Strict Lockdown versus Flexible Social Distance Strategy for COVID-19 Disease: a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Objectives: To balance the costs and effects comparing a strict lockdown versus a flexible social distancing strategy for societies affected by Coronavirus-19 Disease (COVID-19). Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis. Participants: We used societal data and COVID-19 mortality rates from the public domain. Interventions: The intervention was a strict lockdown strategy that has been followed by Denmark. Reference strategy was flexible social distancing policy as was applied by Sweden. We derived mortality rates from COVID-19 national statistics, assumed the expected life years lost from each COVID-19 death to be 11 years and calculated lost life years until 31 Main Outcome Measure: Financial costs per life years saved. Results: In Sweden, the number of people who died with COVID-19 was 577 per million inhabitants, resulting in an estimated 6,350 life years lost per million inhabitants. In Denmark, where a strict lockdown strategy was installed for months, the number of people dying with COVID-19 was on average 111 per million, resulting in an estimated 1,216 life years per million inhabitants lost. The incremental costs of strict lockdown to save one life year was US$ 137,285, and higher in most of the sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Comparisons of public health interventions for COVID-19 should take into account life years saved and not only lost lives. Strict lockdown costs more than US$ 130,000 per life year saved. As our all our assumptions were in favour of strict lockdown, a flexible social distancing policy in response to COVID19 is defendable.