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
