Search

This paper estimates the benefits and costs of state suppression policies to “bend the curve” during the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in the United States. We employ an approach that values benefits and costs in terms of additions or subtractions to total production. Relative to a baseline in which only the infected and at-risk populations mitigate the spread of coronavirus, we estimate that total benefits of suppression policies to economic output are between $632.5 billion and $765.0 billion from early March 2020 to August 1, 2020. Relative to private mitigation, output lost due to suppression policies is estimated to be between $214.2 billion and $331.5 billion. The cost estimate is based on the duration of nonessential business closures and stay-at-home orders, which were enforced between 42 and 65 days. Our results indicate that the net benefits of suppression policies to slow the spread of COVID-19 are positive and may be substantial. We discuss uncertainty surrounding several parameters and employ alternative methods for valuing mortality benefits, which also suggest that suppression measures had positive net benefits.

Developing appropriate risk messages during challenging situations like public health outbreaks is complicated. The focus of this paper is on how First Nations and Metis people in Manitoba, Canada, responded to the public health management of pandemic H1N1, using a focus group methodology (n = 23 focus groups). Focus group conversations explored participant reactions to messaging regarding the identification of H1N1 virus risk groups, the H1N1 vaccine and how priority groups to receive the vaccine were established. To better contextualize the intentions of public health professionals, key informant interviews (n = 20) were conducted with different health decision makers (e.g., public health officials, people responsible for communications, representatives from some First Nations and Metis self-governing organizations). While risk communication practice has improved, 'one size' messaging campaigns do not work effectively, particularly when communicating about who is most 'at-risk'. Public health agencies need to pay more attention to the specific socio-economic, historical and cultural contexts of First Nations and Metis citizens when planning for, communicating and managing responses associated with pandemic outbreaks to better tailor both the messages and delivery. More attention is needed to directly engage First Nations and Metis communities in the development and dissemination of risk messaging.

BackgroundThe impact of socioeconomic inequalities on health is well-documented. Despite the links of periodontal disease with cardiovascular diseases, adverse pregnancy outcomes and diabetes, no meta-analysis of socioeconomic variations in periodontal disease exists. This meta-analytic review was conducted to determine the extent to which education attainment influences risk of periodontitis in adults aged 35+ years in the general population.MethodsThe authors searched studies published until November 2010 using EMBASE and MEDLINE databases. References listed were then scrutinised, our own files were checked, and, finally, we contacted experts in the field. The authors included only general population-based studies conducted in adults aged 35 years and more. All articles were blind reviewed by two investigators. In the case of disagreement, a third investigator arbitrated. Using PRISMA statement, two reviewers independently extracted papers of interest.ResultsRelative to the higher education group, people with low education attainment experience a greater risk of periodontitis (OR: 1.86 [1.66-2.10]; pConclusionsIn the studies reviewed, low educational attainment was associated with an increased risk of periodontitis. Although this evidence should be cautiously interpreted due to methodological problems in selected studies, efforts to eliminate educational inequalities in periodontitis should focus on early life interventions.