[ad_1]
A Stanford University study indicated that mandatory requests to stay at home and close deals “do not have a clear and significant beneficial effect” on the growth of the “Covid-19” case.
Researchers at Stanford University in California aim to evaluate the impact of strict blocks on the growth of the infection compared to less restrictive measures.
They used data from England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, South Korea, Sweden, and the United States, collected during the early stages of the epidemic in spring 2020. They compared data from Sweden and South Korea, two countries that did not impose strict blockades at the time, with eight other countries.
They found that the introduction of any restrictive non-drug interventions, such as reducing work hours, working from home, and social distancing helped reduce infection rates in nine of the 10 countries studied, with the exception of Spain, where the effect “was not significant”.
However, when comparing the spread of the epidemic in places that have implemented less restrictive measures with those that have opted for total closure, they found “no clear beneficial effect” of the latter on the number of cases in any country.
Research continues to suggest that empirical data from the recent wave of infections shows that restrictive measures do not protect vulnerable populations. And “the rate of” Covid-19 “deaths that occurred in nursing homes was often higher,” under strict restrictions “rather than less restrictive measures.
The study also says that there is evidence that “sometimes, under more restrictive measures, infection can be more frequent in places where the vulnerable population resides, compared to the general population.
The investigation admits that the closure in early 2020 was justified, because the disease spread rapidly and overwhelmed health systems, and scientists or doctors did not know what the death data of the virus was.
However, it points to the potentially harmful health effects of strict restrictions, such as hunger, the unavailability of health services for diseases other than “Covid”, domestic violence and mental health problems, and their impacts on economics mean that restrictions can be overestimated and must be carefully considered.
The researchers concluded by saying that, although they could not rule out some “small benefits”, they did not find any “significant benefits” from more restrictive measures against the spread of infection. They claim that “similar reductions” can be achieved through “less restrictive interventions.”
[ad_2]
