Afficher la notice abrégée

dc.rights.licenseopenen_US
hal.structure.identifierGroupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée [GREThA]
dc.contributor.authorAUBERT, Cecile
IDREF: 07594717X
hal.structure.identifierGroupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée [GREThA]
dc.contributor.authorAUGERAUD VERON, Emmanuelle
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-17T15:31:10Z
dc.date.available2021-11-17T15:31:10Z
dc.date.issued2021-05
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://oskar-bordeaux.fr/handle/20.500.12278/123846
dc.description.abstractEnLockdown curbs the COVID-19 epidemics but at huge costs. Public debates question its impact compared to reliance on individual responsibility. We study how rationally chosen self-protective behavior impacts the spread of the epidemics and interacts with policies. We first assess the value of lockdown in terms of mortality compared to a counterfactual scenario that incorporates self-protection efforts; and second, assess how individual behavior modify the epidemic dynamics when public regulations change. We couple an SLIAR model, that includes asymptomatic transmission, with utility maximization: Individuals trade off economic and wellbeing costs from physical distancing with a lower infection risk. Physical distancing effort depends on risk aversion, perceptions of the epidemics and average distancing effort in the population. Rational distancing effort is computed as a Nash Equilibrium. Equilibrium effort differs markedly from constant, stochastic or proportional contacts reduction. It adjusts to daily incidence of hospitalization in a way that creates a slightly decreasing plateau in epidemic prevalence. Calibration on French data shows that a business-as-usual benchmark yields an overestimation of the number of deaths by a factor of 10 compared to benchmarks with equilibrium efforts. However, lockdown saves nearly twice as many lives as individual efforts alone. Public policies post-lockdown have a limited impact as they partly crowd out individual efforts. Communication that increases risk salience is more effective. Copyright: © 2021 Aubert, Augeraud-Véron.
dc.language.isoENen_US
dc.rightsAttribution 3.0 United States
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/
dc.subject.enAsymptomatic Disease
dc.subject.enAsymptomatic Diseases
dc.subject.enCovid-19
dc.subject.enEpidemiology
dc.subject.enHospitalization
dc.subject.enHospitalization
dc.subject.enHuman
dc.subject.enHumans
dc.subject.enIncidence
dc.subject.enIncidence
dc.subject.enIsolation And Purification
dc.subject.enModels
dc.subject.enMortality
dc.subject.enPhysical Distancing
dc.subject.enPublic Policy
dc.subject.enPublic Policy
dc.subject.enRisk
dc.subject.enRisk
dc.subject.enSars-Cov-2
dc.subject.enTheoretical
dc.subject.enTheoretical Model
dc.subject.enVirology
dc.title.enThe relative power of individual distancing efforts and public policies to curb the COVID-19 epidemics
dc.typeArticle de revueen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0250764en_US
dc.subject.halÉconomie et finance quantitative [q-fin]en_US
bordeaux.journalPLoS ONEen_US
bordeaux.volume16en_US
bordeaux.hal.laboratoriesGroupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA) - UMR 5113en_US
bordeaux.issue5 Mayen_US
bordeaux.institutionUniversité de Bordeauxen_US
bordeaux.institutionCNRSen_US
bordeaux.peerReviewedouien_US
bordeaux.inpressnonen_US
hal.exportfalse
dc.rights.ccPas de Licence CCen_US
bordeaux.COinSctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.jtitle=PLoS%20ONE&rft.date=2021-05&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=5%20May&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.au=AUBERT,%20Cecile&AUGERAUD%20VERON,%20Emmanuelle&rft.genre=article


Fichier(s) constituant ce document

Thumbnail

Ce document figure dans la(les) collection(s) suivante(s)

Afficher la notice abrégée