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

Geography versus sociodemographics as predictors of changes in daily mobility across the USA during the COVID-19 pandemic: a two-stage regression analysis across 26 metropolitan areas

OBJECTIVE

We investigated whether a zip code's location or demographics are most predictive of changes in daily mobility throughout the course of the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

We used a population-level study to examine the predictability of daily mobility during the COVID-19 pandemic using a two-stage regression approach, where generalised additive models (GAM) predicted mobility trends over time at a large spatial level, then the residuals were used to determine which factors (location, zip code-level features or number of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in place) best predict the difference between a zip code's measured mobility and the average trend on a given date.

SETTING

We analyse zip code-level mobile phone records from 26 metropolitan areas in the USA on 15 March-31 September 2020, relative to October 2020.

RESULTS

While relative mobility had a general trend, a zip code's city-level location significantly helped to predict its daily mobility patterns. This effect was time-dependent, with a city's deviation from general mobility trends differing in both direction and magnitude throughout the course of 2020. The characteristics of a zip code further increased predictive power, with the densest zip codes closest to a city centre tended to have the largest decrease in mobility. However, the effect on mobility change varied by city and became less important over the course of the pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

The location and characteristics of a zip code are important for determining changes in daily mobility patterns throughout the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. These results can determine the efficacy of NPI implementation on multiple spatial scales and inform policy makers on whether certain NPIs should be implemented or lifted during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and when preparing for future public health emergencies.

Emerging Adult Mental Health During COVID: Exploring Relationships Between Discrete and Cumulative Individual and Contextual Stressors and Well-Being

PURPOSE

Indicators of poor mental health increased during the COVID-19 pandemic among emerging adults aged 18-24 years, a group already at elevated risk. This study explores associations between contextual and personal stressors with symptoms of emerging adults' anxiety and depression, assessing both multidimensional and distinct measures of stress.

METHODS

Using Census Household Pulse Surveys from emerging adults aged 18 to 24 years (N = 71,885) and administrative data from April 23, 2020 to March 29, 2021, we estimated logistic regression models adjusted for state and wave fixed effects.

RESULTS

Rates of elevated anxiety and depressive symptoms rose dramatically among emerging adults during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results indicate that potential contextual stressors-state COVID-19 rates and state COVID-19 mitigation policies limiting social interactions (stay-at-home orders, restaurant closures, large gathering restrictions, and mask mandates)-were not significantly associated with symptoms. In contrast, personal economic stressors (nonemployment, household income loss, food insecurity, housing insecurity, lacking health insurance) and disruptions to education were associated significantly with elevated anxiety and depressive symptoms, with greater numbers of stressors associated with worse well-being.

DISCUSSION

Emerging adults reported persistently high levels of elevated anxiety and depressive symptoms during the first year of the pandemic, outcomes associated not with COVID-19 rates or mitigation policies, but with economic inequities, and other personal stressors heightened by the pandemic. Providing targeted support for young adults, including ensuring access to mental health supports, health care, and economic relief, is critical.

The Ethical Assessment of the Stay-At-Home Order in South Africa in Light of The Universal Declaration of Bioethics And Human Rights (UNESCO)

The South African government announced the much-discussed stay-at-home order between March 27 and April 30, 2020, during what was known as lockdown level 5, which meant that citizens were not allowed to leave their homes. The objective of this study is to assess the stay-at-home order against the global principles of the UDBHR. It is deducible that, in reference to the UDBHR, the government possessed the right to curtail individual liberty, thereby not infringing on Article 5 of the UDBHR and therefore, in this context, passes the test of the UDBHR. However, it remains uncertain at present whether the limitation of freedom imposed by the South African stay-at-home order was successful in controlling the spread of COVID-19 and protecting individuals from harm. Initial investigations also indicate that individuals who are particularly vulnerable may not have received equitable treatment in accordance with the principle outlined in Article 10, therefore, it can be cautiously and modestly argued that the stay-at-home order does not withstand scrutiny when assessed against the UDBHR. Given the continued discussion about the efficacy of limiting freedom to control the spread of COVID-19, and the growing conviction that the advancement of justice is being called into question, the notion of least restriction ought to be considered seriously. Ten Have (2022) is correct in asserting that global bioethics should also seriously consider other principles beyond an almost exclusive focus on limiting individual freedom. The preliminary conclusion is that the potential implementation of the stay-at-home order in the future must be seriously reconsidered.

Changes of Grocery Shopping Frequencies and Associations with Food Deserts during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States

The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically altered people's lives in multiple aspects, including grocery shopping behaviors. Yet, the changing trend of grocery shopping frequencies during the COVID-19 and its associations with food deserts remain unclear. We aimed to (1) examine variations of grocery shopping frequencies at county level in the USA during the COVID-19 pandemic from March 2020 to December 2021; (2) investigate associations between grocery shopping frequencies and food deserts during the COVID-19 pandemic; and (3) explore heterogeneity in grocery shopping frequencies-food desert associations across urban and rural areas. The county-level grocery shopping frequencies were derived from a grocery pattern dataset obtained from SafeGraph. We divided the 22-month period into 5 stages and employed the growth curve modeling to estimate the trajectories of grocery shopping frequencies and the associations between grocery shopping frequencies and food deserts in each stage, separately. Results revealed that grocery shopping frequencies experienced a "W-shaped" pattern from March 2020 to December 2021. Counties with the least percent of food deserts had slower decrease in grocery shopping frequencies at the initial stage and recovered more rapidly at later stages. Counties with the highest percent of food deserts were subject to deprivation amplification as a result of the pandemic. We also found differences existed in the grocery shopping frequencies-food desert associations between metropolitan counties and rural counties. Our findings suggest the impacts of COVID-19 on grocery shopping frequencies varied across different time periods, shedding light on designing different strategies to reduce the risk of contagion while shopping inside of grocery stores. Further, our findings highlight an urgent need to help people living in food deserts (especially in rural counties) to procure healthy foods safely during health emergencies like COVID-19 pandemic which disrupt mobility and social behaviors.

Political Economy of the COVID-19 Pandemic: How State Policies Shape County-Level Disparities in COVID-19 Deaths

The authors examine how two state-level coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) policy indices (one capturing economic support and one capturing stringency measures such as stay-at-home orders) were associated with county-level COVID-19 mortality from April through December 2020 and whether the policies were more beneficial for certain counties. Using multilevel negative binominal regression models, the authors found that high scores on both policy indices were associated with lower county-level COVID-19 mortality. However, the policies appeared to be most beneficial for counties with fewer physicians and larger shares of older adults, low-educated residents, and Trump voters. They appeared to be less effective in counties with larger shares of non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic residents. These findings underscore the importance of examining how state and local factors jointly shape COVID-19 mortality and indicate that the unequal benefits of pandemic policies may have contributed to county-level disparities in COVID-19 mortality.

Stay-at-home and face mask policy intentions inconsistent with incidence and fatality during the US COVID-19 pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many states imposed stay-at-home (SAH) and mandatory face mask (MFM) orders to supplement the United States CDC recommendations. The purpose of this study was to characterize the relationship between SAH and MFM approaches with the incidence and fatality of COVID-19 during the pandemic period until 23 August 2020 (about 171 days), the period with no vaccines or specific drugs that had passed the phase III clinical trials yet. States with SAH orders showed a potential 50-60% decrease in infection and fatality during the SAH period (about 45 days). After normalization to population density, there was a 44% significant increase in the fatality rate in no-SAH + no-MFM states when compared to SAH + MFM. However, many results in this study were inconsistent with the intent of public health strategies of SAH and MFM. There were similar incidence rates (1.41, 1.81, and 1.36%) and significant differences in fatality rates (3.40, 2.12, and 1.25%; p < 0.05) and mortality rates (51.43, 34.50, and 17.42 per 100,000 residents; p < 0.05) among SAH + MFM, SAH + no-MFM, and no-SAH + no-MFM states, respectively. There were no significant differences in total positive cases, average daily new cases, and average daily fatality when normalized with population density among the three groups. This study suggested potential decreases in infection and fatality with short-term SAH order. However, SAH and MFM orders from some states' policies probably had limited effects in lowering transmission and fatality among the general population. At the policy-making level, if contagious patients would not likely be placed in strict isolation and massive contact tracing would not be effective to implement, we presume that following the CDC's recommendations with close monitoring of healthcare capacity could be appropriate in helping mitigate the COVID-19 disaster while limiting collateral socioeconomic damages.