Abstract
Background To combat the Covid-19 pandemic in the United States, many states and Washington DC enacted Stay-at-Home order and nonpharmaceutical mitigation interventions. This study examined the determinants of the timing to implement an intervention. Through an impact analysis, the study explored the effects of the interventions and the potential risks of removing them under the context of reopening the economy.
Method A content analysis identified nine types of mitigation interventions and the timing at which states enacted these strategies. A proportional hazard model, a multiple-event survival model, and a random-effect spatial error panel model in conjunction with a robust method analyzing zero-inflated and skewed outcomes were employed in the data analysis.
Findings To our knowledge, we provided in this article the first explicit analysis of the timing, determinants, and impacts of mitigation interventions for all states and Washington DC in the United States during the first five weeks of the pandemic. Unlike other studies that evaluate the Stay-at-Home order by using simulated data, the current study employed the real data of various case counts of Covid-19. The study obtained two meritorious findings: (1) states with a higher prevalence of Covid-19 cases per 10,000 population reacted more slowly to the outbreak, suggesting that some states may have missed the optimal timing to prevent the wide spread of the Covid-19 disease; and (2) of nine mitigation measures, three (non-essential business closure, large-gathering bans, and restaurant/bar limitations) showed positive impacts on reducing cumulative cases, new cases, and death rates across states.
Interpretation The opposite direction of the prevalence rate on the timing of issuing the mitigation interventions partially explains why the Covid-19 caseload in the U.S. remains high. A swift implementation of social distancing is crucial— the key is not whether such measures should be taken but when. Because there is no preventive vaccine and because there are few potentially effective treatments, recent reductions in new cases and deaths must be due, in large part, to the social interventions delivered by states. The study suggests that the policy of reopening economy needs to be implemented carefully.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No funding was used for this study
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The IRB Review Committee at Washington University in St. Louis granted an exemption for this study
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data employed in this study are from governmental websites, census data, and the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Data Stream that combines WHO and CDC case data
