Is there a link between temperatures and COVID-19 contagions? Evidence from Italy
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
This study analyzes the link between temperatures and COVID-19 contagions in a sample of Italian regions during the period ranging from February 24 to April 15. To that end, Bayesian Model Averaging techniques are used to analyze the relevance of the temperatures together with a set of additional climate, environmental, demographic, social and policy factors. The robustness of individual covariates is measured through posterior inclusion probabilities. The empirical analysis provides conclusive evidence on the role played by the temperatures given that it appears as the most relevant determinant of contagions. This finding is robust to (i) the prior distribution elicitation, (ii) the procedure to assign weights to the regressors, (iii) the presence of measurement errors in official data due to under-reporting, (iv) the employment of different metrics of temperatures or (v) the inclusion of additional correlates. In a second step, relative importance metrics that perform an accurate partitioning of the R2 of the model are calculated. The results of this approach support the evidence of the model averaging analysis, given that temperature is the top driver explaining 45% of regional contagion disparities. The set of policy-related factors appear in a second level of importance, whereas factors related to the degree of social connectedness or the demographic characteristics are less relevant.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.13.20101261: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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 …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.13.20101261: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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.
-