Variation among states in rate of coronavirus spread

  1. Richard Condit

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The corona virus, COVID-19, has been spreading rapidly across the USA since early March, but at a decreasing rate, where the rate r is defined as the exponential increase. I modeled the way the rate of increase y = ln( e r − 1) has declined through time in each of the 51 states with the goal of determining how quickly the rate has declined, whether the decline has changed, and whether states differ. A piecewise linear regression was used, with a single break point. This model can identify whether there was a change in the rate of decline, when the change happened, and which states have shown the greatest improvement in reducing the spread of COVID-19. The piecewise model identified a significant breakpoint on 24 Mar for all states combined, and all states had nearly the same breakpoint. Prior to 24 Mar, the average change in y was −0.013 d −1 , meaning a reduction in the rate of spread from 23.5 pct. d −1 to 19.5 pct. d −1 ; after 24 Mar, the average change in y was −0.070 d −1 , a reduction from 19.5 pct. d −1 to 7.5 pct. d −1 . Prior to 24 Mar there was no significant variation among states in the decline in y , but after 24 Mar there was substantial variation. Montana, Idaho, and Vermont showed the greatest improvement, while Nebraska, South Dakota, and Iowa the least. The improvement as measured by the reduction after 24 Mar did not correlate with case density in a state, nor state population. The next question is whether it correlates with differences among states in the health measures taken to combat the spread.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.27.20081752: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    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: Please consider improving the rainbow (“jet”) colormap(s) used on page 9. At least one figure is not accessible to readers with colorblindness and/or is not true to the data, i.e. not perceptually uniform.

    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. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.27.20081752v2 on medRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.27.20081752v1 on medRxiv