common purpose is frequently neglected in the political debate," the study noted.
Expert in microeconomics, researcher Miquel Oliu-Barton said: "Countries that have opted for elimination were able to create and protect green zones, where life can return to normal. Some countries are already forming green bridges, allowing safe travel."
The stop-start nature of restrictions in mitigation nations "is detrimental for long-term economic growth," explained author Philippe Aghion. "It prevents firms from long-term planning ... they accumulate cash for the next lockdown."
The study recommends aiming for global elimination of the coronavirus as the best means out of the pandemic.
Calling for an international strategy to end the pandemic, especially in light of dangerous mutations, the study concluded by praising the new U.S. government's recent declaration that "this pandemic won't end at home until it ends worldwide."
