Abstract
Background Understanding the differences in timing and composition of physical distancing policies is important to evaluate the early global response to COVID-19. A physical distancing intensity framework comprising 16 domains was recently published to compare physical distancing approaches between U.S. States. We applied this framework to a diverse set of low and middle-income countries (LMICs) (Botswana, India, Jamaica, Mozambique, Namibia, and Ukraine) to test the appropriateness of this framework in the global context and to compare the policy responses in this set of LMICs and with a sample of U.S. States during the first 100-days of the epidemic.
Results All six of the LMICs in our sample adopted wide ranging physical distancing policies. The highest peak daily physical distancing intensity in each country was: Botswana (4.60); India (4.40); Ukraine (4.40); Namibia (4.20); and Jamaica (3.80). The number of days each country stayed at peak intensity ranged from 12-days (Jamaica) to more than 67-days (Mozambique). We found some key similarities and differences, including substantial differences in whether and how countries expressly required certain groups to stay at home. We also found that the LMICs generally implemented physical distancing policies when there were few confirmed cases and the easing of physical distancing policies did not discernably correlate with change in COVID-19 incidence. The physical distancing responses in the LMIC sample were generally more intense than in a sample of U.S. States, but results vary depending on the U.S. State. For example, California had a peak intensity of 4.29, which would place California below the peak intensity for Botswana, India, and Ukraine but above Mozambique, Namibia and Jamaica. The U.S. State of Georgia had a peak intensity of 3.07, which would place it lower than all of the LMICs in this sample. The peak intensity for the U.S. 12-state average was 3.84, which would place it lower than every LMIC in this sample except Jamaica.
Conclusion This analysis helps to highlight the differing paths taken by the countries in this sample and may provide lessons to other countries regarding options for structuring physical distancing policies in response to COVID-19 and future outbreaks.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
None
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:
This analysis did not involve human subjects research.
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
Data Availability
The datasets generated in this analysis are included in the supporting file.
