ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Sci Rep. 2022 May 9;12(1):7526. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-11362-x.
To control the COVID-19 pandemic, countries around the world have implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), such as school closures or stay-at-home orders. Previous work has estimated the effectiveness of NPIs, yet without examining variation in NPI effectiveness across countries. Based on data from the first epidemic wave of [Formula: see text] countries, we estimate country-specific differences in the effectiveness of NPIs via a semi-mechanistic Bayesian hierarchical model. Our estimates reveal substantial variation between countries, indicating that NPIs have been more effective in some countries (e. g. Switzerland, New Zealand, and Iceland) as compared to others (e. g. Singapore, South Africa, and France). We then explain differences in the effectiveness of NPIs through 12 country characteristics (e. g. population age, urbanization, employment, etc.). A positive association with country-specific effectiveness of NPIs was found for government effectiveness, gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, population ages 65+, and health expenditures. Conversely, a negative association with effectiveness of NPIs was found for the share of informal employment, average household size and population density. Overall, the wealth and demographic structure of a country can explain variation in the effectiveness of NPIs.
为了控制 COVID-19 大流行,世界各国都采取了非药物干预措施(NPIs),例如学校停课或居家令。先前的研究已经评估了 NPIs 的效果,但没有考察各国之间 NPI 效果的差异。基于[Formula: see text]个国家的首轮疫情数据,我们通过半机械的贝叶斯层次模型来估算各国 NPI 的具体效果差异。我们的估算结果显示各国之间存在显著差异,表明 NPI 在某些国家(如瑞士、新西兰和冰岛)的效果要优于其他国家(如新加坡、南非和法国)。然后,我们通过 12 个国家特征(如人口年龄、城市化、就业等)来解释 NPI 效果的差异。我们发现,政府效能、人均国内生产总值(GDP)、65 岁以上人口比例和卫生支出与 NPI 的具体效果呈正相关。相反,非正规就业比例、平均家庭规模和人口密度与 NPI 的效果呈负相关。总的来说,一个国家的财富和人口结构可以解释 NPI 效果的差异。