Abstract
Background On January 7, 2021, the second emergency status Emergency status was declared in Japan.
Object We evaluated the effect of the 2nd Emergency status as well as other countermeasures, climate conditions and mobility until January 21, 2021, when two weeks passed since the second Emergency status was activated, as of February 7, 2021.
Method We regressed effective reproduction number R(t) on temperature, humidity, mobility, and countermeasures such as two Emergency status declarations or GTTC.
Results Estimation results indicate that the second Emergency status declaration was significantly reduced infectiousness as well as the first one or GTTC controlling out climate condition and mobility. Temperature was significant negative, though it was not significant if we added humidity as explanatory variable.
Discussion and Conclusion We conclude that the 2nd Emergency status significantly reduced infectiousness.
Introduction
As of February 10, 2021, there were about 408 thousands cases and 6,604 mortality cases reported in Japan. As a countermeasure against the COVID-19 outbreak in Japan, school closure and voluntary event cancellation was required from February 27, 2020 to the end of March. Large commercial events were cancelled. Subsequently, an emergency status was declared on April 7 through 25 May, requiring voluntary restrictions against going out. Businesses for consumers were shut down. During this period, the first peak was reached on April 3. Infections then decreased until July 29, as shown in Figure 1. The so-called “Go To Travel Campaign” (GTTC) started on July 22 as a 50% subsidized travel program aimed at supporting sightseeing businesses with the government-issued coupons for use in shopping at tourist destinations. It was expected that the campaign might expand the outbreak. Thereafter, GTTC continued to the end of December, by which time the third wave had emerged. The third wave was larger than either of the preceding two waves in December. Therefore, GTTC was inferred as the main reason underlying the third wave [1].
Nevertheless, although results were mixed, some research suggests that COVID-19 might be associated with climate conditions, at least in China [2–4]. If that were true for Japan, then GTTC might not be the main reason for the third wave.
Moreover, mobility was inferred as the main cause of the outbreak dynamics, at least in the first wave in Japan [5] and throughout the world [6]. Therefore, for this study, we evaluate the GTTC effects on infectiousness and the effective reproduction number R(t) while considering climate conditions and mobility.
Methods
The number of symptomatic patients reported by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) for January 14 – December 31, published [7] as of January 28, 2021 was used. Some patients were excluded from data for Japan: those presumed to be persons infected abroad or infected as Diamond Princess passengers. Those patients were presumed not to represent community-acquired infection in Japan. For onset dates of some symptomatic patients that were unknown, we estimated their onset date from an empirical distribution with duration extending from the onset to the report date among patients for whom the onset date had been reported.
The following procedure is similar to that used for our earlier research [8,9]. We estimated the onset date of patients for whom onset dates were not reported as follows: Letting f(k) represent this empirical distribution of incubation period and letting Nt denote the number of patients for whom onset dates were not available published at date t, then the number of patients for whom the onset date was known is t-1. The number of patients with onset date t-1 for whom onset dates were not available was estimated as f(1)Nt. Similarly, the patients with onset date t-2 and for whom onset dates were not available were estimated as f(2)Nt. Therefore, the total number of patients for whom the onset date was not available, given an onset date of s, was estimated as Σk=1f(k)Ns+k for the long duration extending from s.
Moreover, the reporting delay for published data from MHLW might be considerable. In other words, if s+k is larger than that in the current period t, then s+k represents the future for period t. For that reason, Ns+k is not observable. Such a reporting delay engenders underestimation of the number of patients. For that reason, it must be adjusted as . Similarly, patients for whom the onset dates were available are expected to be affected by the reporting delay. Therefore, we have , where Ms|t represents the reported number of patients for whom onset dates were period s as of the current period t.
We defined R(t) as the number of infected patients on day t divided by the number of patients who were presumed to be infectious. The number of infected patients was calculated from the epidemic curve by the onset date using an empirical distribution of the incubation period, which is Σk=1f(k)Et+k, where Et denotes the number of patients for whom the onset date was period t. The distribution of infectiousness in symptomatic and asymptomatic cases, g(k), was assumed to be 30% on the onset day, 20% on the following day, and 10% for the subsequent five days [10]. Then the number of infectiousness patients was Σk=1g(k)Et-k. Therefore, R(t) was defined as We use average temperature and relative humidity data for Tokyo during the day as climate data because national average data were not available. We obtained data from the Japan Meteorological Agency (https://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/risk/obsdl/index.php). However, we identified remarkable countermeasures in Japan: two Emergency status declarations, GTTC, and school closure and voluntary event cancellation (SCVEC). SCVEC extended from February 27 through the end of March: it required school closure and cancellation of voluntary events, including private meetings. Then the 1st Emergency status was declared April 7. It ceased at the end of May. It required voluntary restriction of going out, school closures, and shutdown of businesses. For subsidizing travel and shopping at tourist destinations, GTTC started on July 22 and ceased temporarily at the end of December. Finally, the 2nd Emergency status was declared on January 7, 2021 for the most affected 11 prefectures. It required to close restaurant on 8:00 p.m. and volunrtary restriction to going out, but did not require to close schools. It continued at least until February 7, 2021
To clarify associations among R(t) and climate, mobility, and countermeasures, we regressed the daily R(t) on daily climate, mobility, and countermeasures using ordinary least squares. Temperatures were measured in degrees Celsius, humidity, and mobility as % in regression, not as standardized. When we found some variables were not significant, we dropped them and estimate it again.
The study period extended from January 14, when the initial case was detected in Japan, to the end of 2020, as of January 28, 2021 because R(t) usually develops over time during the prior month. We adopted 5% as the level to infer significance.
Results
During January 14, 2020 – January 21, 2020 in Japan, 317,083 ommunity-acquired symptomatic COVID-19 cases were identified as of February 10, 2021. Figure 2 presents an empirical distribution of the duration of onset to reporting in Japan. The maximum delay was 31 days. Figure 3 depicts an empirical distribution of incubation periods among 91 cases for which the exposed date and onset date were published by MHLW in Japan. The mode was six days. The average was 6.6 days.
Figure 4 depicts the estimated R(t), climate, and mobility in Japan. It is noteworthy that R(t) is shown on the right axis; climate and mobility are on the left axis. The latter was normalized to have a zero average and one standard deviation.
Figure 4 depicts that R(t) was very volatile until mid-February because there were very few cases, but it reached the first peak on March 19. Later it declined to less than one under the 1st Emergency status. After the 1st Emergency status, it increased gradually and reached the second peak on June 20. Then it declined to become smaller than one, but it increased to more than one from mid-September and reached the third peak on October 30. Subsequently, it declined but it was not smaller than one until the end of 2020. Since January 5, 2021, it was less than one.
Mobility was very similar with R(t) until the second peak of R(t). Thereafter, it increased, but R(t) decreased. It was very high from August through November, but not so high in R(t). Temperature appeared to be associated positively from May to the second peak of R(t), but in summer it appeared to associate negatively with R(t). Humidity was highly volatile. It was difficult to infer some association from the figure.
Table 1 presents the estimation results. Temperature was negative and significant. mobility was positive and significant. Humidity was not significant. two Emergency statuss and GTTC were negative and significant, but SCVEC was significant and positive. The adjusted coefficient of determination was 0.5605: the model did not fit very well. Figure 5 shows R(t) and its fitted values, which were too volatile in comparison with R(t). It was probably caused by the day-of-the-week pattern in mobility or by a periodic change in the weather.
Discussion
The left hand side in Table 1 indicates estimation result for the full specification with humidity as explanatory variable. The right hand side of it shows the estimation results without humidity because only humidity was insignificant in the full specification on the left hand side. All explanatory varuable in the i¥right hand side were significant. Therefore, we use the estimation results on the right hand side, hereafter.
R(t) will increase by 0.24 if the temperature decreases by 20°C. To compensate for this effect, leaving on trips from the residence would have to be reduced by 16.3% (= 0.0110 × 20/0.0135). Therefore, temperature probably affects the outbreak dynamics.
Emergency status reduced R(t) by about 1 in both of the first and second time, as we expected. However, the effect was larger in the second time than the first time. Conversely, GTTC also reduced R(t) by about the same magnitude. In actuality, GTTC has been presumed to have raised infectiousness to date, but it might have instead reduced infectiousness. At least, one can conclude that it did not raise infectiousness.
This counterintuitive result might reflect the situation for July. Before GTTC was started on July 22, even though the temperature was high, a second peak occurred, indicating that the non-GTTC period was affected by high infectiousness. By contrast, in November or December, R(t) was not so high compared to the first and second wave. Of course, the temperature was lower than that it had been for the prior two peaks.
It is noteworthy that R(t) does not represent the number of newly infected patients. It is a ratio divided by the number of patients with infectiousness. The number of newly infected patients in the third wave around the end of 2020 was much higher than either of the two prior waves, as shown in Figure 1. Therefore, the greater number of patients in the third wave resulted from the greater number of patients with infectiousness, and not larger R(t). Larger numbers of patients with infectiousness were made by the fact that R(t) was not so high by higher than one for a long time, about three months. We must be reminded for interpretation of the obtained result that climate conditions, mobility, and countermeasures affect infectiousness R(t), but do not directly affect the number of patients.
Reportedly, [11] travel-associated COVID-19 incidence during July 22–26, when GTTC started, was much higher than during either the earlier period of June 22 to July 21 or July 15–19 or June 22 – July 21 in terms of the incidence rate ratio (IRR). That study also compares the period of August 8–31. Patient data of two types were used: the onset date and the date of a positive test result.
We have identified some odd points in the report of that study. The first is that the proportion of people with a travel history during the GTTC period was comparable to those of people during the two prior periods. Especially, when the earlier period was defined as July 15–19, the proportions of people with a travel history among patients with an available onset date were smaller for the GTTC period than during the prior period. However, the authors found significantly higher incidence at the time when GTTC started. Their findings might merely reflect the fact that the total number of patients in the GTTC period was higher than during the prior period. In other words, they did not control the underlying outbreak situation and therefore found incorrect association. Use of the IRR would be valid if the underlying outbreak situation other than the examining point was the same in the two considered periods. Therefore, application of IRR might be inappropriate for this issue. At least, controlling the potential differences in the outbreak situation is expected to be necessary. The underlying outbreak situation, unrelated to GTTC, was reflected in the number of patients without a travel history or any sightseeing. To control the underlying outbreak situation, analysis of the share of patients with a travel history or sightseeing might be one procedure. However, that share did not increase markedly during the GTTC starting period. This fact indicates that the authors’ results and conclusions are misleading.
A second point is that the authors of that report referred to the period of August 8–31, when GTTC was continuing. The proportion of patients with a travel history or tourism was much smaller than in the GTTC period or in the prior period. Although the authors did not compare incidence in the period with that of either the prior period or the GTTC period, the rate of incidence during the period in August was probably lower than in other periods. In fact, some patients using GTTC might have been included in the period, as described above. Their inclusion might be inconsistent with the authors’ conclusion.
A third point is that, as shown in Figure 1, which was created using the same procedure in earlier studies [8,9], we used publicly reported information [7] to find the peak of newly infected persons as July 23: the GTTC starting date. Therefore, we infer that GTTC possibly reduced infectiousness. We also consider climate conditions. At around the end of July, the rainy season in Japan ceased; summer began, bringing with it high temperatures. At least, GTTC was insufficient to raise the number of patients and cancel out benefits from the improved climate conditions. Taken together, these points suggest that GTTC might not be the main factor determining the course of the outbreak.
Moreover, GTTC must increase the number of patients without a travel history if GTTC has a strong effect on the outbreak. For example, a patient travelling while using GTTC on July 22 and 23 and then showing onset on July 24 had a travel history with GTTC, but would not be included in a group of patients with a travel history whose onset date was included in the GTTC start period of July 27–31. However, presymptomatic patients are well known to be infectious during the symptomatic period [12]. This patient might infect hotel staff members or persons with visiting areas. They did not have a travel history. Their onset dates were July 27 and 28. Therefore, they included a group of patients without any travel history in the GTTC starting period of July 27–31. Therefore, GTTC certainly increased the number of patients without a travel history, but it did not increase patients with a travel history in this case. Therefore, when considering GTTC effects, we must check the number of patients irrespective of their travel history.
The third wave of the outbreak, much larger than the second wave which struck around July, showed its peak as around the end of the year. Almost simultaneously, GTTC ceased on December 28. These two facts imply that stopping GTTC reduced infectiousness. In other words, starting GTTC might have produced the second peak, whereas ceasing GTTC produced the third peak, which suggests that the GTTC effects depend on climate conditions. If so, then climate conditions were the main factor driving the outbreak. The effects of GTTC might be supplemental. In fact, even through the end of November, GTTC significantly decreased the effective reproduction number controlling climate conditions and mobility [6]. If one extends the considered period to include the end of December, the time at which the third peak occurred and at which GTTC ceased, then the suppressive effect of GTTC on infectiousness might be weaker or might disappear entirely.
Alternatively, GTTC itself might have had no effect on infectiousness, but news media reports about starting or ceasing GTTC might have stimulated a rise in risk perception among the general population and might have induced more precautionary behaviors such as more scrupulous mask wearing, maintaining social distance and cancellation of group dining. In other words, persons at leisure venues might feel higher risk from tourists; tourists might also feel higher risk of infecting others by starting GTTC. Ceasing GTTC might then induce feelings of even higher risk among the general population.
Actually, some countermeasures other than those considered in the present study were used, such as quarantine, isolation, PCR testing, treatment, and vaccine and drug administration. However, to examine their specific effects on infectiousness at a community level, the three considered countermeasures might be the most important policies. Moreover, the periods of the three countermeasures were not overlapped. Therefore, we can isolate the effects of the respective countermeasures more easily.
Among efforts undertaken in Japan, GTTC was one of the “Go To Campaigns (GTC).” GTC has “Go To Eat”, which subsidized customer bills at restaurants from the end of September through November 24 and “Go To Shopping Mall” which subsidized shopping malls to encourage events, product development, and PR activities from October 19 until January 11, 2021, other than GTTC. However, because these were similar subsidy policies and because their periods were overlapped, we cannot isolate each branch of GTC separately. Of those, GTTC was the first and longer campaign among GTC. It was inferred as the main cause of the third wave [1]; we examined the effect of GTTC as a representative of GTC, on infectiousness. In this sense, the effect of GTTC might be the effect of GTC.
The present study has some limitations. First, R(t) represents infectiousness, but not in the number of patients or cases of mortality. One must be reminded that temperature and mobility are associated with infectiousness, but the result does not reflect association with the number of patients. To approach such an association, a formal mathematical model incorporating temperature and mobility must be developed. Producing that model is anticipated as a challenge for future research.
Secondly, as described above, the second Emergency status is continuing as of February 10 at lease in Tokyo or Osaka. Moreover, R(t) was not fixed in the last 31 days.
Thirdly, we examined this problem only for the entirety of Japan. Because Apple Inc. and the Japan Meteorological Agency provide information by prefecture, the data can be extended to affected prefectures such as Tokyo, Osaka, and Hokkaido.
Fourthly, we do not know whether our results can be extended to other countries. That effort remains as a subject for future research.
Conclusion
Results of this study demonstrated that the second Emergency status reduced infectiousness signficantly. Moreover, we found that GTTC did not raise infectiousness.
The present study is based on the authors’ opinions: it does not reflect any stance or policy of their professionally affiliated bodies.
Data Availability
Japan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Press Releases
https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/seisakunitsuite/bunya/kenkou_iryou/kenkou/
Ethical considerations
All information used for this study was collected under the Law of Infection Control, Japan and published data [7] was used. There is therefore no ethical issue related to this study.
Competing Interest
No author has any conflict of interest, financial or otherwise, to declare in relation to this study.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the great efforts of all staff at public health centers, medical institutions, and other facilities who are fighting the spread and destruction associated with COVID-19.
Footnotes
ICMJE Statement Contributors JK was responsible for the coordination of the study and responsible for the data setting. YO developed the model and TS illustrated the results. All authors contributed to the writing of the final manuscript.