Diverse local epidemics reveal the distinct effects of population density, demographics, climate, depletion of susceptibles, and intervention in the first wave of COVID-19 in the United States

  1. Niayesh Afshordi
  2. Benjamin Holder
  3. Mohammad Bahrami
  4. Daniel Lichtblau

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has caused significant mortality and morbidity worldwide, sparing almost no community. As the disease will likely remain a threat for years to come, an understanding of the precise influences of human demographics and settlement, as well as the dynamic factors of climate, susceptible depletion, and intervention, on the spread of localized epidemics will be vital for mounting an effective response. We consider the entire set of local epidemics in the United States; a broad selection of demographic, population density, and climate factors; and local mobility data, tracking social distancing interventions, to determine the key factors driving the spread and containment of the virus. Assuming first a linear model for the rate of exponential growth (or decay) in cases/mortality, we find that population-weighted density, humidity, and median age dominate the dynamics of growth and decline, once interventions are accounted for. A focus on distinct metropolitan areas suggests that some locales benefited from the timing of a nearly simultaneous nationwide shutdown, and/or the regional climate conditions in mid-March; while others suffered significant outbreaks prior to intervention. Using a first-principles model of the infection spread, we then develop predictions for the impact of the relaxation of social distancing and local climate conditions. A few regions, where a significant fraction of the population was infected, show evidence that the epidemic has partially resolved via depletion of the susceptible population (i.e., “herd immunity”), while most regions in the United States remain overwhelmingly susceptible. These results will be important for optimal management of intervention strategies, which can be facilitated using our online dashboard.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.30.20143636: (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: 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 10.1101/2020.06.30.20143636v1 on medRxiv