Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Quantifying the human impact of Melbourne’s 111-day hard lockdown experiment on the adult population

Nature Human Behaviour volume 7, pages 1652–1666 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Lockdown was used worldwide to mitigate the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and was the cornerstone non-pharmaceutical intervention of zero-COVID strategies. Many previous impact evaluations of lockdowns are unreliable because lockdowns co-occurred with severe coronavirus disease related health and financial insecurities. This was not the case in Melbourne’s 111-day lockdown, which left other Australian jurisdictions unaffected. Interrogating nationally representative longitudinal survey data and quasi-experimental variation, and controlling for multiple hypothesis testing, we found that lockdown had some statistically significant, albeit small, impacts on several domains of human life. Women had lower mental health (−0.10 s.d., P = 0.043, 95% confidence interval (CI) = −0.21 to −0) and working hours (−0.13 s.d., P = 0.006, 95% CI = −0.22 to −0.04) but exercised more often (0.28 s.d., P < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.18 to 0.39) and received more government transfers (0.12 s.d., P = 0.048, 95% CI = 0.001 to 0.24). Men felt less part of their community (−0.20 s.d., P < 0.001, 95% CI = −0.30 to −0.10) and reduced working hours (−0.12 s.d., P = 0.004, 95% CI = −0.20 to −0.04). Heterogeneity analyses demonstrated that families with children were driving the negative results. Mothers had lower mental health (−0.27 s.d., P = 0.014, 95% CI = −0.48 to −0.06), despite feeling safer (0.26 s.d., P = 0.008, 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.46). Fathers increased their alcohol consumption (0.35 s.d., P = 0.002, 95% CI = 0.13 to 0.57). Some outcomes worsened with lockdown length for mothers. We discuss potential explanations for why parents were adversely affected by lockdown.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Description of the natural experiment with a timeline of COVID-19 daily infection numbers, lockdown dates and HILDA Survey data collection windows.
Fig. 2: Lockdown treatment effects (expressed in s.d.), separately for men and women.
Fig. 3: Lockdown treatment effects (expressed in s.d.), separately for men and women within socially relevant subgroups.
Fig. 4: Lockdown treatment effect (expressed in s.d.) for women for selected outcomes according to length of exposure and family status.
Fig. 5: Estimated treatment effect of lockdown (expressed in s.d.) for men and for selected outcomes according to the length of exposure and family status.

Data availability

This paper uses unit record data from the HILDA Survey, conducted by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research on behalf of the Australian Government DSS (release 20, https://dataverse.ada.edu.au/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.26193/PI5LPJ, ADA Dataverse). The data used are available free of charge to researchers through the National Centre for Longitudinal Data Dataverse at the ADA (https://dataverse.ada.edu.au/dataverse/ncld). Access is subject to approval by the Australian Government DSS and is conditional on signing a licence specifying the terms of use. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

All analyses were conducted with Stata 16.1MP. Replication codes, including codes on how to construct the working dataset and how to generate estimates, figures and tables, are accessible at https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/lmfiqa10lse6ymu22nwih/h?rlkey=mbgnrqwgds9czuvwyutlffdug&dl=0. This link will take the reader to a Dropbox folder.

References

  1. Haug, N. et al. Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government interventions. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 1303–1312 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Desvars-Larrive, A. et al. A structured open dataset of government interventions in response to COVID-19. Sci. Data 7, 285 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Sandford, A. Coronavirus: half of humanity now on lockdown as 90 countries call for confinement. Euronews https://www.euronews.com/2020/04/02/coronavirus-in-europe-spain-s-death-toll-hits-10-000-after-record-950-new-deaths-in-24-hou (02 April 2020).

  4. Dehning, J. et al. Inferring change points in the spread of COVID-19 reveals the effectiveness of interventions. Science 369, eabb9789 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Flaxman, S. et al. Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe. Nature 584, 257–261 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Burki, T. K. Herd immunity for COVID-19. Lancet Respir. Med. 9, 135–136 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Alwan, N. A. et al. Scientific consensus on the COVID-19 pandemic: we need to act now. Lancet 396, e71–e72 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Baker, M., Wilson, N. & Blakely, T. Elimination could be the optimal response strategy for covid-19 and other emerging pandemic diseases. BMJ 371, m4907 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lenzer, J. Covid-19: group of UK and US experts argues for “focused protection” instead of lockdowns. BMJ 371, m3908 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pachetti, M. Impact of lockdown on Covid-19 case fatality rate and viral mutations spread in 7 countries in Europe and North America. J. Transl. Med. 18, 338 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Oliu-Barton, M. et al. SARS-CoV-2 elimination, not mitigation, creates best outcomes for health, the economy, and civil liberties. Lancet 397, 2234–2236 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Dave, D., Friedson, A. I., Matsuzawa, K. & Sabia, J. J. When do shelter-in-place orders fight COVID-19 best? Policy heterogeneity across states and adoption time. Econ. Inq. 59, 29–52 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Blakely, T. et al. The probability of the 6-week lockdown in Victoria (commencing 9 July 2020) achieving elimination of community transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Med. J. Aust. 213, 349–351 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Berry, C. R., Fowler, A., Glazer, T., Handel-Meyer, S. & MacMillen, A. Evaluating the effects of shelter-in-place policies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2019706118 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Meo, S. A. et al. Impact of lockdown on COVID-19 prevalence and mortality during 2020 pandemic: observational analysis of 27 countries. Eur. J. Med. Res. 25, 56 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Gibson, J. Government mandated lockdowns do not reduce COVID-19 deaths: implications for evaluating the stringent New Zealand response. N. Z. Econ. 56, 17–28 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Normile, D. Can ‘zero COVID’ countries continue to keep the virus at bay once they reopen? Successful strategies used in Asia and the Pacific may not be sustainable in the long run. Science 373, 1294–1295 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Robinson, E., Sutin, A. R., Daly, M. & Jones, A. A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies comparing mental health before versus during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. J. Affect. Disord. 296, 567–576 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Witteveen, D. & Velthorst, E. Economic hardship and mental health complaints during COVID-19. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 27277–27284 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Pierce, M. et al. Mental health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal probability sample survey of the UK population. Lancet Psychiatry 7, 883–892 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Brooks, S. K. et al. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. Lancet 395, 912–920 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Varga, T. V. et al. Loneliness, worries, anxiety, and precautionary behaviours in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal analysis of 200,000 Western and Northern Europeans. Lancet Reg. Health Eur. 2, 100020 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Brodeur, A., Clark, A. E., Fleche, S. & Powdthavee, N. COVID-19, lockdowns and well-being: evidence from Google Trends. J. Public Econ. 193, 104346 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Armbruster, S. & Klotzbücher, V. Lost in lockdown? COVID-19, social distancing, and mental health in Germany. CEPR https://cepr.org/node/390474 (2020).

  25. Bajos, N. et al. When lockdown policies amplify social inequalities in COVID-19 infections: evidence from a cross-sectional population-based survey in France. BMC Public Health 21, 705 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Wright, L., Steptoe, A. & Fancourt, D. Are we all in this together? Longitudinal assessment of cumulative adversities by socioeconomic position in the first 3 weeks of lockdown in the UK. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 74, 683–688 (2020).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Perry, B. L., Aronson, B. & Pescosolido, B. A. Pandemic precarity: COVID-19 is exposing and exacerbating inequalities in the American heartland. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2020685118 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Adams-Prassl, A., Boneva, T., Golin, M. & Rauh, C. Inequality in the impact of the coronavirus shock: evidence from real time surveys. J. Public Econ. 189, 104245 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Adams-Prassl, A., Boneva, T., Golin, M. & Rauh, C. The impact of the coronavirus lockdown on mental health: evidence from the United States. Econ. Policy 37, 139–155 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Croda, E. & Grossbard, S. Women pay the price of COVID-19 more than men. Rev. Econ. Househ. 19, 1–9 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Yavorsky, J. E., Qian, Y. & Sargent, A. C. The gendered pandemic: the implications of COVID-19 for work and family. Sociol. Compass 15, e12881 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Serrano-Alarcón, M., Kentikelenis, A., Mckee, M. & Stuckler, D. Impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on mental health: evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in England and Scotland. Health Econ. 31, 284–296 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Johnston, R., Mohammed, A. & van der Linden, C. Evidence of exacerbated gender inequality in child care obligations in Canada and Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Politics Gend. 16, 1131–1141 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bryson, H. et al. Clinical, financial and social impacts of COVID-19 and their associations with mental health for mothers and children experiencing adversity in Australia. PLoS ONE 16, e0257357 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Sevilla, A. & Smith, S. Baby steps: the gender division of childcare during the COVID-19 pandemic. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 36, S169–S186 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Alon, T., Doepke, M., Olmstead-Rumsey, J. & Tertilt, M. This Time It’s Different: the Role of Women’s Employment in a Pandemic Recession. NBER Working Paper Series 27660 (NBER, 2020).

  37. Belot, M. et al. Unequal consequences of Covid 19: representative evidence from six countries. Rev. Econ. Househ. 19, 769–783 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Collins, C., Landivar, L. C., Ruppanner, L. & Scarborough, W. J. COVID‐19 and the gender gap in work hours. Gend. Work Organ. 28, 101–112 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Craig, L. & Churchill, B. Working and caring at home: gender differences in the effects of Covid-19 on paid and unpaid labor in Australia. Fem. Econ. 27, 310–326 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hupkau, C. & Petrongolo, B. Work, care and gender during the COVID-19 crisis. Fisc. Stud. 41, 623–651 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Smith, P. Hard lockdown and a “health dictatorship”: Australia’s lucky escape from covid-19. BMJ 371, m4910 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lane, C. R. et al. Genomics-informed responses in the elimination of COVID-19 in Victoria, Australia: an observational, genomic epidemiological study. Lancet Public Health 6, e547–e556 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Horton, R. Offline: the case for no-COVID. Lancet 397, 359 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Dean, L., Churchill, B. & Ruppanner, L. The mental load: building a deeper theoretical understanding of how cognitive and emotional labor overload women and mothers. Community Work Fam. 25, 13–29 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Usher, K., Bhullar, N., Durkin, J., Gyamfi, N. & Jackson, D. Family violence and COVID-19: increased vulnerability and reduced options for support. Int. J. Ment. Health Nurs. 29, 549–552 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Boxall, H., Morgan, A. & Brown, R. The prevalence of domestic violence among women during the COVID-19 pandemic. Australas. Polic. 12, 38–46 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  47. The First Year of COVID-19 in Australia: Direct and Indirect Health Effects (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2021).

  48. Information Note—Government Responses to COVID-19 Pandemic (Updated 23 September 2021) (Fair Work Commission, 2021).

  49. Walkowiak, E. JobKeeper: the Australian short‐time work program. Aust. J. Public Adm. 80, 1046–1053 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Zachreson, C., Rebulli, N., Mitchell, L., Tomko, M. & Geard, N. What mobility data can tell us about COVID-19 lockdowns. InSight+ https://insightplus.mja.com.au/2020/41/what-mobility-data-can-tell-us-about-covid-19-lockdowns/ (19 October 2020).

  51. Butterworth, P., Schurer, S., Trinh, T.-A., Vera-Toscano, E. & Wooden, M. Effect of lockdown on mental health in Australia: evidence from a natural experiment analysing a longitudinal probability sample survey. Lancet Public Health 7, e427–e436 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Watson, N. & Wooden, M. The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey. Jahrb. Natl Okon. Stat. 241, 131–141 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Summerfield, M. et al. HILDA User Manual—Release 20 (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, 2021); https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/hilda/for-data-users/user-manuals

  54. Butterworth, P. & Crosier, T. The validity of the SF-36 in an Australian National Household Survey: demonstrating the applicability of the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey to examination of health inequalities. BMC Public Health 4, 44 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Wing, C., Simon, K. & Bello-Gomez, R. A. Designing difference in difference studies: best practices for public health policy research. Ann. Rev. Public Health 39, 453–469 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. de Vocht, F. et al. Conceptualising natural and quasi experiments in public health. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 21, 32 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Cunningham, S. Causal Inference: The Mixtape (Yale Univ. Press, 2021).

  58. de Chaisemartin, C. & D’Haultfoeuille, X. Two-way fixed effects estimators with heterogeneous treatment effects. Am. Econ. Rev. 110, 2964–2996 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Romano, J. P. & Wolf, M. Exact and approximate stepdown methods for multiple hypothesis testing. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 100, 94–108 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Romano, J. P. & Wolf, M. Stepwise multiple testing as formalized data snooping. Econometrica 73, 1237–1282 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Campbell, F. et al. Early childhood investments substantially boost adult health. Science 343, 1478–1485 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We received no specific funding for this work. This paper uses unit record data from the HILDA Survey conducted by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research on behalf of the Australian Government Department of Social Services (DSS) (release 20; https://dataverse.ada.edu.au/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.26193/PI5LPJ, Australian Data Archive (ADA) Dataverse). The findings and views reported in this paper are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Australian Government, the DSS or the Melbourne Institute.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Stefanie Schurer & Kadir Atalay

  2. IZA Institute of Labor Economics, Bonn, Germany

    Stefanie Schurer & Mark Wooden

  3. Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence, Families and Children over the Lifecourse, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Stefanie Schurer, Kadir Atalay & Nick Glozier

  4. Sydney School of Medicine (Central Clinical School), Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia

    Nick Glozier

  5. Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia

    Esperanza Vera-Toscano & Mark Wooden

Authors
  1. Stefanie Schurer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kadir Atalay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nick Glozier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Esperanza Vera-Toscano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mark Wooden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.S, K.A. and N.G. designed the research question. S.S. and K.A. designed the empirical strategy. K.A. estimated all regression models. All co-authors helped interpreting the estimation results. S.S. wrote the paper with inputs from A.A. on every aspect of the paper and inputs from M.W. on Melbourne’s lockdown strategy. E.V.-T. provided help with proof-checking references, figures and results. N.G. produced figures on the natural experiment and helped interpret effect sizes. All authors contributed to finalizing the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefanie Schurer.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Human Behaviour thanks Stephanie Rossouw and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–23 and Figs. 1–8.

Reporting Summary

Peer Review File

Source data

Source Data Fig. 1

Daily COVID-19 new infection numbers in Sydney and Melbourne. Data sourced from Anthony Macali, the curator of www.covidlive.com.au. Data made available under the CC-BY-4.0 site/licence.

Source Data Fig. 2

Estimated treatment effects and 95% confidence intervals, separately for men and women. Data analysis based on the HILDA Survey.

Source Data Fig. 3

Estimated treatment effects and 95% confidence intervals, separately for five policy-relevant groups (separately according to sex). Data analysis based on the HILDA Survey.

Source Data Fig. 4

Estimated treatment effects and 95% confidence intervals, separately for groups differentiated according to exposure length to lockdown (female sample). Data analysis based on the HILDA Survey.

Source Data Fig. 5

Estimated treatment effects and 95% confidence intervals, separately for groups differentiated according to exposure length to lockdown (male sample). Data analysis based on the HILDA Survey.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schurer, S., Atalay, K., Glozier, N. et al. Quantifying the human impact of Melbourne’s 111-day hard lockdown experiment on the adult population. Nat Hum Behav 7, 1652–1666 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01638-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01638-1

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing