IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/nzecpp/v56y2022i1p1-8.html

Hard, not early: putting the New Zealand Covid-19 response in context

Author

Listed:
  • John Gibson

Abstract

A popular narrative that New Zealand’s policy response to Coronavirus was ‘go hard, go early’ is misleading. While restrictions were the most stringent in the world during the Level 4 lockdown in March and April, these were imposed after the likely peak in new infections. I use the time path of Covid-19 deaths for each OECD country to estimate inflection points. Allowing for the typical lag from infection to death, new infections peaked before the most stringent policy responses were applied in many countries, including New Zealand. The cross-country evidence shows that restrictions imposed after the inflection point in infections is reached are ineffective in reducing total deaths. Even restrictions imposed earlier have just a modest effect; if Sweden’s more relaxed restrictions had been used, an extra 310 Covid-19 deaths are predicted for New Zealand – far fewer than the thousands of deaths in some widely reported mathematical simulations.

Suggested Citation

  • John Gibson, 2022. "Hard, not early: putting the New Zealand Covid-19 response in context," New Zealand Economic Papers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(1), pages 1-8, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:nzecpp:v:56:y:2022:i:1:p:1-8
    DOI: 10.1080/00779954.2020.1842796
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00779954.2020.1842796
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00779954.2020.1842796?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. What difference did lockdowns make?
      by Michael Reddell in Croaking Cassandra on 2020-09-14 22:36:50

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Patrick Barrett & Jacques Poot, 2023. "Islands, remoteness and effective policy making: Aotearoa New Zealand during the COVID‐19 pandemic," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 682-704, April.
    2. López-Mendoza, Héctor & González-Álvarez, María A. & Montañés, Antonio, 2024. "Assessing the effectiveness of international government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:nzecpp:v:56:y:2022:i:1:p:1-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RNZP20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.