Stanford University economist Maria Polyakova studied the effects of the pandemic on the United States’ economy. “In general,” she said, “we hope that staying at home mechanically slows down the pandemic, as it reduces the number of interactions between people.”
“The disadvantage is that the reduction in economic activity particularly harms many workers and their families in the economy’s large service sector,” he added. So, is the curfew worth the price?
She cannot understand the logic. “Assuming that nightclubs and the like are already closed anyway, for example, prohibiting people from taking a walk around the block with their family at night is unlikely to reduce interactions,” said Polyakova.
In addition, the virus develops indoors, and groups of infection are common in families and households. So a frightening question is whether forcing people into these settings for longer periods of time slows down transmission – or speeds it up.
“You might think so,” said William Hanage, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health TH Chan, “what proportion of transmission events happen during the period in question? And how will curfew prevent them? “
A study, recently published in Science, analyzed data from Hunan Province, China, at the beginning of the outbreak. The curfew and blocking measures, the researchers concluded, had a paradoxical effect: these restrictions reduced the spread within the community, but increased the risk of infection in families, reported Kaiyuan Sun, a postdoctoral fellow at the National Institutes of Health , and his colleagues.
Dr. Longini and his colleagues incorporated blocks and curfews into the United States’ pandemic models and concluded that they can be an effective way to reduce transmission.