Ieri, sulla rivista scientifica internazionale peer-reviewed QJM, è uscito un articolo che conferma quanto qui osservato nel mio studio pubblicato 10 gennaio COVID e misure di contenimento dell’epidemia.
In sostanza, si dimostra che misure meno restrittive (lockdown meno rigidi) causano un maggior numero di decessi SENZA riuscire ad ottenere l’auspicato obiettivo di causare un minor danno economico. Segue breve estratto dell’articolo di Ueda e colleghi.
“A previous study reported that stronger regulation indicated by the Oxford University’s Stringency Index (SI) is related to greater reductions in gross domestic product (GDP). However, the subject of the study was 37 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries plus China, which raises questions about comparability among them. Therefore, we compared infection control measures, infection status and economic damage of Japan and Sweden with only those of respective neighboring countries to evaluate whether lenient infection control measures have more economic advantage than otherwise. (…) During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Japan and Sweden did not tighten their infection control measures deliberately, and had the lowest maximum SI index among the respective regions as well as among 37 OECD countries during the study period. Therefore, it is not surprising that both countries had the highest number of deaths per population in their regions. Nonetheless, no economic advantage was observed in the two countries compared to neighboring countries. Thus, our study indicates that the economic benefits of lenient infection control measures would not be worth enough as to offset the increase in the number of infections and deaths.” (Ueda et al., QJM. 2021 Jan 30)
(in caso di cose da dire all’autore: firstname.lastname@example.org)