LAUSR

When the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic first spread, governments could implement a wide range of measures to tackle the outbreaks. Conventional wisdom holds that public health policy should be made on the basis of empirical demonstrations, while little research has probed on how to safeguard the expected policy utility in the case of evidence shortage on novel contagious diseases. In particular, the fight against COVID-19 cannot succeed without public compliance as well as the support of people who have not tested positive. Based on the data from the first wave of COVID-19, by using a random effect estimator, fixed effect method, and hierarchical technique, we specified the efficiency of particular social distancing policies by contextualizing multiple factors. We found that adopting gathering restrictions decreased new case growth but were conditional on its interaction with population density, while mitigation effects constantly corresponded to policy magnitude in a given time; for which the effective patterns varied from three days to sixty days. Overall, policies encouraging social distancing exerted a positive effect on mitigating the first wave of COVID-19. Both the enforcing duration and public compliance constrained the expected impact of nonpharmaceutical intervention according to degrees of policy level. These findings suggest that, when evidence is incomplete, the effectiveness of public health crisis management depends on the combination of policy appropriateness and, accordingly, public compliance.