PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Benjamin M. Althouse AU - Brendan Wallace AU - Brendan Case AU - Samuel V. Scarpino AU - Antoine Allard AU - Andrew M. Berdahl AU - Easton R. White AU - Laurent Hébert-Dufresne TI - The unintended consequences of inconsistent pandemic control policies AID - 10.1101/2020.08.21.20179473 DP - 2020 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2020.08.21.20179473 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/28/2020.08.21.20179473.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/28/2020.08.21.20179473.full AB - Controlling the spread of COVID-19 – even after a licensed vaccine is available – requires the effective use of non-pharmaceutical interventions, e.g., physical distancing, limits on group sizes, mask wearing, etc1–7. To date, such interventions have not been uniformly and/or systematically implemented across the United States of America (US)8. For example, even when under strict stay-at-home orders, numerous jurisdictions in the US granted exceptions and/or were in close proximity to locations with entirely different regulations in place. Here, we investigate the impact of such geographic inconsistencies in epidemic control policies by coupling high-resolution mobility, search, and COVID case data to a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Our results show that while stay-at-home orders decrease contacts in most areas of the US, some specific activities and venues often see an increase in attendance. As an example, over the month of March 2020, between 10 and 30% of churches in the US saw increases in attendance; even as the total number of visits to churches declined nationally. This heterogeneity, where certain venues see substantial increases in attendance while others close, suggests that closure can cause individuals to find an open venue, even if that requires longer-distance travel. And, indeed, the average distance travelled to churches in the US rose by 13% over the same period, and over the summer, churches with more than 50 average weekly visitors saw an increase of 81% in distance visitors had to travel to attend. Strikingly, our mathematical model reveals that, across a broad range of model parameters, partial measures can often be worse than no measures at all. In the most severe cases, individuals not complying with policies by traveling to neighboring jurisdictions can create epidemics when the outbreak would otherwise have been contained. Indeed, using county-level COVID-19 data, we show that mobility from high-incidence to low-incidence associated with travel for venues like churches, parks, and gyms consistently precedes rising case numbers in the low-incidence counties. Taken together, our data analysis of nearly 120 million church visitors across 184,677 churches, 14 million grocery visitors across 7,662 grocery stores, 13.5 million gym visitors across 5,483 gyms, 7.7 million cases across 3,195 counties, and modeling results highlight the potential unintended consequences of inconsistent epidemic control policies and stress the importance of balancing the societal needs of a population with the risk of an outbreak growing into a large epidemic, and the urgent need for centralized implementation and enforcement of non-pharmaceutical interventions.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementB.C. is supported as a Fellow of the National Science Foundation under NRT award DGE-1735316. S.V.S. is supported by startup funds provided by Northeastern University. E.R.W. was supported by the COVID-19 Rapid Research Fund from the Gund Institute for Environment at the University of Vermont. L.H.-D. acknowledges support from the National Institutes of Health 1P20 GM125498-01 Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence Award. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, the decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:N/AAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data are freely available. SafeGraph data can be obtained here: https://www.safegraph.com/covid-19-data-consortium. Google API for search can be applied for here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSenHdGiGl1YF-7rVDDmmulN8R-ra9MnGLLs7gIIaAX9VHPdPg/viewform. COVID case data by county can be obtained here: https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19/tree/master/csse_covid_19_data Model was written in C++ and is available here: https://github.com/LaurentHebert/cloSIR