Should Contact Bans Have Been Lifted More in Germany?: A Quantitative Prediction of Its Effects.

IF 0.8 4区 经济学 Q3 ECONOMICS
Cesifo Economic Studies Pub Date : 2020-06-01 Epub Date: 2020-07-03 DOI:10.1093/cesifo/ifaa004
Jean Roch Donsimoni, René Glawion, Bodo Plachter, Klaus Wälde, Constantin Weiser
{"title":"Should Contact Bans Have Been Lifted More in Germany?: A Quantitative Prediction of Its Effects.","authors":"Jean Roch Donsimoni, René Glawion, Bodo Plachter, Klaus Wälde, Constantin Weiser","doi":"10.1093/cesifo/ifaa004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many countries consider the lifting of restrictions of social contacts (RSC). We quantify the effects of RSC for Germany. We initially employ a purely statistical approach to predicting prevalence of Covid-19 if RSC had been upheld after 20 April. We employ these findings and feed them into our theoretical model. We find that the peak of the number of sick individuals would have been reached already end of April. The number of sick individuals would have fallen below 1000 at the beginning of July. If restrictions had been lifted completely on April 20, the number of sick should have risen quickly again from around 27 April. A balance between economic and individual costs of RSC and public health objectives consists in lifting RSC for activities that have high economic benefits but low health costs. In the absence of large-scale representative testing of CoV-2 infections, these activities can most easily be identified if federal states of Germany adopted exit strategies that <i>differ</i> across states.</p>","PeriodicalId":51748,"journal":{"name":"Cesifo Economic Studies","volume":"66 2","pages":"115-133"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7337731/pdf/ifaa004.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cesifo Economic Studies","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cesifo/ifaa004","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/7/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many countries consider the lifting of restrictions of social contacts (RSC). We quantify the effects of RSC for Germany. We initially employ a purely statistical approach to predicting prevalence of Covid-19 if RSC had been upheld after 20 April. We employ these findings and feed them into our theoretical model. We find that the peak of the number of sick individuals would have been reached already end of April. The number of sick individuals would have fallen below 1000 at the beginning of July. If restrictions had been lifted completely on April 20, the number of sick should have risen quickly again from around 27 April. A balance between economic and individual costs of RSC and public health objectives consists in lifting RSC for activities that have high economic benefits but low health costs. In the absence of large-scale representative testing of CoV-2 infections, these activities can most easily be identified if federal states of Germany adopted exit strategies that differ across states.

德国是否应更多地取消接触禁令?对其影响的定量预测。
许多国家都在考虑取消社会接触限制(RSC)。我们量化了 RSC 对德国的影响。首先,我们采用纯统计方法预测如果 4 月 20 日后取消社会接触限制,Covid-19 的流行率。我们利用这些结果并将其纳入我们的理论模型。我们发现,患病人数的峰值将在 4 月底达到。到 7 月初,患病人数会降至 1000 人以下。如果在 4 月 20 日完全取消限制,那么患病人数应从 4 月 27 日左右开始迅速回升。要在区域管制的经济和个人成本与公共卫生目标之间取得平衡,就必须对经济效益高而健康成本低的活动取消区域管制。在没有对 CoV-2 感染进行大规模代表性检测的情况下,如果德国各联邦州采取因州而异的退出策略,就能最容易地确定这些活动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: CESifo Economic Studies publishes provocative, high-quality papers in economics, with a particular focus on policy issues. Papers by leading academics are written for a wide and global audience, including those in government, business, and academia. The journal combines theory and empirical research in a style accessible to economists across all specialisations.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信