[ad_1]
An article by Australian and Kiwi medical researchers in a leading medical journal says that countries that have adopted elimination approaches to the pandemic have suffered less economically on average than those that tried to suppress the disease.
the British medical journal The article published just before Christmas was written by University of Otago Professors of Public Health Michael Baker and Nick Wilson, and University of Melbourne Professor Tony Blakely.
Many countries are interested in measuring the merits of the closures and vigorous quarantine measures against Covid-19, especially since Sweden abandoned its controversial “herd immunity” approach.
Professor Danny Altmann, a professor of immunology at Imperial College London, says that blocking the transmission of the virus “is the only trick we have up our sleeve” in the fight against Covid-19.
The document believes that zero “elimination” or community transmission is achievable in some countries and may be preferable to traditional American and European approaches to controlling or suppressing a rapidly spreading disease.
READ MORE:
* Covid-19: the rise of the virus in Europe shows the limits of living with herd immunity against the coronavirus
* What NZ can learn from Taiwan about preparing for a pandemic
* Coronavirus: Is Elimination Still the Best Strategy?
* Coronavirus: the five Covid-19 strategies that New Zealand could have chosen
Professor Wilson said that one of the perceived barriers for nations trying to eliminate Covid-19 was the belief that this could sacrifice the economy and ultimately lead to further hardship and negative health effects.
“Our preliminary analysis suggests that the opposite is true. Countries following an elimination strategy, notably China, Taiwan, Australia and New Zealand, have suffered less economically than countries with repression goals. ”
The analysis was based on 2020 projections of gross domestic product or GDP from the International Monetary Fund.
ROSA WOODS / Things
University of Otago professor Michael Baker considers the article the most important he has ever written.
New Zealand’s GDP was forecast to contract 6.1 percent in 2020, but when considered with other countries pursuing Covid elimination (Australia, China, and Taiwan), the average was negative 2.1 percent. .
By comparison, North American and European countries with repressive strategies lost 7.5% of average GDP.
One of the criticisms of border closures is the cost of tourism revenue.
But Professor Wilson said the research suggests that the flow of tourists dropped substantially in a pandemic anyway, regardless of border restrictions.
“Iceland reopened to tourism, but demand remained low, imported Covid-19 boxes increased and the net effect was a drop in GDP greater than that seen in New Zealand.”
However, the document noted that the balance of benefits and costs was uncertain, “and may not be clear until after the pandemic has been completely controlled.”
A pandemic mitigation approach took steps to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed and to protect the vulnerable. But he also accepted that community broadcasting was likely unstoppable.
The suppression was intended to “flatten the curve of the epidemic more than mitigation,” but the disease was not yet expected to stop, according to the newspaper.
Both strategies took around 12 to 18 months before an exit plan was on the horizon, while the phase-out strategy only took two to three months, with ongoing quarantine measures until a vaccine or antimicrobial solution was found.
Some countries had been better prepared for the Sars pandemic in 2003, according to the newspaper.
Taiwan had avoided the lockdown entirely, and removal also appeared to be the dominant strategy in China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Mongolia.
Getty / EVA MARIE UZCATEGUI / AFP
Countries can do a lot until a vaccine becomes available by using outdated measures like quarantine and masks and newer forms of contact tracing.
The obvious benefits of the phase-out strategy were fewer cases and deaths, a lower risk of health sector overload, and the ability to avoid serious health inequalities, “such as the catastrophic effect of previous pandemics on Maori. the document says.
But it required informed input from scientists, political commitment, sufficient public health infrastructure, public commitment and trust, and a safety net to support vulnerable populations.
It also required packages of social, health and economic support, “given the inevitable loss of employment and other social disruptions when strict blocks are used.” Both New Zealand and Australia had implemented support for employees who were unable to work.
Baker, a pandemic expert recognized at recent New Years honors and who lobbied hard to block New Zealand, said the article was “the most important document I have ever written.”
New Zealand had also been following the path of mitigation with Covid-19 until it saw the success of some Asian countries with the elimination.
But it was “a great revolution in thinking” for managing the pandemic and he wanted other countries to know more about what had been done here.
“Over the course of this year, we have been in regular contact with colleagues abroad, particularly in the UK, who advocate for their governments to adopt a elimination or ‘covid zero’ approach.
“The appearance of an apparently more infectious virus variant is just another reason to eliminate this infection.”
The authors call on the World Health Organization to provide more support to countries seeking Covid-19 elimination, including better data reporting.
