Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35162874›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

A "Ballpark" Assessment of Social Distancing Efficiency in the Early Stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Taejong Kim, Hyosun Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Taejong KimKDI School of Public Policy and Management, Sejong 30149, Korea.
Hyosun KimChung-Ang Business School, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 06974, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper presents an efficiency assessment of social distancing as an internationally adopted measure to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The simple framework adopted for the assessment accounts for two kinds of costs that a society may bear in a pandemic. The first is welfare loss due to infection and its consequences, and the second is welfare loss resulting from a slowdown in economic transactions. We call the first infection costs, and the second economic costs, for convenience in the paper. Efficient social distancing should minimize the sum of these costs. Infection costs are likely to decrease with social distancing at a decreasing rate as intensified social distancing eases pressure on scarce resources for intensive care. Economic costs on the other hand are likely to increase at an increasing rate as extreme slowdown in economic life may entail job losses and business failures. The resulting U-shaped total costs curve implies parity between infection costs and economic costs as a necessary condition for efficiency. In a simplified implementation of the framework, we approximate infection costs by the value of (statistical) lives lost, and economic costs by the gap between the actual gross domestic product (GDP) in 2020 and the potential GDP as predicted by the within-country growth trend during the preceding decade. The results for 158 countries suggest that the global community perhaps reacted with overly strict social distancing measures. The results for the subgroup of high-income countries, however, suggest that these countries were more successful in maintaining the parity between infection and economic costs.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsEfficiencyHumansPhysical DistancingSARS-CoV-2COVID-19efficiencypandemicssocial distancingwelfare loss

Identifiers

PMID35162874
PMCPMC8835592

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.