<p>During the COVID-19 pandemic, most countries implemented measures to control the spread of infections (so-called nonpharmaceutical interventions). As these interventions (e.g., school and daycare closures) can also have negative societal effects, evaluating their actual effectiveness in terms of infections, diseases, and COVID-19-associated deaths is crucial. The discipline of health geography not only analyzes the spatial dimensions of health and illness but also has a&#xa0;practical claim of providing decision-making tools for shaping public health measures. This paper demonstrates that evaluating the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical measures is and must be a&#xa0;central topic in health geography, and explains why this is the case. In addition to randomized controlled trials, which are rarely implemented for policy interventions, the effectiveness of such measures can be analyzed through so-called natural experiments, which are evaluated using specific econometric methods. First, it is emphasized that the spatial variance of such interventions is a&#xa0;key requirement, as it creates necessary control conditions; thus, the issue is inherently geographical. Second, it is shown that the analytical methodology needed to derive causal effects is also tailored to spatial questions. The paper concludes with a&#xa0;brief overview of spatial nonpharmacological intervention studies related to the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Regarding the effectiveness of the measures studied, the picture is mixed; in particular, no effect was found for the much discussed school closures in most cases.</p>