Wang Y, Zhang C. Impact of policy response on health protection and economic recovery in OECD and BRIICS countries during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Public Health 2023;
217:7-14. [PMID:
36827784 PMCID:
PMC9870755 DOI:
10.1016/j.puhe.2023.01.012]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2022] [Revised: 12/05/2022] [Accepted: 01/10/2023] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES
During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, the full reopening of the economy typically accelerated viral transmission. This study aims to determine whether policy response could contribute to the dual objective of both reducing the spread of the epidemic and revitalising economic activities.
STUDY DESIGN
This is a longitudinal study of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, China, and South Africa (BRIICS) from the first quarter (Q1) of 2020 to the same period of 2021.
METHODS
From a health-economic perspective, this study established a framework to illustrate the following outcomes: suppression-prosperity, outbreak-stagnancy, outbreak-prosperity and suppression-stagnancy scenarios. Multinomial logistic models were used to analyse the associations between policy response with both the pandemic and the economy. The study further examined two subtypes of policy response, stringency/health measures and economic support measures, separately. The probabilities of the different scenarios were estimated.
RESULTS
Economic prosperity and epidemic suppression were significantly associated with policy response. The effects of policy response on health-economic scenarios took the form of inverse U-shapes with the increase in intensity. 'Leptokurtic', 'bimodal' and 'long-tailed' curves demonstrated the estimated possibilities of suppression-prosperity, outbreak-prosperity and suppression-stagnancy scenarios, respectively. In addition, stringency/health policies followed the inverted U-shaped pattern, whereas economic support policies showed a linear pattern.
CONCLUSIONS
It was possible to achieve the dual objective of economic growth and epidemic control simultaneously, and the effects of policy response were shaped like an inverse U. These findings provide a new perspective for balancing the economy with public health during the early stages of the pandemic.
Collapse