• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

运用反事实模型比较英国、瑞典和丹麦对 COVID-19 的应对措施。

Comparing the responses of the UK, Sweden and Denmark to COVID-19 using counterfactual modelling.

机构信息

MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Jameel Institute for Disease and Emergency Analytics, Imperial College London, London, UK.

出版信息

Sci Rep. 2021 Aug 11;11(1):16342. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-95699-9.

DOI:10.1038/s41598-021-95699-9
PMID:34381102
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8358009/
Abstract

The UK and Sweden have among the worst per-capita COVID-19 mortality in Europe. Sweden stands out for its greater reliance on voluntary, rather than mandatory, control measures. We explore how the timing and effectiveness of control measures in the UK, Sweden and Denmark shaped COVID-19 mortality in each country, using a counterfactual assessment: what would the impact have been, had each country adopted the others' policies? Using a Bayesian semi-mechanistic model without prior assumptions on the mechanism or effectiveness of interventions, we estimate the time-varying reproduction number for the UK, Sweden and Denmark from daily mortality data. We use two approaches to evaluate counterfactuals which transpose the transmission profile from one country onto another, in each country's first wave from 13th March (when stringent interventions began) until 1st July 2020. UK mortality would have approximately doubled had Swedish policy been adopted, while Swedish mortality would have more than halved had Sweden adopted UK or Danish strategies. Danish policies were most effective, although differences between the UK and Denmark were significant for one counterfactual approach only. Our analysis shows that small changes in the timing or effectiveness of interventions have disproportionately large effects on total mortality within a rapidly growing epidemic.

摘要

英国和瑞典的人均 COVID-19 死亡率在欧洲处于较高水平。瑞典的特点是更加依赖自愿而非强制的控制措施。我们使用反事实评估方法来探讨英国、瑞典和丹麦的控制措施的时机和效果如何塑造了每个国家的 COVID-19 死亡率:如果每个国家都采用了其他国家的政策,会产生什么影响?我们使用一种贝叶斯半机械模型,该模型对干预措施的机制或效果没有先验假设,从每日死亡率数据中估计英国、瑞典和丹麦的时变繁殖数。我们使用两种方法来评估反事实情况,即将传播情况从一个国家转移到另一个国家,在每个国家的第一波疫情(从 3 月 13 日(开始实施严格干预措施)到 2020 年 7 月 1 日)中进行。如果采用瑞典的政策,英国的死亡率将增加约一倍,而如果瑞典采用英国或丹麦的策略,瑞典的死亡率将减少一半以上。丹麦的政策最为有效,尽管在一种反事实方法中,英国和丹麦之间的差异仅在一种情况下具有统计学意义。我们的分析表明,在快速增长的疫情中,干预措施的时机或效果的微小变化对总死亡率的影响不成比例。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7104/8358009/a5bcdb19e25e/41598_2021_95699_Fig4_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7104/8358009/02f9cb83a6fc/41598_2021_95699_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7104/8358009/6ca840eaab3d/41598_2021_95699_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7104/8358009/3bbde3b3ab25/41598_2021_95699_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7104/8358009/a5bcdb19e25e/41598_2021_95699_Fig4_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7104/8358009/02f9cb83a6fc/41598_2021_95699_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7104/8358009/6ca840eaab3d/41598_2021_95699_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7104/8358009/3bbde3b3ab25/41598_2021_95699_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7104/8358009/a5bcdb19e25e/41598_2021_95699_Fig4_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Comparing the responses of the UK, Sweden and Denmark to COVID-19 using counterfactual modelling.运用反事实模型比较英国、瑞典和丹麦对 COVID-19 的应对措施。
Sci Rep. 2021 Aug 11;11(1):16342. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-95699-9.
2
Evaluating the COVID-19 responses of Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, February-June 2020: a counterfactual modeling study.评估比利时、丹麦、德国、荷兰、瑞典和英国2020年2月至6月对2019冠状病毒病的应对措施:一项反事实建模研究。
BMC Med. 2025 Apr 28;23(1):247. doi: 10.1186/s12916-025-04071-5.
3
Public health, surveillance policies and actions to prevent community spread of COVID-19 in Denmark, Serbia and Sweden.丹麦、塞尔维亚和瑞典的公共卫生、监测政策和行动,以预防 COVID-19 在社区的传播。
Scand J Public Health. 2022 Aug;50(6):711-729. doi: 10.1177/14034948211056215. Epub 2021 Nov 29.
4
Social Distancing Policies in the Coronavirus Battle: A Comparison of Denmark and Sweden.新冠疫情防控中的社交距离政策:丹麦与瑞典之比较
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Oct 19;18(20):10990. doi: 10.3390/ijerph182010990.
5
High excess deaths in Sweden during the first wave of COVID-19: Policy deficiencies or 'dry tinder'?高超额死亡率在瑞典在 COVID-19 的第一波期间:政策缺陷还是“干柴”?
Scand J Public Health. 2022 Feb;50(1):33-37. doi: 10.1177/14034948211027818. Epub 2021 Jul 2.
6
Acceptability of restrictions in the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based survey in Denmark and Sweden.《COVID-19 大流行期间限制措施的可接受性:丹麦和瑞典的一项基于人群的调查》。
Front Public Health. 2023 Aug 3;11:988882. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.988882. eCollection 2023.
7
A comparison of COVID-19 epidemiological indicators in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland.瑞典、挪威、丹麦和芬兰新冠肺炎流行病学指标的比较。
Scand J Public Health. 2021 Feb;49(1):69-78. doi: 10.1177/1403494820980264. Epub 2021 Jan 7.
8
Differences in socioeconomic and gender inequalities in tobacco smoking in Denmark and Sweden; a cross sectional comparison of the equity effect of different public health policies.丹麦和瑞典的社会经济和性别不平等在吸烟方面的差异;不同公共卫生政策公平效应的横断面比较。
BMC Public Health. 2010 Jan 9;10:9. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-9.
9
COVID-19 healthcare demand and mortality in Sweden in response to non-pharmaceutical mitigation and suppression scenarios.瑞典针对非药物缓解和抑制情景的 COVID-19 医疗需求和死亡率。
Int J Epidemiol. 2020 Oct 1;49(5):1443-1453. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyaa121.
10
The Hammer vs Mitigation-A comparative retrospective register study of the Swedish and Danish national responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.2020 年瑞典和丹麦对 COVID-19 大流行的国家应对措施之 Hammer 与缓解策略的对比回顾性登记研究。
APMIS. 2021 Jul;129(7):384-392. doi: 10.1111/apm.13133. Epub 2021 Apr 29.

引用本文的文献

1
Evaluating the COVID-19 responses of Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, February-June 2020: a counterfactual modeling study.评估比利时、丹麦、德国、荷兰、瑞典和英国2020年2月至6月对2019冠状病毒病的应对措施:一项反事实建模研究。
BMC Med. 2025 Apr 28;23(1):247. doi: 10.1186/s12916-025-04071-5.
2
Epidemiological outcomes and policy implementation in the Nordic countries during the COVID-19 pandemic.新冠疫情期间北欧国家的流行病学结果及政策实施情况。
Arch Public Health. 2025 Feb 20;83(1):46. doi: 10.1186/s13690-025-01531-5.
3
The need for methodological pluralism in epidemiological modelling.

本文引用的文献

1
A global panel database of pandemic policies (Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker).一个全球性的大流行病政策面板数据库(牛津 COVID-19 政府应对追踪器)。
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Apr;5(4):529-538. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01079-8. Epub 2021 Mar 8.
2
Successful Elimination of Covid-19 Transmission in New Zealand.新西兰成功消除新冠病毒传播
N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 20;383(8):e56. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2025203. Epub 2020 Aug 7.
3
Have deaths from COVID-19 in Europe plateaued due to herd immunity?欧洲因群体免疫而导致的新冠死亡人数是否已趋于平稳?
流行病学建模中方法多元化的必要性。
Glob Epidemiol. 2024 Dec 10;9:100177. doi: 10.1016/j.gloepi.2024.100177. eCollection 2025 Jun.
4
Patterns and drivers of excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic in 13 Western European countries.13个西欧国家在新冠疫情期间的超额死亡率模式及驱动因素。
BMC Glob Public Health. 2024 Dec 9;2(1):78. doi: 10.1186/s44263-024-00103-z.
5
Effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions for COVID-19 in USA.美国非药物干预措施对 COVID-19 的有效性。
Sci Rep. 2024 Sep 13;14(1):21387. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-71984-1.
6
Examining the influence of Covid-19 restrictions, a nurse strike, and SARS-CoV-2 coinfection on bacteremia mortality: A Danish population-based cohort study (2019-2022).考察新冠疫情限制措施、护士罢工和新冠病毒合并感染对菌血症死亡率的影响:一项基于丹麦人群的队列研究(2019 - 2022年)
Heliyon. 2024 Jun 27;10(13):e33696. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33696. eCollection 2024 Jul 15.
7
The influence of cross-border mobility on the COVID-19 epidemic in Nordic countries.跨境流动对北欧国家 COVID-19 疫情的影响。
PLoS Comput Biol. 2024 Jun 12;20(6):e1012182. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012182. eCollection 2024 Jun.
8
Momentum lost or creating new constellations? Insights from an exercise-at-work project during the COVID-19 pandemic - a mixed methods approach.失去动力还是创造新的格局?新冠疫情期间一个工作场所锻炼项目的见解——一种混合方法研究。
Int Rev Sociol Sport. 2023 Mar;58(2):278-307. doi: 10.1177/10126902221101154.
9
Building resilience: analysis of health care leaders' perspectives on the Covid-19 response in Region Stockholm.建立韧性:斯德哥尔摩地区卫生保健领导人对新冠疫情应对措施的看法分析。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2024 Apr 2;24(1):408. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-10886-4.
10
Comparative impact assessment of COVID-19 policy interventions in five South Asian countries using reported and estimated unreported death counts during 2020-2021.2020 - 2021年期间,利用报告的和估计的未报告死亡人数对五个南亚国家新冠疫情政策干预措施进行的比较影响评估。
PLOS Glob Public Health. 2023 Dec 27;3(12):e0002063. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0002063. eCollection 2023.
Lancet. 2020 Jun 20;395(10241):e110-e111. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31357-X. Epub 2020 Jun 11.
4
Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe.估算非药物干预措施对欧洲 COVID-19 疫情的影响。
Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7820):257-261. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2405-7. Epub 2020 Jun 8.
5
The effect of large-scale anti-contagion policies on the COVID-19 pandemic.大规模防疫政策对 COVID-19 大流行的影响。
Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7820):262-267. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2404-8. Epub 2020 Jun 8.
6
The Covid-19 pandemic in Denmark: Big lessons from a small country.丹麦的新冠疫情:一个小国的重要经验教训。
Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2020 Jun;53:10-12. doi: 10.1016/j.cytogfr.2020.05.005. Epub 2020 May 13.
7
New Zealand eliminates COVID-19.新西兰消除了新冠病毒。
Lancet. 2020 May 9;395(10235):1474. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31097-7.
8
Mathematical models to characterize early epidemic growth: A review.用于描述早期疫情增长的数学模型:综述
Phys Life Rev. 2016 Sep;18:66-97. doi: 10.1016/j.plrev.2016.07.005. Epub 2016 Jul 11.