Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
BMC Public Health ; 21(1): 1239, 2021 06 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1286816

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) sickened over 20 million residents in the United States (US) by January 2021. Our objective was to describe state variation in the effect of initial social distancing policies and non-essential business (NEB) closure on infection rates early in 2020. METHODS: We used an interrupted time series study design to estimate the total effect of all state social distancing orders, including NEB closure, shelter-in-place, and stay-at-home orders, on cumulative COVID-19 cases for each state. Data included the daily number of COVID-19 cases and deaths for all 50 states and Washington, DC from the New York Times database (January 21 to May 7, 2020). We predicted cumulative daily cases and deaths using a generalized linear model with a negative binomial distribution and a log link for two models. RESULTS: Social distancing was associated with a 15.4% daily reduction (Relative Risk = 0.846; Confidence Interval [CI] = 0.832, 0.859) in COVID-19 cases. After 3 weeks, social distancing prevented nearly 33 million cases nationwide, with about half (16.5 million) of those prevented cases among residents of the Mid-Atlantic census division (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania). Eleven states prevented more than 10,000 cases per 100,000 residents within 3 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of social distancing on the infection rate of COVID-19 in the US varied substantially across states, and effects were largest in states with highest community spread.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Physical Distancing , Humans , New Jersey , New York/epidemiology , Pennsylvania , Policy , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology
3.
J Gen Intern Med ; 2020 Nov 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-972487

ABSTRACT

In the original version of this paper, an author was misidentified. The corrected author listing appears here, and has been updated in the online version.

4.
J Gen Intern Med ; 35(12): 3627-3634, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-834045

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infected over 5 million United States (US) residents resulting in more than 180,000 deaths by August 2020. To mitigate transmission, most states ordered shelter-in-place orders in March and reopening strategies varied. OBJECTIVE: To estimate excess COVID-19 cases and deaths after reopening compared with trends prior to reopening for two groups of states: (1) states with an evidence-based reopening strategy, defined as reopening indoor dining after implementing a statewide mask mandate, and (2) states reopening indoor dining rooms before implementing a statewide mask mandate. DESIGN: Interrupted time series quasi-experimental study design applied to publicly available secondary data. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty United States and the District of Columbia. INTERVENTIONS: Reopening indoor dining rooms before or after implementing a statewide mask mandate. MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes included daily cumulative COVID-19 cases and deaths for each state. KEY RESULTS: On average, the number of excess cases per 100,000 residents in states reopening without masks is ten times the number in states reopening with masks after 8 weeks (643.1 cases; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 406.9, 879.2 and 62.9 cases; CI = 12.6, 113.1, respectively). Excess cases after 6 weeks could have been reduced by 90% from 576,371 to 63,062 and excess deaths reduced by 80% from 22,851 to 4858 had states implemented mask mandates prior to reopening. Over 50,000 excess deaths were prevented within 6 weeks in 13 states that implemented mask mandates prior to reopening. CONCLUSIONS: Additional mitigation measures such as mask use counteract the potential growth in COVID-19 cases and deaths due to reopening businesses. This study contributes to the growing evidence that mask usage is essential for mitigating community transmission of COVID-19. States should delay further reopening until mask mandates are fully implemented, and enforcement by local businesses will be critical for preventing potential future closures.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Masks , Public Health/legislation & jurisprudence , COVID-19/mortality , Humans , Interrupted Time Series Analysis , Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Pandemics , Physical Distancing , Public Health/methods , Public Health/statistics & numerical data , Restaurants/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology
5.
J Rural Health ; 36(4): 584-590, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-624889

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: During the COVID-19 epidemic, it is critical to understand how the need for hospital care in rural areas aligns with the capacity across states. METHODS: We analyzed data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to estimate the number of adults who have an elevated risk of serious illness if they are infected with coronavirus in metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural areas for each state. Study data included 430,949 survey responses representing over 255.2 million noninstitutionalized US adults. For data on hospital beds, aggregate survey data were linked to data from the 2017 Area Health Resource Files by state and metropolitan status. FINDINGS: About 50% of rural residents are at high risk for hospitalization and serious illness if they are infected with COVID-19, compared to 46.9% and 40.0% in micropolitan and metropolitan areas, respectively. In 19 states, more than 50% of rural populations are at high risk for serious illness if infected. Rural residents will generate an estimated 10% more hospitalizations for COVID-19 per capita than urban residents given equal infection rates. CONCLUSION: More than half of rural residents are at increased risk of hospitalization and death if infected with COVID-19. Experts expect COVID-19 burden to outpace hospital capacity across the country, and rural areas are no exception. Policy makers need to consider supply chain modifications, regulatory changes, and financial assistance policies to assist rural communities in caring for people affected by COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Rural Health Services/statistics & numerical data , Rural Population/statistics & numerical data , Severity of Illness Index , Adult , COVID-19 , Female , Hospitals, Rural/organization & administration , Humans , Male , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL