ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
The Economic Impact of the SARS Epidemic with Related Interventions in China.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Epidemics represent a threat to human life and economy. Meanwhile, medical and non-medical approaches to fight against them may result in additional economic shocks. In this paper, we examine the economic impact of the 2003 SARS outbreak in China and associated government policies. Although the epidemic caused a substantial economic loss in the short term, the interventions for medical purposes positively impacted the economy of the severely affected regions through the increase in investments such as other fiscal stimuli. There is strong and robust evidence suggesting that the SARS epidemic and its associated countermeasure policies boosted local output by around 4% and industrial production by around 5%. The positive growth was mainly derived from the increase in investment and government activity, especially government expenditure. Besides that, lagged impacts were particularly pronounced to the economic system and lasted for longer even than the epidemic period in a biological sense. We attribute this to the relatively aggressive stance of policymakers in the face of the epidemic situation.
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.