Preemptive periodic epidemic control reduces life and healthcare system costs without aggravation of social and economic losses

TL;DR

Preemptive periodic epidemic control strategies can effectively reduce healthcare costs and mortality without increasing social or economic losses, as demonstrated by empirical data from COVID-19 management in Israel.

Contribution

This study provides empirical evidence that preemptive, periodic control measures outperform reactive strategies in balancing health outcomes and socio-economic impacts.

Findings

Preemptive control reduces deaths compared to reactive measures.

Open-close cycles lead to higher mortality than close-open cycles.

Procrastination in implementing restrictions results in increased healthcare burden.

Abstract

Many countries are managing COVID-19 epidemic by switching between lighter and heavier restrictions. While an open-close and a close-open cycle have comparable socio-economic costs, the former leads to a much heavier burden in terms of deaths and pressure on the healthcare system. An empirical demonstration of the toll ensuing from procrastination was recently observed in Israel, where both cycles were enforced from late August to mid-December 2020, yielding some 1,600 deaths with open-close compared to 440 with close-open.