Education in Mathematics and the Spread of COVID-19

Mobility patterns and COVID growth: Moderating role of country culture

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in countries reacting differently to an ongoing crisis situation. Latent to this reaction mechanism is the inherent cultural characteristics of each society resulting in differential responses to epidemic spread. Epidemiological studies have confirmed the positive effect of population mobility on the growth of infection. However, the effect of culture on indigenous mobility patterns during pandemics needs further investigation. This study aims to bridge this gap by exploring the moderating role of country culture on the relationship between population mobility and growth of CoVID-19. Hofstede's cultural factors; power distance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term and short-term orientation are hypothesised to moderate the effect of mobility on the reproduction number (R) of COVID-19. Panel regression model, using mobility data and number of confirmed cases across 95 countries for a period of 170 days has been preferred to test the hypotheses. The results are further substantiated using slope analysis and Johnson-Neyman technique. The findings suggest that as power distance, individualism and long-term orientation scores increase, the impact of mobility on epidemic growth decreases. However, masculinity scores in a society have an opposite moderating impact on epidemic growth rate. These Hofstede factors act as quasi moderators affecting mobility and epidemic growth. Similar conclusions could be not be confirmed for uncertainty avoidance. Cross-cultural impact, as elucidated by this study, forms a crucial element in policy formulation on epidemic control by indigenous Governing bodies.

Association of stay-at-home orders and COVID-19 incidence and mortality in rural and urban United States: a population-based study

OBJECTIVE

We examined the association between stay-at-home order implementation and the incidence of COVID-19 infections and deaths in rural versus urban counties of the United States.

DESIGN

We used an interrupted time-series analysis using a mixed effects zero-inflated Poisson model with random intercept by county and standardised by population to examine the associations between stay-at-home orders and county-level counts of daily new COVID-19 cases and deaths in rural versus urban counties between 22 January 2020 and 10 June 2020. We secondarily examined the association between stay-at-home orders and mobility in rural versus urban counties using Google Community Mobility Reports.

INTERVENTIONS

Issuance of stay-at-home orders.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Co-primary outcomes were COVID-19 daily incidence of cases (14-day lagged) and mortality (26-day lagged). Secondary outcome was mobility.

RESULTS

Stay-at-home orders were implemented later (median 30 March 2020 vs 28 March 2020) and were shorter in duration (median 35 vs 54 days) in rural compared with urban counties. Indoor mobility was, on average, 2.6%-6.9% higher in rural than urban counties both during and after stay-at-home orders. Compared with the baseline (pre-stay-at-home) period, the number of new COVID-19 cases increased under stay-at-home by incidence risk ratio (IRR) 1.60 (95% CI, 1.57 to 1.64) in rural and 1.36 (95% CI, 1.30 to 1.42) in urban counties, while the number of new COVID-19 deaths increased by IRR 14.21 (95% CI, 11.02 to 18.34) in rural and IRR 2.93 in urban counties (95% CI, 1.82 to 4.73). For each day under stay-at-home orders, the number of new cases changed by a factor of 0.982 (95% CI, 0.981 to 0.982) in rural and 0.952 (95% CI, 0.951 to 0.953) in urban counties compared with prior to stay-at-home, while number of new deaths changed by a factor of 0.977 (95% CI, 0.976 to 0.977) in rural counties and 0.935 (95% CI, 0.933 to 0.936) in urban counties. Each day after stay-at-home orders expired, the number of new cases changed by a factor of 0.995 (95% CI, 0.994 to 0.995) in rural and 0.997 (95% CI, 0.995 to 0.999) in urban counties compared with prior to stay-at-home, while number of new deaths changed by a factor of 0.969 (95% CI, 0.968 to 0.970) in rural counties and 0.928 (95% CI, 0.926 to 0.929) in urban counties.

CONCLUSION

Stay-at-home orders decreased mobility, slowed the spread of COVID-19 and mitigated COVID-19 mortality, but did so less effectively in rural than in urban counties. This necessitates a critical re-evaluation of how stay-at-home orders are designed, communicated and implemented in rural areas.