The rapid implementation of a combination of measures, including masks, lockdowns and border controls, has resulted in a “significant” reduction in COVID-19, according to a major review.
of report A paper published Thursday by the Royal Society analyzed thousands of studies to assess the effectiveness of masks, social distancing and lockdowns, testing of tracking and isolation systems, border controls, environmental controls and communications6. Results from two evidence reviews were considered. Evidence was found that each of these measures, called ‘non-pharmaceutical interventions’, are effective when viewed individually, albeit to varying degrees. However, when countries combined several measures, the evidence supporting the use of these tools became stronger.
Mark Walport, head of the report’s expert working group and Foreign Secretary of the Royal Society, said the report could have significant implications for decision-making during future outbreaks. “It’s very important to have procedures in place,” he said. He said what policy makers should take away from the study is that “although there is evidence that non-pharmaceutical interventions are effective … they must be applied as a package and applied as early as possible.” No,” he said.
The most effective measure, one of the most controversial, was limiting movement and social interaction through lockdowns, distancing and rules on the size of gatherings, according to the report. These have been repeatedly found to be associated with “significant reductions” in viral infections, and the more stringent the measures, the greater the effect.
Regarding masks, 75 studies were evaluated, 63 of which found a positive effect. unlike January Cochrane review, examined only randomized controlled trials, but this review also includes observational studies. A Cochrane review found no conclusive evidence that masks help stop respiratory viruses.
Oxford University epidemiology professor Chris Dye, who led the Royal Society’s review of masks, said he would have come to the same conclusions as the Cochrane review had it looked only at randomized controlled trials. But the researchers behind the paper, published Thursday, chose to analyze more studies and found strong evidence that masks work.
A key finding of the study was that this type of intervention is most effective when implemented early. Dai said developing drugs, therapeutics, vaccines and diagnostics for future pandemics has a 100-day mission, but a 100-day vision for non-pharmaceutical interventions “would be great.” said. He said this means that countries “mean that they can put in place the necessary mechanisms for preparedness.” [non-pharmaceutical interventions] When an unknown new pathogen emerges. ”
Future pandemics could be transmitted sexually or through the gastrointestinal tract, but Salim Abdul Karim, a member of the report’s working group and vice-chancellor for research at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, said respiratory viruses were the biggest concern. Stated. “The lessons of SARS-CoV-2 must be reflected in our thinking as we prepare for the next pandemic, a respiratory virus to which we have never been infected and to which we have no immunity.” The lessons of this will be strongly reflected in everyone’s deliberations,” he said.
But in response to the report, Kevin McConway, emeritus professor of applied statistics at the Open University, said the impact on viral transmission was not the only factor to consider when deciding whether to adopt such measures. I warned you not to. “While the report clearly points out that NPIs can impose significant costs and burdens in terms of social and economic impacts, and indeed increased disease, this study does not address any issues. It’s very clear that it doesn’t even take into account ‘that. “I think that pretty severely limits its effectiveness in helping make decisions about what to do during each and every next pandemic.”
