With the dramatic increase in infections in the United States, there is growing debate over whether states need to go back to severe social sanctions or even lockdowns, allowing only essential workers to leave home. But many people are not happy about the idea of re-entering the downdown, as the lockdown costs are both financial and emotional.
While we are likely to eventually get a lot of hard data on economic costs, some New Zealand researchers decided to look at the emotional toll. They conducted a detailed survey of the height of the lockout and found that, as expected, the restrictions affected people trapped in their homes for weeks. But its effect was seen on the younger and those who had experienced this before.
Lockdown NZ
Public health officials who advocate lockdowns in response to rising infection rates acknowledge that lockdowns are an emotional toll on people who have to live in their homes. The trade for this toll is to avoid death, serious illness, overload of healthcare systems, etc. and the lockdown is meant to be temporary; Once the rate of infection is sufficiently reduced, less stringent controls (such as social distance, limiting gatherings, and the use of masks) can keep infection rates low.
It takes a little bit of understanding to figure out how to balance these costs and benefits – we both want to know how effective an effective lockdown is in limiting infection, as well as an understanding of their financial and emotional costs. The last thing, the mental cost of the lockdown, was the focus of a team of researchers at the University of Ottogo, New Zealand.
In some ways, New Zealand is the ideal place for this type of study. Its lockdown was severe: all schools and non-essential businesses were closed, and everyone had to stay home for more than 30 days if they were not considered essential workers. It was the most restrictive approach adopted by any high-income country. Prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic, the country’s public health services regularly surveyed the population to gain an understanding of its mental health, providing a throat of data for comparison.
The limitation of New Zealand’s use was that its lockdowns and travel restrictions were so successful that very few people in the country experienced first-hand how serious the unexpected outbreak of SARS-CV-2 could be.
The research team conducted a comprehensive survey in the 19-223 days of the lockout, reaching a total of more than 2,000 residents. While he was not a complete representative of the country’s demographics, there was enough that researchers could adjust their responses to the proportions they represented.
Many questions focused on the living situation – how many people shared a home, there was access to personal and outdoor space, etc. Further, similar measures of mental health were used in previous surveys of the New Zealand population mostly in the questions: the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, the General Anxiety Disorder Assessment, and the World Health Organization Well-Being Index.
Not happy
Ninety percent of those surveyed said they were happy with their living conditions, and an equal number said they were in good health during the lockdown. Twenty percent of the people were working in jobs that were considered essential and so they were going out of the house regularly. Almost a quarter indicated that they have a condition that increases the risk that they should contract COVID-19. So, based on these numbers, there doesn’t seem to be anything particularly unusual about the population of the survey.
Although happy with their living arrangements, plenty of those surveyed were not particularly happy. About 100 percent is above the cutoff which would mark them as having at least moderate mental distress. This was especially pronounced in younger participants – only half of the 18-24 age group had that level of distress. When it comes to discomfort, the middle to severe class has a score of just over 15 percent. Like distress, people’s anxiety also decreased in old age. Only 40 percent of people under the WHO scale have reported poor well-being (only 9 percent fall into the excellent category).
In pre-epidemic surveys, about one percent reported distress, while only one quarter reported poor well-being based on the WHO scale. Therefore, it is clear that downdown conditions make people more difficult. About 20 percent of the population had a previous diagnosis of a mental health condition, but only about 10 percent of the 30 percent who got into trouble during a lockdown. Half of those diagnosed earlier felt things got worse during the epidemic, while only 15 percent felt things got better during the lockdown.
Six percent of people had suicidal thoughts during the lockdown, which is not good. But 100% of them had similar thoughts before the start of the lockdown, so most of these may be involved in stimulating the underlying trend.
Always look on the bright side
Despite all this, a surprising number of those surveyed saw bright spots in the lockdown. About one percent of respondents found some positive things for themselves personally, while 38 percent felt that there were positive aspects for society. The opportunity to spend more time with family to enjoy less noise and pollution received a positive response, resulting in fewer people leaving their homes. A number of people also enjoy working from home.
So, the data confirms what everyone doubts: Lockdown comes with a psychological cost. But beyond that, the data provides an abundance of potentially helpful information. This includes identifying people who may be most at risk for problems due to extended latency: young adults and people with a history of mental health diagnoses. These individuals may be targeted by public health officials in a way that minimizes the impact of the lockdown. The data also suggests that in lockdown people can find valuable items that can be emphasized to make people more conscious.
By replacing more mental health programs, it is possible to reduce the emotional cost of lockdown and shift the balance of benefits towards more aggressive epidemic control. And, given recent rates of infection, many countries are likely to face another lockdown in the near future.
Plaza A, 2020. DOI: 10.1371 / journal.pon.0241658 (about DOI).
