ArticleEconomics and human biology2021
COVID-19 crisis management in Luxembourg: Insights from an epidemionomic approach.
Article in Economics and human biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intergenerational coresidence and the Covid-19 pandemic in the United States.Economics and human biology · 2023Article
- Quality of maternal and newborn care around the time of childbirth in Luxembourg during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results of the IMAgiNE EURO study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2022Article
- The COVID-19 resilience of a continental welfare regime - nowcasting the distributional impact of the crisis.Journal of economic inequality · 2022Article
- Modelling COVID-19 dynamics and potential for herd immunity by vaccination in Austria, Luxembourg and Sweden.Journal of theoretical biology · 2021Article
- COVID-19 crisis management in Luxembourg: Insights from an epidemionomic approach.Economics and human biology · 2021Article
- How to make universal, voluntary testing for COVID-19 work? A behavioural economics perspective.Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021Article
- Estimating the impact of interventions against COVID-19: From lockdown to vaccination.PloS one · 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
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We develop an epidemionomic model that jointly analyzes the health and economic responses to the COVID-19 crisis and to the related containment and public health policy measures implemented in Luxembourg. The model has been used to produce nowcasts and forecasts at various stages of the crisis. We focus here on two key moments in time, namely the deconfinement period following the first lockdown, and the onset of the second wave. In May 2020, we predicted a high risk of a second wave that was mainly explained by the resumption of social life, low participation in large-scale testing, and reduction in teleworking practices. Simulations conducted 5 months later reveal that managing the second wave with moderately coercive measures has been epidemiologically and economically effective. Assuming a massive third (or fourth) wave will not materialize in 2021, the real GDP loss due to the second wave will be smaller than 0.4 percentage points in 2020 and 2021.
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.