Wisconsin April 2020 Election Not Associated with Increase in COVID-19 Infection Rates

  1. Andrew C. Berry
  2. Madhuri S. Mulekar
  3. Bruce B. Berry

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

Wisconsin (WI) held a primary election in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Live voting at polls was allowed despite concern over increasing the spread of COVID-19. In addition to 1.1 million absentee ballots cast, 453,222 persons voted live. The purpose of our study was to determine if an increase in COVID-19 activity was associated with the election.

Methods

Using the voting age population for the United States (US), WI, and its 3 largest counties, and daily new COVID-19 case reports from various COVID-19 web-based dashboards, daily new case rates were calculated. With election day April 7, the incubation period included April 12-21. The new case activity in the rest of the US was compared with the Wisconsin activity during the incubation period.

Results

WI daily new case rates were lower than those of the rest of the US for the 10-day period before the election and remained lower during the post exposure incubation period. The ratio of Wisconsin new case rates to US new case rates was 0.34 WI: 1 US for the 10 days leading up to the election and declined to 0.28 WI: 1 US for the 10-day post-incubation period after the election. Similar analysis for Milwaukee county showed a pre-election ratio of 1.02 Milwaukee: 1 US and after the election the ratio was 0.63 Milwaukee: 1 US. Dane county had a pre-election ratio of 0.21 Dane: 1 US case, and it fell to 0.13 Dane: 1 US after the election. Waukesha county had a pre-election ratio of 0.27 Waukesha: 1 US case and that fell to 0.19 Waukesha: 1 US after the election.

Conclusions

There was no increase in COVID-19 new case daily rates observed for Wisconsin or its 3 largest counties following the election on April 7, 2020, as compared to the US, during the post-incubation interval period.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.23.20074575: (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.

  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.23.20074575: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.RandomizationEthically , it is not possible to design a randomized study to investigate associations between an in-person voting event and the development of new COVID19 symptoms .Blindingnot detected.Power Analysisnot detected.Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

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

    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 is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.23.20074575v1 on medRxiv