ArticlePloS one2023
The micro-economic effects of COVID-19 containment measures: A simple model and evidence from China.
Article in PloS one, 2023. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optimizing the trade-off between economic growth and public health is a major goal of public administration, especially during public health events. Although containment measures are widely used to combat the Covid-19 outbreak, it is still debated how the measures affect the economy. Using a simplified susceptible-infected-recovered (SIR) model, this study investigates the dynamic impact of lockdown policy on social costs during the epidemic and the underlying mechanism, revealing that the lockdown policy has both a "shutdown effect" and an "anti-epidemic effect", and should be implemented and lifted in a timely manner. Based on a micro-level dataset of 57,547 private enterprises in China in 2020, this study provided empirical evidence for the presence of negative "shutdown effect" and positive "anti-epidemic effect" of lockdown on reopening, both of which are in part mediated by labor input, factor mobility, and market demand recovery. Furthermore, the shutdown effect is weaker in regions with sufficient testing and quarantine resources, government capacity and preference for targeted response, whereas the anti-epidemic effect is stronger in densely populated areas with relatively low public compliance. Additionally, digital measures can aid in the containment of epidemics. The findings not only contribute to a better understanding of the rationality and effectiveness of the lockdown policy, but also provides practical evidence and implications for the government to improve the synergistic efficiency of epidemic control tools and strengthen the resilience of local economic growth.
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.