Changes in Reproductive Rate of SARS-CoV-2 Due to Non-pharmaceutical Interventions in 1,417 U.S. Counties

  1. Jie Ying Wu
  2. Benjamin D. Killeen
  3. Philipp Nikutta
  4. Mareike Thies
  5. Anna Zapaishchykova
  6. Shreya Chakraborty
  7. Mathias Unberath

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

In response to the rapid spread of the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, the U.S. has largely delegated implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to local governments on the state and county level. This staggered implementation combined with the heterogeneity of the U.S. complicates quantification the effect of NPIs on the reproductive rate of SARS-CoV-2.

We describe a data-driven approach to quantify the effect of NPIs that relies on county-level similarities to specialize a Bayesian mechanistic model based on observed fatalities. Using this approach, we estimate change in reproductive rate, R t , due to implementation of NPIs in 1,417 U.S. counties.

We estimate that as of May 28 th , 2020 1,177 out of the considered 1,417 U.S. counties have reduced the reproductive rate of SARS-CoV-2 to below 1.0. The estimated effect of any individual NPI, however, is different across counties. Stay-at-home orders were estimated as the only effective NPI in metropolitan and urban counties, while advisory NPIs were estimated to be effective in more rural counties. The expected level of infection predicted by the model ranges from 0 to 28.7% and is far from herd immunity even in counties with advanced spread.

Our results suggest that local conditions are pertinent to containment and re-opening decisions.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.31.20118687: (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: Thank you for sharing your code and data.

    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. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.31.20118687 on medRxiv