I read with great interest Miquel Oliu-Barton and colleagues’ Comment1 on the health outcomes of elimination versus mitigation strategies against SARS-CoV-2. I would be interested to know more about the categorisation of countries into these two strategies. Five countries (all of which were islands or peninsulas) were categorised as opting for elimination, whereas 32 countries (most of which bordered other countries) were categorised as opting for mitigation. Where do these categories come from? Were they explicitly stated in the policy documents of these countries? The other data sources are explicit, but this source is unclear despite being central to the analyses.
From my own unsystematic observations, Norway, for example, has adopted a much stricter policy than have countries such as Austria or Sweden; perhaps closer to an elimination strategy than to a mitigation strategy, if countries’ strategies were placed on a continuum. I have rarely, if ever, seen the goals of elimination versus mitigation explicitly stated in the national news.
It would be interesting to see the analyses for each individual country, perhaps along a continuum of elimination versus mitigation strategies, and for other potential predictors such as location or borders with other countries.
The analysis exciting and thought-provoking. Although the global community wishes for this pandemic to end, Oliu-Barton and colleagues clearly show why it might be wise to be prepared for a long-lasting process.
I declare no competing interests.
References
- 1.Oliu-Barton M, Pradelski BSR, Aghion P, et al. SARS-CoV-2 elimination, not mitigation, creates best outcomes for health, the economy, and civil liberties. Lancet. 2021;397:2234–2236. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00978-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]