thelancet.com/journals/lance…
SARS-CoV-2 elimination, not mitigation, creates best outcomes for health, the economy, and civil liberties.
SARS-CoV-2 elimination, not mitigation, creates best outcomes for health, the economy, and civil liberties.
Public health, economic growth, democratic solidarity, and civil liberties are important factors when evaluating pandemic responses. There is mounting evidence that these objectives do not need to be in conflict in the COVID-19 response.
Countries that consistently aim for elimination—ie, maximum action to control SARS-CoV-2 and stop community transmission —have fared better than countries that opt for mitigation. (ie, action increased in a stepwise way to reduce cases so as not to overwhelm health-care systems)
There is also increasing consensus that elimination is preferable to mitigation in relation to a country's economic performance.
Elimination is superior to mitigation for GDP growth on average and at almost all time periods.
Elimination is superior to mitigation for GDP growth on average and at almost all time periods.
Despite advantages, elimination strategy has been criticised for restricting civil liberties. This claim can be challenged by analysing the stringency index developed Oxford. The index measures the strictness of lockdown-style policies that primarily restrict people's behaviour.
Among OECD countries, liberties were most severely impacted in those that chose mitigation, whereas swift lockdown measures were less strict and of shorter duration.
Evidence suggests that countries that opt for rapid action to eliminate SARS-CoV-2—with the strong support of their inhabitants—also better protect their economies and minimise restrictions on civil liberties compared with those that strive for mitigation.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
