Objectives: This study investigated the efficacy of lockdown as a response to COVID-19. This study sought to identify which viral prevention method, loose lockdown or strict lockdown, resulted in the best possible outcome for a certain population.
Methods: A comparative case study was designed to compare and analyze the US states, Florida and California. These states were chosen because they are relatively similar in many factors such as economic dependence on tourism, population traits like population density, and in the aspect that they both have similar weather. Along with being similar in these aspects, the states have opposing lockdown prevention policies; Florida has loose lockdown restrictions and California has strict lockdown restrictions. These states were analyzed through the variables of mortality (death rate), morbidity (hospitalization rate), the economy (unemployment rate and real gross domestic product), and psychological effect (reported cases of anxiety and depression). In the comparison of these two states, it was possible to determine how these variables were affected by the different viral prevention methods.
Results: Florida’s loose lockdown led to a better outcome for the economy with a lower percent decrease in real GDP and unemployment rate, as well as a better psychological effect with lower percent increase in total reports of anxiety and depression. California’s strict lockdown led to a better outcome for the mortality variable with lower rate of deaths as well as a better outcome for the morbidity variable with lower hospitalization rates.
Conclusions: This comparative case study analysis on Florida and California revealed how each lockdown strategy, strict or not, affected each state in terms of mortality, morbidity, the economy and psychological effects. Florida fared better in the economical and psychological variables and California fared better in mortality and morbidity variables.
The psychological effect of a math signal
