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

Evaluating the COVID-19 responses of Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom, February-June 2020: A counterfactual modelling study

Pieter T. de Boer, View ORCID ProfileFuminari Miura, Giske R. Lagerweij, Jacco Wallinga
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.05.24309992
Pieter T. de Boer
1Center for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), the Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Pieter.de.boer{at}rivm.nl
Fuminari Miura
1Center for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), the Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Fuminari Miura
Giske R. Lagerweij
1Center for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), the Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jacco Wallinga
1Center for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), the Netherlands
2Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Introduction Differences in responses to the COVID-19 pandemic among Northwestern European countries have generated extensive discussion. We explore how the impact of the first pandemic wave might have differed, had Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom adopted responses from the other countries, or had it delayed its own response.

Methods The time-varying reproduction number Rt for each country was estimated using time-series of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 deaths. Counterfactual assessment of the impact of responses was conducted by interchanging the reduction in reproduction number by calendar date between countries from March 13th to July 1st, 2020. The impact of a delayed response was evaluated by lagging the time-series of the reproduction number with one day or three days.

Results The cumulative number of COVID-19 deaths for any of the six countries would have differed substantially, had the response of another country been adopted on the respective calendar date. The order, from the lowest to the highest expected mortality rate, was obtained with the responses of the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Sweden, with a seven- to twelve-fold difference between the lowest and highest outcome. For the Netherlands, delaying its response by three days resulted in a doubling of the cumulative COVID-19 mortality rate.

Conclusion During the fast-growing first COVID-19 wave, small differences in initial epidemiological situations between countries, together with small differences in the timing and effectiveness of adopting COVID-19 response from neighboring countries, result in large variations in mortality rates.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

The study was financed by the Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, and the European Union's Horizon research and innovation program - project ESCAPE (grant agreement number 101095619).

Author Declarations

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

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

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 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted July 05, 2024.
Download PDF
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.
Evaluating the COVID-19 responses of Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom, February-June 2020: A counterfactual modelling study
(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
Evaluating the COVID-19 responses of Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom, February-June 2020: A counterfactual modelling study
Pieter T. de Boer, Fuminari Miura, Giske R. Lagerweij, Jacco Wallinga
medRxiv 2024.07.05.24309992; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.05.24309992
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Evaluating the COVID-19 responses of Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom, February-June 2020: A counterfactual modelling study
Pieter T. de Boer, Fuminari Miura, Giske R. Lagerweij, Jacco Wallinga
medRxiv 2024.07.05.24309992; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.05.24309992

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

  • Public and Global Health
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)