The impact of a COVID-19 lockdown on work productivity under good and poor compliance.


Journal

European journal of public health
ISSN: 1464-360X
Titre abrégé: Eur J Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9204966

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
26 10 2021
Historique:
pubmed: 7 8 2021
medline: 29 10 2021
entrez: 6 8 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, governments across the globe have imposed strict social distancing measures. Public compliance to such measures is essential for their success, yet the economic consequences of compliance are unknown. This is the first study to analyze the effects of good compliance compared with poor compliance to a COVID-19 suppression strategy (i.e. lockdown) on work productivity. We estimate the differences in work productivity comparing a scenario of good compliance with one of poor compliance to the UK government COVID-19 suppression strategy. We use projections of the impact of the UK suppression strategy on mortality and morbidity from an individual-based epidemiological model combined with an economic model representative of the labour force in Wales and England. We find that productivity effects of good compliance significantly exceed those of poor compliance and increase with the duration of the lockdown. After 3 months of the lockdown, work productivity in good compliance is £398.58 million higher compared with that of poor compliance; 75% of the differences is explained by productivity effects due to morbidity and non-health reasons and 25% attributed to avoided losses due to pre-mature mortality. Good compliance to social distancing measures exceeds positive economic effects, in addition to health benefits. This is an important finding for current economic and health policy. It highlights the importance to set clear guidelines for the public, to build trust and support for the rules and if necessary, to enforce good compliance to social distancing measures.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, governments across the globe have imposed strict social distancing measures. Public compliance to such measures is essential for their success, yet the economic consequences of compliance are unknown. This is the first study to analyze the effects of good compliance compared with poor compliance to a COVID-19 suppression strategy (i.e. lockdown) on work productivity.
METHODS
We estimate the differences in work productivity comparing a scenario of good compliance with one of poor compliance to the UK government COVID-19 suppression strategy. We use projections of the impact of the UK suppression strategy on mortality and morbidity from an individual-based epidemiological model combined with an economic model representative of the labour force in Wales and England.
RESULTS
We find that productivity effects of good compliance significantly exceed those of poor compliance and increase with the duration of the lockdown. After 3 months of the lockdown, work productivity in good compliance is £398.58 million higher compared with that of poor compliance; 75% of the differences is explained by productivity effects due to morbidity and non-health reasons and 25% attributed to avoided losses due to pre-mature mortality.
CONCLUSION
Good compliance to social distancing measures exceeds positive economic effects, in addition to health benefits. This is an important finding for current economic and health policy. It highlights the importance to set clear guidelines for the public, to build trust and support for the rules and if necessary, to enforce good compliance to social distancing measures.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34358291
pii: 6343457
doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckab138
pmc: PMC8385936
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1009-1015

Subventions

Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_19012
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/R015600/1
Pays : United Kingdom

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association.

Auteurs

Julius Ohrnberger (J)

School of Public Health, MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Alexa Blair Segal (AB)

Department of Management & Centre for Health Economics & Policy Innovation, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Giovanni Forchini (G)

Department of Economics, Umeå School of Business, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.

Marisa Miraldo (M)

Department of Management & Centre for Health Economics & Policy Innovation, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Janetta Skarp (J)

School of Public Health, MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Gemma Nedjati-Gilani (G)

School of Public Health, MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Daniel J Laydon (DJ)

School of Public Health, MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Azra Ghani (A)

School of Public Health, MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Neil M Ferguson (NM)

School of Public Health, MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Katharina Hauck (K)

School of Public Health, MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH