政府强制封锁并不能减少Covid-19死亡人数:对评估新西兰严格应对措施的影响

IF 0.8 Q3 ECONOMICS New Zealand Economic Papers Pub Date : 2020-11-20 DOI:10.1080/00779954.2020.1844786
John Gibson
{"title":"政府强制封锁并不能减少Covid-19死亡人数:对评估新西兰严格应对措施的影响","authors":"John Gibson","doi":"10.1080/00779954.2020.1844786","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The New Zealand policy response to Coronavirus was the most stringent in the world during the Level 4 lockdown. Up to 10 billion dollars of output (≈3.3% of GDP) was lost in moving to Level 4 rather than staying at Level 2, according to Treasury calculations. For lockdown to be optimal requires large health benefits to offset this output loss. Forecast deaths from epidemiological models are not valid counterfactuals, due to poor identification. Instead, I use empirical data, based on variation amongst United States counties, over one-fifth of which just had social distancing rather than lockdown. Political drivers of lockdown provide identification. Lockdowns do not reduce Covid-19 deaths. This pattern is visible on each date that key lockdown decisions were made in New Zealand. The apparent ineffectiveness of lockdowns suggests that New Zealand suffered large economic costs for little benefit in terms of lives saved.","PeriodicalId":38921,"journal":{"name":"New Zealand Economic Papers","volume":"56 1","pages":"17 - 28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00779954.2020.1844786","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Government mandated lockdowns do not reduce Covid-19 deaths: implications for evaluating the stringent New Zealand response\",\"authors\":\"John Gibson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00779954.2020.1844786\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The New Zealand policy response to Coronavirus was the most stringent in the world during the Level 4 lockdown. Up to 10 billion dollars of output (≈3.3% of GDP) was lost in moving to Level 4 rather than staying at Level 2, according to Treasury calculations. For lockdown to be optimal requires large health benefits to offset this output loss. Forecast deaths from epidemiological models are not valid counterfactuals, due to poor identification. Instead, I use empirical data, based on variation amongst United States counties, over one-fifth of which just had social distancing rather than lockdown. Political drivers of lockdown provide identification. Lockdowns do not reduce Covid-19 deaths. This pattern is visible on each date that key lockdown decisions were made in New Zealand. The apparent ineffectiveness of lockdowns suggests that New Zealand suffered large economic costs for little benefit in terms of lives saved.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38921,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Zealand Economic Papers\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"17 - 28\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00779954.2020.1844786\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Zealand Economic Papers\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00779954.2020.1844786\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Zealand Economic Papers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00779954.2020.1844786","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

在4级封锁期间,新西兰对冠状病毒的政策反应是世界上最严格的。根据财政部的计算,高达100亿美元的产出(≈GDP的3.3%)在进入第四级而不是停留在第二级时损失了。要使封锁达到最佳状态,需要大量的健康益处来抵消这种产出损失。由于识别能力差,流行病学模型预测的死亡人数不是有效的反事实。相反,我使用了基于美国各县差异的实证数据,其中超过五分之一的县只是保持社交距离而不是封锁。封锁的政治驱动因素提供了身份证明。封锁并不能减少新冠肺炎死亡人数。这种模式在新西兰做出关键封锁决定的每一天都很明显。封锁的明显无效表明,新西兰付出了巨大的经济代价,但在挽救生命方面却收效甚微。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Government mandated lockdowns do not reduce Covid-19 deaths: implications for evaluating the stringent New Zealand response
The New Zealand policy response to Coronavirus was the most stringent in the world during the Level 4 lockdown. Up to 10 billion dollars of output (≈3.3% of GDP) was lost in moving to Level 4 rather than staying at Level 2, according to Treasury calculations. For lockdown to be optimal requires large health benefits to offset this output loss. Forecast deaths from epidemiological models are not valid counterfactuals, due to poor identification. Instead, I use empirical data, based on variation amongst United States counties, over one-fifth of which just had social distancing rather than lockdown. Political drivers of lockdown provide identification. Lockdowns do not reduce Covid-19 deaths. This pattern is visible on each date that key lockdown decisions were made in New Zealand. The apparent ineffectiveness of lockdowns suggests that New Zealand suffered large economic costs for little benefit in terms of lives saved.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
New Zealand Economic Papers
New Zealand Economic Papers Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics, Econometrics and Finance (all)
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊最新文献
Community-level ethnic diversity and community-level socio-economic development: evidence from 20 African countries The wage cost of a lack of access to affordable childcare in Aotearoa New Zealand Distinguished fellow lecture: monetary policy and the benefits and limits of central bank independence Differences between NZ and U.S. individual investor sentiment: more noise or more information? Citation for Bob Buckle to mark his Distinguished Fellow Award
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1