ArticleHealth science reports2021
A benefit-cost analysis of different response scenarios to COVID-19: A case study.
Article in Health science reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Economic Value of Non-pharmaceutical Interventions for Influenza and COVID-19: A Systematic Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of interventions for the prevention and control of COVID-19: Systematic review of 85 modelling studies.Journal of global health · 2022Pooled it
- The role of economic evaluation in modelling public health and social measures for pandemic policy: a systematic review.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2024Article
- A benefit-cost analysis of different response scenarios to COVID-19: A case study.Health science reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis paper compares the direct benefits to the State of Western Australia from employing a "suppression" policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic rather than a "herd immunity" approach.
methodsAn S-I-R (susceptible-infectious-resolved) model is used to estimate the likely benefits of a suppression COVID-19 response compared to a herd immunity alternative. Direct impacts of the virus are calculated on the basis of sick leave, hospitalizations, and fatalities, while indirect impacts related to response actions are excluded.
resultsPreliminary modeling indicates that approximately 1700 vulnerable person deaths are likely to have been prevented over 1 year from adopting a suppression response rather than a herd immunity response, and approximately 4500 hospitalizations. These benefits are valued at around AUD4.7 billion. If a do nothing policy had been adopted, the number of people in need of hospitalization is likely to have overwhelmed the hospital system within 50 days of the virus being introduced. Maximum hospital capacity is unlikely to be reached in either a suppression policy or a herd immunity policy.
conclusionUsing early international estimates to represent the negative impact each type of policy response is likely to have on gross state product, results suggest the benefit-cost ratio for the suppression policy is slightly higher than that of the herd immunity policy, but both benefit-cost ratios are less than one.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.