Imposition of various local and national restrictions in England in the summer and autumn of 2020 gradually reduced links between people, but these changes were smaller and more varied than they were at the time. lockout in March, according to a study published in the journal Open Access BMC medicine.
A team of researchers at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), UK combined data from the English participants of the UK CoMix survey and information on local and national restrictions from Gov.uk collected between 31 August and 7 December 2020. CoMix online survey asks individuals to record details of their direct connections in the day before the survey.
The authors used the data to compare the number of contacts in different settings, such as work, school, or home, reported by individuals before and after the introduction of individual restrictions in England. Restrictions examined included Rule Six (announced 14 September), 10pm closures of pubs and restaurants and encouraging people to work from home (24 September), going to into levels 1, 2 or 3 (14 October), as well as entering levels 1, 2 or 3 (14 October), as well as entering national locking levels from any of the tiers in November 2020.
The authors found that the effect of these restrictions on the number of contacts reported was mixed, with local restrictions and Rule Six associated with small reductions in calls, and guidance for work-from-home related to larger reductions, but little evidence that closing time at 10pm had any significant impact for bars and restaurants.
Notably, following the introduction of Rule Six, 1,314 (33.8%) out of a total of 3,884 participants included in the analysis for this restriction, reported a decrease in their non-employment and non-educational contacts, and 1,573 (40.5%) participants reported the same number of contacts and 997 (25.7%) reported a higher number of contacts. The average number of connections was two before and after the introduction of Rule Six.
For the 10pm rule, 990 (25.5%) out of 3,887 participants included in the analysis registered a smaller number of contacts, while 2,054 (52.8%) registered the same number of contacts and 843 (21.7%) registered a higher number of contacts. The average number of connections was zero to one before and after the rule came into force.
Under local constraints, participants reduced their acquaintances on average, reporting on average 0.69 fewer non-work and out-of-school contacts compared to the previous restrictions. The effect of the immune system was found to be mixed, with Levels 1 and 2 having little effect on the average number of contacts, whereas Level 3 reduced binding.
The subsequent November lockdown appeared to be the biggest difference for those entering the Level 1 lockout, with 750 (35.8%) out of 2,095 participants in Phase 1 reported reducing the number of contacts by around 1.40 calls per day, on average. The impact of moving from Stage 2 or Tier 3 to locking was less clear, with 428 (29.4%) out of 1212 adults in Tier 2 and 85 (26.3%) of 236 adults in Phase 3 report reducing their connections.
Dr Christopher Jarvis, Associate Professor at LSHTM and corresponding author, said: “To put these changes in context, the full national lock in March reduced average daily connections from an estimated 10.8 to 2.8 – a reduction of 74% Although, of course, the changes following more recent restrictions were relatively small, this may indicate that restrictions were applied at a time when half had lowered their acquaintances, and it was not that the restrictions had no effect. “
The authors warn that local constraints involved a combination of several measures and therefore their impact on numbers of contacts is a combination of a range of interventions. Also, the relatively rapid change in policies over the autumn means that some of the impact given to one intervention may be related to one of the others.
Dr Jarvis said: “We have tried to provide an insight into the real issue of whether different restrictions are a response to the work of COVID-19 and if so, how effective they are. we have focused only on connections, there will be the impact of the various constraints. they have a wider social impact that needs to be considered for policy change. ”
Further study of the impact of restrictions on different age groups, and their ability to adhere regionally to national constraints, could help to eliminate specific factors that may have contributed to the relatively small reduction in past contacts. looked at in this study.
###
Contact the media
Anne Korn
Senior Communications Manager
BMC
T: +44 (0) 20 3192 2744
E: [email protected]
Notes to the Editor:
1. Research article:
Impact of local and national constraints in response to COVID-19 on social ties in England: a long-term natural test
Jarvis et al. BMC medicine 2021
DOI: 10.1186 / s12916-021-01924-7
For an embargoed copy of the research article contact Anne Korn at BMC.
Following the construction of the embargo, the article will be available here:
https: /
Name the magazine in any story you write. If you are writing for the web, please link to the article. All articles are available free of charge, in accordance with BMC’s open access policy.
2. BMC medicine is the leading medical journal of the BMC series. An open, peer-reviewed general medical journal, BMC medicine publishes unique and influential research in all areas of clinical practice, translational medicine, medical and health advances, public health, global health, policy, and general topics of interest to the biochemical professional communities and sociomedical. We also publish inspirational discussions and reviews as well as exclusive forum articles and insightful tutorials.
3. A pioneer in open access publishing, BMC has an advanced portfolio of high-quality peer-reviewed journals including titles of wide interest such as BMC Biology and BMC medicine, specialty journals such as Malaria Journal and Microbiome, and the BMC series. At BMC, research is always ongoing. We are committed to continuous innovation to better support the needs of our communities, ensure the integrity of the research we publish, and advocate for the benefits of open research. BMC is part of Springer Nature, giving us more opportunities to help authors connect and promote discoveries around the world.
Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! they are not responsible for the accuracy of press releases posted to EurekAlert! by sending institutions or for using any information through the EurekAlert system.