RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 COVID-19 transmission in the U.S. before vs. after relaxation of state social distancing measures
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.07.15.20154534
DO 10.1101/2020.07.15.20154534
A1 Alexander C. Tsai
A1 Guy Harling
A1 Zahra Reynolds
A1 Rebecca F. Gilbert
A1 Mark J. Siedner
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/07/2020.07.15.20154534.abstract
AB Background Weeks after issuing social distancing orders, all U.S. states and the District of Columbia at least partially relaxed these measures. Critical unanswered questions remain about the timing of relaxation, and if and how unregulated social distancing measures can be sustained while effectively maintaining epidemic control.Methods We identified all statewide social distancing measures that were implemented and/or relaxed in the U.S. between March 10-July 15, 2020, triangulating data from state government and third-party sources. Using segmented linear regression, we evaluated the extent to which social distancing measure relaxation affected epidemic control, as indicated by the time-varying, state-specific effective reproduction number (Rt).Results In the eight weeks prior to relaxation, mean Rt declined by 0.012 units per day (95% CI, -0.013 to -0.012), and 46/51 jurisdictions achieved Rt < 1.0 by the date of relaxation. After relaxation of social distancing, Rt reversed course and began increasing by 0.007 units per day (95% CI, 0.006-0.007), reaching a mean Rt of 1.16 eight weeks later, with only 9/51 jurisdictions maintaining Rt <1.0. Indicators often used to motivate relaxation at the time of relaxation (e.g. test positivity rate <5%) predicted greater post-relaxation epidemic growth.Conclusions We detected an immediate and significant reversal in epidemic growth gains after relaxation of social distancing measures across the U.S. These results illustrate the potential pitfalls of premature relaxation of social distancing measures in the U.S.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementSir Henry Dale Fellowship, Wellcome Trust (UK); Sullivan Family FoundationAuthor 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:This ecological analysis was based on publicly available data and was exempt from ethical review.All 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.YesThe data on social distancing policies are contained within the Supplementary Appendix Table. The data on COVID-19 cases and deaths are publicly available from https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data.