Restrictive measures against COVID-19 are associated with slightly worse mental health and lower life ratings, According to two new studies that review data from 15 countries between April 2020 and June 2021, Published in the magazine Lancet Public Health, who revealed it People in countries that have tried to control transmission are more affected by COVID-19 than people in countries that have tried to suppress transmission.
The first study Indicates The type and timing of pandemic restriction plays a factor in determining mental health impacts While the second refers to that Different groups feel it disproportionately.
Studies indicate that The mental health effects associated with the closures were worse for women and women living in households with children Dependents Compared to men of all ages. At the national level, countries that have attempted to eliminate community transmission of COVID-19 within their borders (abrasives) experienced fewer deaths and equal or better mental health trends during the pandemic than countries that tried to control rather than eliminate transmission (thinners).
Over the course of the pandemic, governments around the world They used different strategies and issued a variety of guidelines to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. However, containment measures were not homogeneous. Some countries have adopted ambitious disposal strategies with zero targets for community transmission. Other countries have chosen to slow transmission through a combination of intermittent shutdowns, Closure of workplaces, businesses and schools, social distancing, use of masks, and cancellation of public gatherings and public transportation.
Thus, it has been determined Countries like South Korea and Japan outlet early and specific actions, Such as international travel restrictions, testing and contact tracing, which Decreased levels of COVID-19 infection It allowed them to choose more lenient internal containment strategies.
exactly the contrary, Relaxed countries such as France and the United Kingdom have opted for less taboo international travel restrictions and aim to control the virus rather than eradicate it. Through strict and extended domestic policy measures, including physical distancing and requirements to stay at home.
Governments’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have been widely discussed. At first glance, it may appear that countries that have repealed travel bans have implemented stricter strategies than other countries due to the widely reported international travel bans. But in reality, people within these borders had more freedom and generally less restrictive internal containment measures than citizens of watered-down countries.Dr. Lara Aknin from Simon Fraser University (Canada) commented.
The type of containment determines the impact on mental health
To assess how the difference in COVID-19 policy restrictions affects mental health, The first study combined daily policy stringency data with mental health data captured every two weeks from samples from 15 countries. Countries were grouped based on their response to COVID-19 from April 2020 to June 2021 as either standing (Australia, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea) or attenuated (Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, and South Korea). Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom).
In mitigating countries, there was a stronger association between harsh containment policies and lower life assessment than in countries that eliminate disease.. Looking at individual policies, those that result in a loss of social contact and that are often adopted in relaxed countries (eg restrictions on gatherings, stay-at-home requirements) They were associated with greater psychological distress and lower life ratings.
On the other hand, policies such as closing schools, workplaces, public events and public transportation, as well as restrictions on domestic travel, were not related to mental health. Perhaps surprisingly, The number of consecutive days spent under high or low levels of epidemiological restrictions made no difference in mental health outcomes.
Tougher policy measures have generally been associated with fewer views of the government’s handling of the pandemic, and thus of mental health. Evaluations of how the government has handled the pandemic have been more positive in countries that have been eliminated than in countries that have mitigated.
for this part, second study Based on nationally representative data from Australiaconfirms it The effects of lockdown on mental health were not equally felt across all demographic groups. The authors took advantage of a natural experiment that arose from the unique prohibition of win overwhile other jurisdictions remained unrestricted, to isolate the causal effect of the shutdown.
Use the authors Data from more than 20,000 people included in the Survey of Work, Income and Family Dynamics in Australia (HILDA). They compared the mental health of people in Victoria during lockdown (treatment group) relative to their mental health in the year prior to lockdown, and compared this relative change to the relative change in mental health of residents living in the rest of Australia. (treatment group, control group) who were relatively free of restrictions
Women were more likely to experience mental health consequences than men, especially those between the ages of 20 and 29. There were no significant effects of teens For both sexes or for Men’s Plus Young (from 20 to 29 years old). Meanwhile, men 55 and older have seen an improvement in their mental health during the lockdown, the only demographic group to do so.
With information from Europe Press