Background: Movement restriction policies (MRPs) are effective in preventing/delaying COVID-19 transition but are associated with high societal cost. This study aims to estimate the health burden of the first wave of COVID-19 in China, and the cost-effectiveness of early versus late implementation of MRPs so to inform preparation for future waves. Methods: The SEIR (susceptible, exposed, infectious and recovered) modelling framework was adapted to simulate the health and cost outcomes of initiating MRPs at different times: rapid implementation (23 rd January, the real-world scenario), delayed by one week, delayed by two weeks and delayed by four weeks. The end point was set as the day when newly confirmed cases reached zero. Two costing perspectives were adopted: healthcare and societal. Input data were obtained from official statistics and published literature. The primary outcomes were disability adjusted life-years (DALY), cost and net monetary benefit. Costs were reported in both Chinese currency Renminbi (RMB) and US Dollar value in 2019 (USD). Findings: The first wave of COVID-19 in China resulted in 55,337 DALYs lost and 382 billion USD losses. The rapid implementation strategy dominated all other delayed strategies. This conclusion was robust to all scenarios tested. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 70,892 (RMB) per DALY saved, the probability for the rapid implementation to be the optimal strategy was 89%. Interpretation: Early implementation of MRPs in response to COVID-19 reduced both the health burden and societal cost and thus should be used for future waves of COVID-19.Funding National Social Science Foundation and Shanghai Municipal Commission of Health and the Family. Funding Statement: This work is supported by National Social Science Foundation (No. 18BGL235) and Shanghai Municipal Commission of Health and the Family Foundation for Young Talents (2017YQ023). Declaration of Interests: MP received personal fees from Merck, outside the submitted work. Other than these, the authors declare no competing interests. Ethics Approval Statement: This study did not access individual patient data. Hence, ethical approval and patient informed consents were not required.