Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.3390/ijerph17238725 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.3390/ijerph17238725 33255383!7727819!33255383     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Int+J+Environ+Res+Public+Health 2020 ; 17 (23): ä Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33255383|t=2020. Trading Health for Wealth: The Effect of COVID-19 Response Stringency |pdf=|usr=}}{{33255383}} gab.com Text Trading Health for Wealth: The Effect of COVID-19 Response Stringency JO: Int J Environ Res Public Health http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33255383 #FOAvip International governments' COVID-19 responses must balance human and economic health. Beyond slowing viral transmission, strict lockdowns have severe economic consequences. This work investigated response stringency, quantified by the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker's Stringency Index, and examined how restrictive interventions affected infection rates and gross domestic product (GDP) in China and OECD countries. Accounting for response timing, China imposed the most stringent restrictions, while Sweden and Japan were the least stringent. Expected GDP declines range from -8% (Japan) to -15.4% (UK). While greater restrictions generally slowed viral transmission, they failed to reach statistical significance and reduced GDP (p = 0.006). Timing was fundamental: governments who responded to the pandemic faster saw greater reductions in viral transmission (p = 0.013), but worse decreases in GDP (p = 0.044). Thus, response stringency has a greater effect on GDP than infection rates, which are instead affected by the timing of COVID-19 interventions. Attempts to mitigate economic impacts by delaying restrictions or decreasing stringency may buoy GDP in the short term but increase infection rates, the longer-term economic consequences of which are not yet fully understood. As highly restrictive interventions were successful in some but not all countries, decision-makers must consider whether their strategies are appropriate for the country on health and economic grounds. Twit Text FOAVip Trading Health for Wealth: The Effect of COVID-19 Response Stringency ????Int J Environ Res Public Health http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33255383 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33255383 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33255383}}</ref> Trading Health for Wealth: The Effect of COVID-19 Response Stringency #MMPMID33255383 Cross M; Ng SK; Scuffham P Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020[Nov]; 17 (23): ä PMID33255383show ga International governments' COVID-19 responses must balance human and economic health. Beyond slowing viral transmission, strict lockdowns have severe economic consequences. This work investigated response stringency, quantified by the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker's Stringency Index, and examined how restrictive interventions affected infection rates and gross domestic product (GDP) in China and OECD countries. Accounting for response timing, China imposed the most stringent restrictions, while Sweden and Japan were the least stringent. Expected GDP declines range from -8% (Japan) to -15.4% (UK). While greater restrictions generally slowed viral transmission, they failed to reach statistical significance and reduced GDP (p = 0.006). Timing was fundamental: governments who responded to the pandemic faster saw greater reductions in viral transmission (p = 0.013), but worse decreases in GDP (p = 0.044). Thus, response stringency has a greater effect on GDP than infection rates, which are instead affected by the timing of COVID-19 interventions. Attempts to mitigate economic impacts by delaying restrictions or decreasing stringency may buoy GDP in the short term but increase infection rates, the longer-term economic consequences of which are not yet fully understood. As highly restrictive interventions were successful in some but not all countries, decision-makers must consider whether their strategies are appropriate for the country on health and economic grounds. |*Pandemics[MESH] |COVID-19/*economics/*prevention & control[MESH] |China/epidemiology[MESH] |Health[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Japan/epidemiology[MESH]Trading Health for Wealth: The Effect of COVID-19 Response Stringency (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing