Non-pharmaceutical interventions in the State of Georgia: Economic implications

• Published in: Ethics, medicine, and public health medicine, and public health, 2023-06, Vol.28, Article 100891
• Main Authors: White, R.C., Luo, R., Rothenberg, R.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Covid; Lockdown; Non-pharmaceutical intervention; Public health policy
• ISSN: 2352-5525; 2352-5525
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jemep.2023.100891

[Display omitted] •Shelters-in-place and business closures had the largest impacts on unemployment.•Mandates had an effect at the level they were first implemented.•If a county first implemented a mandate, the state mandate had no effect.•Race ethnicity may be a greater predictor of adverse effects than poverty level. As Covid-19 spread rapidly, many countries implemented a strict shelter-in-place to “flatten the curve” and build capacity to treat in the absence of effective preventative therapies or treatments. Policymakers and public health officials must balance the positive health effects of lockdowns with economic, social, and psychological costs. This study examined the economic impacts of state and county level restrictions during the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic for two regions of Georgia. Taking unemployment data from the Opportunity Insights Economic Tracker with mandate information from various sites, we examined trends before and after a mandate's implementation and relaxation using joinpoint regression. We found mandates with the largest impact on unemployment claims rates were the shelters-in-place (SIPs) and closures of non-essential businesses. Specific to our study, mandates had an effect where first implemented, i.e., if the state implemented an SIP after the county, the state-wide SIP had no additional measurable effect on claims rates. School closures had a consistent impact on increasing unemployment claims rates, but to a lesser degree than SIPs or business closures. While closing businesses did have a deleterious effect, implementing social distancing for businesses and restricting gatherings did not. Notably, the Coastal region was less affected than the Metro Area. Additionally, our findings indicate that race ethnicity may be a larger predictor of adverse economic effects than education, poverty level, or geographic area. Our findings coincided with other studies in some areas but showed differences in what indicators may best predict adverse effects and that coastal communities may not always be as impacted as other regions in a state. Ultimately, the most restrictive measures consistently had the largest negative economic impacts. Social distancing and mask mandates can be effective for containment while mitigating the economic impacts of strict SIPs and business closures.