Differences in rapid increases in county-level COVID-19 incidence by implementation of statewide closures and mask mandates - United States, June 1-September 30, 2020.
COVID-19
Closures
Mask mandates
Mitigation strategies
Journal
Annals of epidemiology
ISSN: 1873-2585
Titre abrégé: Ann Epidemiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9100013
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2021
05 2021
Historique:
received:
25
01
2021
revised:
06
02
2021
accepted:
09
02
2021
pubmed:
18
2
2021
medline:
16
4
2021
entrez:
17
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Community mitigation strategies could help reduce COVID-19 incidence, but there are few studies that explore associations nationally and by urbanicity. In a national county-level analysis, we examined the probability of being identified as a county with rapidly increasing COVID-19 incidence (rapid riser identification) during the summer of 2020 by implementation of mitigation policies prior to the summer, overall and by urbanicity. We analyzed county-level data on rapid riser identification during June 1-September 30, 2020 and statewide closures and statewide mask mandates starting March 19 (obtained from state government websites). Poisson regression models with robust standard error estimation were used to examine differences in the probability of rapid riser identification by implementation of mitigation policies (P-value< .05); associations were adjusted for county population size. Counties in states that closed for 0-59 days were more likely to become a rapid riser county than those that closed for >59 days, particularly in nonmetropolitan areas. The probability of becoming a rapid riser county was 43% lower among counties that had statewide mask mandates at reopening (adjusted prevalence ratio = 0.57; 95% confidence intervals = 0.51-0.63); when stratified by urbanicity, associations were more pronounced in nonmetropolitan areas. These results underscore the potential value of community mitigation strategies in limiting the COVID-19 spread, especially in nonmetropolitan areas.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Community mitigation strategies could help reduce COVID-19 incidence, but there are few studies that explore associations nationally and by urbanicity. In a national county-level analysis, we examined the probability of being identified as a county with rapidly increasing COVID-19 incidence (rapid riser identification) during the summer of 2020 by implementation of mitigation policies prior to the summer, overall and by urbanicity.
METHODS
We analyzed county-level data on rapid riser identification during June 1-September 30, 2020 and statewide closures and statewide mask mandates starting March 19 (obtained from state government websites). Poisson regression models with robust standard error estimation were used to examine differences in the probability of rapid riser identification by implementation of mitigation policies (P-value< .05); associations were adjusted for county population size.
RESULTS
Counties in states that closed for 0-59 days were more likely to become a rapid riser county than those that closed for >59 days, particularly in nonmetropolitan areas. The probability of becoming a rapid riser county was 43% lower among counties that had statewide mask mandates at reopening (adjusted prevalence ratio = 0.57; 95% confidence intervals = 0.51-0.63); when stratified by urbanicity, associations were more pronounced in nonmetropolitan areas.
CONCLUSIONS
These results underscore the potential value of community mitigation strategies in limiting the COVID-19 spread, especially in nonmetropolitan areas.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33596446
pii: S1047-2797(21)00021-1
doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2021.02.006
pmc: PMC7882220
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
46-53Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Références
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Nov 20;69(46):1753
pubmed: 33211682
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2021 Apr 1;46(2):211-233
pubmed: 32955556
Vital Health Stat 2. 2014 Apr;(166):1-73
pubmed: 24776070
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Apr 17;69(15):451-457
pubmed: 32298245
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Oct 30;69(43):1584-1590
pubmed: 33119562
Front Psychol. 2020 Nov 26;11:597671
pubmed: 33329265
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021 Feb 12;70(6):212-216
pubmed: 33571176
J Popul Econ. 2021;34(2):691-738
pubmed: 33462529
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021 Jan 15;70(2):58-62
pubmed: 33443494
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Oct 23;69(42):1535-1541
pubmed: 33090977
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Oct 1;3(10):e2026010
pubmed: 33095253
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Dec 21;22(12):e24614
pubmed: 33302253
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Oct 09;69(40):1460-1463
pubmed: 33031366
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Oct 16;69(41):1494-1496
pubmed: 33056949
Nat Hum Behav. 2020 Dec;4(12):1303-1312
pubmed: 33199859
J Rural Health. 2020 Sep;36(4):591-601
pubmed: 32602983
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Nov 13;69(45):1691-1694
pubmed: 33180757
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Sep 04;69(35):1198-1203
pubmed: 32881851
J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2022 Feb;9(1):176-183
pubmed: 33469866
Proc Math Phys Eng Sci. 2020 Jun;476(2238):20200376
pubmed: 32821237
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2020 Aug;18(4):509-517
pubmed: 32495067
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Nov 27;69(47):1777-1781
pubmed: 33237889
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Aug 21;69(33):1127-1132
pubmed: 32817606
PLoS One. 2020 Oct 15;15(10):e0240785
pubmed: 33057375
Health Aff (Millwood). 2020 Aug;39(8):1419-1425
pubmed: 32543923
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021 Jan 22;70(3):95-99
pubmed: 33476315