Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
Turk Hijyen ve Deneysel Biyoloji Dergisi, cilt.77, sa.2, ss.233-242, 2020 (Scopus)
© 2020 Refik Saydam National Public Health Agency (RSNPHA).Objective: COVID-19, having no treatment and medical intervention strategy other than supportive treatment, necessitated prevention and containment measures. Quarantines, lock-downs of commercial places, school closures and many other types of interventions converged as cases and the number of deaths has increased. Causality and linkage between measures and their effects have become a concern. This study aims to compare the country policies (Italy, Spain, France, United Kingdom, Germany and Turkey) in terms of stringency levels and the dates interventions put into effect for containment of the pandemic and explore its effects on numbers of cases and deaths. Methods: The Government Response Stringency Index (GRSI), which is created to measure stringency of government measures against COVID-19 was used for the comparisons. In order to compare countries' policies and their effects on case and death statistics, we initially aggregated the stringency data of countries and compiled them with logistic numbers of cases and deaths. Additionally, variation between country responses could be more apparent by decomposing the total stringency score to individual policy components. Results: Number of cases and deaths, intervention stringency levels and components of policies were compared. The number of cases per million population was higher than other countries for Spain and Italy despite their more stringent measures. Turkey had the least cases per million value with relatively less stringent policies. The number of deaths per million population and stringency levels was higher for French, Italy, and Spain. Turkey and Germany seem to control at least the number of deaths with less stringent measures. United Kingdom had the least stringent scores but a considerable number of deaths. After close investigation of countries' stringency patterns with first case dates, it can be observed that Turkey is diverse from any other country, having taken action for any type of intervention before or concurrent with the first case, as the other countries had taken the measures weeks after their first cases. Conclusion: Inconsistency of perspective towards the outbreak and delay for implementation led European countries to take strict precautions against COVID-19 for longer period for the next phases of intervention. Turkey took action earlier than other nations before the number of cases increased, and reached less number of cases and deaths with less stringent measures. Comparison between intervention stringency levels and policy enforcement rapidity of selected countries highlighted the importance of implementation of measures on time.