Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Strict lockdown versus flexible social distance strategy for COVID-19 disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis

View ORCID ProfileBen W. Mol, View ORCID ProfileJonathan Karnon
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.14.20194605
Ben W. Mol
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia ()
Roles: Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Ben W. Mol
  • For correspondence: ben.mol{at}monash.edu ben.mol{at}monash.edu
Jonathan Karnon
2Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. ().
Roles: Professor of Health Economics
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jonathan Karnon
  • For correspondence: jonathan.karnon{at}flinders.edu.au
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Objectives To balance the costs and effects comparing a strict lockdown versus a flexible social distancing strategy for societies affected by Coronavirus-19 Disease (COVID-19).

Design Cost-effectiveness analysis.

Participants We used societal data and COVID-19 mortality rates from the public domain.

Interventions The intervention was a strict lockdown strategy that has been followed by Denmark. Reference strategy was flexible social distancing policy as was applied by Sweden. We derived mortality rates from COVID-19 national statistics, assumed the expected life years lost from each COVID-19 death to be 11 years and calculated lost life years until 31st August 2020. Expected economic costs were derived from gross domestic productivity (GDP) statistics from each country’s official statistics bureau and forecasted GDP. The incremental financial costs of the strict lockdown were calculated by comparing Sweden with Denmark using externally available market information. Calculations were projected per one million inhabitants. In sensitivity analyses we varied the total cost of the lockdown (range −50% to +100%).

Main outcome measure Financial costs per life years saved.

Results In Sweden, the number of people who died with COVID-19 was 577 per million inhabitants, resulting in an estimated 6,350 life years lost per million inhabitants. In Denmark, where a strict lockdown strategy was installed for months, the number of people dying with COVID-19 was on average 111 per million, resulting in an estimated 1,216 life years per million inhabitants lost. The incremental costs of strict lockdown to save one life year was US$ 137,285, and higher in most of the sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions Comparisons of public health interventions for COVID-19 should take into account life years saved and not only lost lives. Strict lockdown costs more than US$ 130,000 per life year saved. As our all our assumptions were in favour of strict lockdown, a flexible social distancing policy in response to COVID19 is defendable.

Competing Interest Statement

Ben W. Mol is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437) and reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck Merck KGaA, iGenomix and Guerbet. Jonathan Karnon declares no competing interests. No funding was received for this submission.

Funding Statement

No funding was received for this submission.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

N/A

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Footnotes

  • BWM is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437)

  • BWM reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck Merck KGaA, iGenomix and Guerbet

Data Availability

We used societal data and COVID-19 mortality rates from the public domain.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl=en-AU&gl=AU&ceid=AU:en

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted September 18, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Strict lockdown versus flexible social distance strategy for COVID-19 disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Strict lockdown versus flexible social distance strategy for COVID-19 disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis
Ben W. Mol, Jonathan Karnon
medRxiv 2020.09.14.20194605; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.14.20194605
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Strict lockdown versus flexible social distance strategy for COVID-19 disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis
Ben W. Mol, Jonathan Karnon
medRxiv 2020.09.14.20194605; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.14.20194605

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Health Economics
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (349)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Anesthesia (181)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
  • Dermatology (223)
  • Emergency Medicine (399)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
  • Epidemiology (12228)
  • Forensic Medicine (10)
  • Gastroenterology (759)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
  • Geriatric Medicine (387)
  • Health Economics (680)
  • Health Informatics (2657)
  • Health Policy (1005)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
  • Hematology (363)
  • HIV/AIDS (851)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
  • Medical Education (399)
  • Medical Ethics (109)
  • Nephrology (436)
  • Neurology (3882)
  • Nursing (209)
  • Nutrition (577)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
  • Oncology (2030)
  • Ophthalmology (585)
  • Orthopedics (240)
  • Otolaryngology (306)
  • Pain Medicine (250)
  • Palliative Medicine (75)
  • Pathology (473)
  • Pediatrics (1115)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
  • Primary Care Research (452)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
  • Public and Global Health (6527)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
  • Respiratory Medicine (871)
  • Rheumatology (409)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
  • Sports Medicine (342)
  • Surgery (448)
  • Toxicology (53)
  • Transplantation (185)
  • Urology (165)