Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34886542›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Predicted Impact of the Lockdown Measure in Response to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Greater Bangkok, Thailand, 2021.

Sonvanee Uansri, Titiporn Tuangratananon, Mathudara Phaiyarom, Nattadhanai Rajatanavin, Rapeepong Suphanchaimat, Warisara Jaruwanno

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Impact of Government Intervention in Response to Coronavirus Disease 2019.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sonvanee UansriInternational Health Policy Programme, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi 11000, Thailand.
Titiporn TuangratananonInternational Health Policy Programme, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi 11000, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-3479-0886
Mathudara PhaiyaromInternational Health Policy Programme, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi 11000, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-1156-1984
Nattadhanai RajatanavinInternational Health Policy Programme, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi 11000, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-6505-7911
Rapeepong SuphanchaimatInternational Health Policy Programme, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi 11000, Thailand.
Warisara JaruwannoInternational Health Policy Programme, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi 11000, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In mid-2021, Thailand faced a fourth wave of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) predominantly fueled by the Delta and Alpha variants. The number of cases and deaths rose exponentially, alongside a sharp increase in hospitalizations and intubated patients. The Thai Government then implemented a lockdown to mitigate the outbreak magnitude and prevent cases from overwhelming the healthcare system. This study aimed to model the severity of the outbreak over the following months by different levels of lockdown effectiveness. Secondary analysis was performed on data primarily obtained from the Ministry of Health; the data were analyzed using both the deterministic compartmental model and the system dynamics model. The model was calibrated against the number of daily cases in Greater Bangkok during June-July 2021. We then assessed the outcomes (daily cases, daily deaths, and intubated patients) according to hypothetical lockdowns of varying effectiveness and duration. The findings revealed that lockdown measures could reduce and delay the peak of COVID-19 cases and deaths. A two-month lockdown with 60% effectiveness in the reduction in reproduction number caused the lowest number of cases, deaths, and intubated patients, with a peak about one-fifth of the size of a no-lockdown peak. The two-month lockdown policy also delayed the peak until after December, while in the context of a one-month lockdown, cases peaked during the end of September to early December (depending on the varying degrees of lockdown effectiveness in the reduction in reproduction number). In other words, the implementation of a lockdown policy did not mean the end of the outbreak, but it helped delay the peak. In this sense, implementing a lockdown helped to buy time for the healthcare system to recover and better prepare for any future outbreaks. We recommend further studies that explore the impact of lockdown measures at a sub-provincial level, and examine the impact of lockdowns on parameters not directly related to the spread of disease, such as quality of life and economic implications for individuals and society.

Indexed as

COVID-19Communicable Disease ControlEpidemiological ModelsHumansQuality of LifeSARS-CoV-2ThailandCoronavirus Disease 2019lockdownreproduction numberThailand

Identifiers

PMID34886542
PMCPMC8657386

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.