Effect of specific non-pharmaceutical intervention policies on SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the counties of the United States
Bingyi Yang, Angkana T. Huang, Bernardo García‐Carreras, William E. Hart, Andrea Staid, Matt D. T. Hitchings, Elizabeth C. Lee, Chanelle J. Howe, Kyra H. Grantz, Amy Wesolowksi, Joseph C. Lemaitre, Susan M Rattigan, C Moreno, Brooke A. Borgert, Celeste Dale, Nicole Quigley, Andrew J. Cummings, Alizée McLorg, Kaelene LoMonaco, Sarah Schlossberg, Drew Barron-Kraus, Harrison Shrock, UFCOVID Interventions Team, Stéphanie Khoury, Meenal Indra, Hung-Leong Yau, Ben Cummings, Peter Giannas, Martha-Grace McLean, K.A. Hubbard, C.N. Saunders, Caroline Weldon, Caroline Phillips, David Rosenbaum, Dianelys Tabla, Justin Lessler, Carl D. Laird, Derek A. T. Cummings
Abstract
Abstract Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) remain the only widely available tool for controlling the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We estimated weekly values of the effective basic reproductive number (R eff ) using a mechanistic metapopulation model and associated these with county-level characteristics and NPIs in the United States (US). Interventions that included school and leisure activities closure and nursing home visiting bans were all associated with a median R eff below 1 when combined with either stay at home orders (median R eff 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58–1.39) or face masks (median R eff 0.97, 95% CI 0.58–1.39). While direct causal effects of interventions remain unclear, our results suggest that relaxation of some NPIs will need to be counterbalanced by continuation and/or implementation of others.