Spread and control of COVID-19 in China and their associations with population movement, public health emergency measures, and medical resources

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 epidemic, first emerged in Wuhan during December 2019, has spread globally. While the mass population movement for Chinese New Year has significantly influenced spreading the disease, little direct evidence exists about the relevance to epidemic and its control of population movement from Wuhan, local emergency response, and medical resources in China.

METHODS

Spearman’s correlation analysis was performed between official data of confirmed COVID-19 cases from Jan 20 th to Feb 19 th , 2020 and real-time travel data and health resources data.

RESULTS

There were 74,675 confirmed COVID-19 cases in China by Feb 19 th , 2020. The overall fatality rate was 2.84%, much higher in Hubei than in other regions (3.27% vs 0.73%). The index of population inflow from Hubei was positively correlated with total (Provincial r=0.9159, p<0.001; City r=0.6311, p<0.001) and primary cases (Provincial r=0.8702, p<0.001; City r=0.6358, p<0.001). The local health emergency measures (eg, city lockdown and traffic control) were associated with reduced infections nationwide. Moreover, the number of public health employees per capita was inversely correlated with total cases (r=−0.6295, p <0.001) and infection rates (r =−0.4912, p <0.01). Similarly, cities with less medical resources had higher fatality (r =−0.4791, p<0.01) and lower cure rates (r = 0.5286, p<0.01) among the confirmed cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The spread of the COVID-19 in China in its early phase was attributed primarily to population movement from Hubei, and effective governmental health emergency measures and adequate medical resources played important roles in subsequent control of epidemic and improved prognosis of affected individuals.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.02.24.20027623: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.