Research finds Scot Covid restrictions had no impact on distancing

The Herald Scotland

22-04-2025

Findings also suggested that the local restrictions may have been more effective if factors other than Covid-19 cases had been considered.
Project leader Dr Chantal den Daas, a Senior Lecturer in Health Psychology, said the study provides insight into how to approach future pandemics, especially in terms of what information should be established prior to imposing restrictions.
In collaboration with the Covid Health and Adherence Research in Scotland (CHARIS) project, Dr den Daas and her team interviewed individuals across Scotland at random from March to November 2020.
Respondents were asked whether they had worn masks in shops and on public transport, left their homes, followed two-metre social distancing rules, and washed their hands as soon as they returned home.
The study distinguished between 'restrictions' such as lockdowns that included curfews, closure of shops, bars, restaurants and sporting events, and stay at home rules, and guidance around individual behaviours such as physical distancing, hand washing, and wearing face coverings
Although many of the restrictions and guidance were used around the world during the pandemic, researchers said there is a 'lack of understanding' about when to implement restrictions and how likely they are to slow transmission.
Researchers compared people's behaviour before and after local restrictions were implemented, and the results were also compared across regions.
Although the study found that people were no more likely to adhere to social distancing in regions with local restrictions, there were signs that people were more likely to wear face coverings in areas with looser or no restrictions.
The authors also suggested that future research should try to determine whether case rates are the right factor to use for triggering restrictions.
Because the presence of local restrictions did not appear to change respondents' behaviours, the authors recommended that 'policymakers should consider communicating more clearly on reasons for the restrictions.'
In summarising the results, the authors said that effectively communicating not only the need but also the reasons for following restrictions is vital. Still, they conceded that 'increasing targeted behaviours is not easy.'
Although the Aberdeen study focused on the impact of local restrictions, the report pointed to previous studies that showed that national policies—such as national restrictions on face covering and staying at home—did make it more likely for people to follow the rules.
Dr den Daas said that the study's results contradict expectations and provide useful insight into how to respond to future outbreaks.
'When local restrictions were introduced in 2020 due to an increase in Covid-19 case numbers, we thought we would see a change in behaviour after they were implemented. But this was not what we found.
'It is really important to build an understanding of what could have been done differently and how we can effectively influence public behaviour in the future should we be faced with another public health crisis.
'This research provided insight on the type of information we should aim to collect in future pandemics, to see if we can find better measures to predict cases, examine the need for restrictions and the effect of any restrictions put in place.
'Future research in acute outbreaks should assess behaviour and beliefs about the virus, risk on an ongoing basis and identify the need for intervention even before cases rates start to go up.'