State-level tracking of COVID-19 in the United States.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Unwin HJT
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7712910 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
State-level tracking of COVID-19 in the United States.
Unwin H Juliette T HJT Mishra Swapnil S Bradley Valerie C VC Gandy Axel A Mellan Thomas A TA Coupland Helen H Ish-Horowicz Jonathan J Vollmer Michaela A C MAC Whittaker Charles C Filippi Sarah L SL Xi Xiaoyue X Monod Mélodie M Ratmann Oliver O Hutchinson Michael M Valka Fabian F Zhu Harrison H Hawryluk Iwona I Milton Philip P Ainslie Kylie E C KEC Baguelin Marc M Boonyasiri Adhiratha A Brazeau Nick F NF Cattarino Lorenzo L Cucunuba Zulma Z Cuomo-Dannenburg Gina G Dorigatti Ilaria I Eales Oliver D OD Eaton Jeffrey W JW van Elsland Sabine L SL FitzJohn Richard G RG Gaythorpe Katy A M KAM Green William W Hinsley Wes W Jeffrey Benjamin B Knock Edward E Laydon Daniel J DJ Lees John J Nedjati-Gilani Gemma G Nouvellet Pierre P Okell Lucy L Parag Kris V KV Siveroni Igor I Thompson Hayley A HA Walker Patrick P Walters Caroline E CE Watson Oliver J OJ Whittles Lilith K LK Ghani Azra C AC Ferguson Neil M NM Riley Steven S Donnelly Christl A CA Bhatt Samir S Flaxman Seth S
Nature communications 20201203 1
As of 1st June 2020, the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention reported 104,232 confirmed or probable COVID-19-related deaths in the US. This was more than twice the number of deaths reported in the next most severely impacted country. We jointly model the US epidemic at the state-level, using publicly available death data within a Bayesian hierarchical semi-mechanistic framework. For each state, we estimate the number of individuals that have been infected, the number of individuals tha ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:During an epidemic, metrics such as R0, doubling time, and case fatality rates are important in understanding and predicting the course of an epidemic. However, if collected over country or regional scales, these metrics hide important smaller-scale, local dynamics. We examine how commonly used epidemiological metrics differ for each individual state within the United States during the initial COVID-19 outbreak. We found that the detected case number and trajectory of early detected cases differ considerably between states. We then test for correlations with testing protocols, interventions and population characteristics. We find that epidemic dynamics were most strongly associated with non-pharmaceutical government actions during the early phase of the epidemic. In particular, early social distancing restrictions, particularly on restaurant operations, was correlated with increased doubling times. Interestingly, we also found that states with little tolerance for deviance from enforced rules saw faster early epidemic growth. Together with other correlates such as population density, our results highlight the different factors involved in the heterogeneity in the early spread of COVID-19 throughout the United States. Although individual states are clearly not independent, they can serve as small, natural experiments in how different demographic patterns and government responses can impact the course of an epidemic.
| S-EPMC7553297 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although many persons in the United States have acquired immunity to COVID-19, either through vaccination or infection with SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 will pose an ongoing threat to non-immune persons so long as disease transmission continues. We can estimate when sustained disease transmission will end in a population by calculating the population-specific basic reproduction number ℛ0, the expected number of secondary cases generated by an infected person in the absence of any interventions. The value of ℛ0 relates to a herd immunity threshold (HIT), which is given by 1-1/ℛ0. When the immune fraction of a population exceeds this threshold, sustained disease transmission becomes exponentially unlikely (barring mutations allowing SARS-CoV-2 to escape immunity). Here, we report state-level ℛ0 estimates obtained using Bayesian inference. Maximum a posteriori estimates range from 7.1 for New Jersey to 2.3 for Wyoming, indicating that disease transmission varies considerably across states and that reaching herd immunity will be more difficult in some states than others. ℛ0 estimates were obtained from compartmental models via the next-generation matrix approach after each model was parameterized using regional daily confirmed case reports of COVID-19 from 21 January 2020 to 21 June 2020. Our ℛ0 estimates characterize the infectiousness of ancestral strains, but they can be used to determine HITs for a distinct, currently dominant circulating strain, such as SARS-CoV-2 variant Delta (lineage B.1.617.2), if the relative infectiousness of the strain can be ascertained. On the basis of Delta-adjusted HITs, vaccination data, and seroprevalence survey data, we found that no state had achieved herd immunity as of 20 September 2021.
| S-EPMC8780010 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Social distancing measures have been implemented in the United States (US) since March 2020, to mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19. However, by mid-May most states began relaxing these measures to support the resumption of economic activity, even as disease incidence continued to increase in many states. To evaluate the impact of relaxing social distancing restrictions on COVID-19 dynamics and control in the US, we developed a transmission dynamic model and calibrated it to US state-level COVID-19 cases and deaths from March to June 20th, 2020, using Bayesian methods. We used this model to evaluate the impact of reopening, social distancing, testing, contact tracing, and case isolation on the COVID-19 epidemic in each state. We found that using stay-at-home orders, most states were able to curtail their COVID-19 epidemic curve by reducing and achieving an effective reproductive number below 1. But by June 20th, 2020, only 19 states and the District of Columbia were on track to curtail their epidemic curve with a 75% confidence, at current levels of reopening. Of the remaining 31 states, 24 may have to double their current testing and/or contact tracing rate to curtail their epidemic curve, and seven need to further restrict social contact by 25% in addition to doubling their testing and contact tracing rates. When social distancing restrictions are being eased, greater state-level testing and contact tracing capacity remains paramount for mitigating the risk of large-scale increases in cases and deaths.
| S-EPMC7362894 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Starting in mid-May 2020, many US states began relaxing social-distancing measures that were put in place to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. To evaluate the impact of relaxation of restrictions on COVID-19 dynamics and control, we developed a transmission dynamic model and calibrated it to US state-level COVID-19 cases and deaths. We used this model to evaluate the impact of social distancing, testing and contact tracing on the COVID-19 epidemic in each state. As of 22 July 2020, we found that only three states were on track to curtail their epidemic curve. Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia may have to double their testing and/or tracing rates and/or rolling back reopening by 25%, while eight states require an even greater measure of combined testing, tracing and distancing. Increased testing and contact-tracing capacity is paramount for mitigating the recent large-scale increases in US cases and deaths.
| S-EPMC7572893 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Accurate estimates of infection prevalence and seroprevalence are essential for evaluating and informing public health responses and vaccination coverage needed to address the ongoing spread of COVID-19 in each United States (U.S.) state. However, reliable, timely data based on representative population sampling are unavailable, and reported case and test positivity rates are highly biased. A simple data-driven Bayesian semi-empirical modeling framework was developed and used to evaluate state-level prevalence and seroprevalence of COVID-19 using daily reported cases and test positivity ratios. The model was calibrated to and validated using published state-wide seroprevalence data, and further compared against two independent data-driven mathematical models. The prevalence of undiagnosed COVID-19 infections is found to be well-approximated by a geometrically weighted average of the positivity rate and the reported case rate. Our model accurately fits state-level seroprevalence data from across the U.S. Prevalence estimates of our semi-empirical model compare favorably to those from two data-driven epidemiological models. As of December 31, 2020, we estimate nation-wide a prevalence of 1.4% [Credible Interval (CrI): 1.0%-1.9%] and a seroprevalence of 13.2% [CrI: 12.3%-14.2%], with state-level prevalence ranging from 0.2% [CrI: 0.1%-0.3%] in Hawaii to 2.8% [CrI: 1.8%-4.1%] in Tennessee, and seroprevalence from 1.5% [CrI: 1.2%-2.0%] in Vermont to 23% [CrI: 20%-28%] in New York. Cumulatively, reported cases correspond to only one third of actual infections. The use of this simple and easy-to-communicate approach to estimating COVID-19 prevalence and seroprevalence will improve the ability to make public health decisions that effectively respond to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC8448371 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) excess deaths refer to increases in mortality over what would normally have been expected in the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Several prior studies have calculated excess deaths in the United States but were limited to the national or state level, precluding an examination of area-level variation in excess mortality and excess deaths not assigned to COVID-19. In this study, we take advantage of county-level variation in COVID-19 mortality to estimate excess deaths associated with the pandemic and examine how the extent of excess mortality not assigned to COVID-19 varies across subsets of counties defined by sociodemographic and health characteristics.Methods and findingsIn this ecological, cross-sectional study, we made use of provisional National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) data on direct COVID-19 and all-cause mortality occurring in US counties from January 1 to December 31, 2020 and reported before March 12, 2021. We used data with a 10-week time lag between the final day that deaths occurred and the last day that deaths could be reported to improve the completeness of data. Our sample included 2,096 counties with 20 or more COVID-19 deaths. The total number of residents living in these counties was 319.1 million. On average, the counties were 18.7% Hispanic, 12.7% non-Hispanic Black, and 59.6% non-Hispanic White. A total of 15.9% of the population was older than 65 years. We first modeled the relationship between 2020 all-cause mortality and COVID-19 mortality across all counties and then produced fully stratified models to explore differences in this relationship among strata of sociodemographic and health factors. Overall, we found that for every 100 deaths assigned to COVID-19, 120 all-cause deaths occurred (95% CI, 116 to 124), implying that 17% (95% CI, 14% to 19%) of excess deaths were ascribed to causes of death other than COVID-19 itself. Our stratified models revealed that the percentage of excess deaths not assigned to COVID-19 was substantially higher among counties with lower median household incomes and less formal education, counties with poorer health and more diabetes, and counties in the South and West. Counties with more non-Hispanic Black residents, who were already at high risk of COVID-19 death based on direct counts, also reported higher percentages of excess deaths not assigned to COVID-19. Study limitations include the use of provisional data that may be incomplete and the lack of disaggregated data on county-level mortality by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and sociodemographic and health characteristics.ConclusionsIn this study, we found that direct COVID-19 death counts in the US in 2020 substantially underestimated total excess mortality attributable to COVID-19. Racial and socioeconomic inequities in COVID-19 mortality also increased when excess deaths not assigned to COVID-19 were considered. Our results highlight the importance of considering health equity in the policy response to the pandemic.
| S-EPMC8136644 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. has been largely monitored using death certificates containing reference to COVID-19. However, prior analyses reveal that a significant percentage of excess deaths associated with the pandemic were not directly assigned to COVID-19. In this study, we estimated a generalized linear model of expected mortality based on historical trends in deaths by county of residence between 2011 and 2019. We used the results of the model to generate estimates of excess mortality and excess deaths not assigned to COVID-19 in 2020 for 1470 county sets in the U.S. representing 3138 counties. Across the country, we estimated that 438,386 excess deaths occurred in 2020, among which 87.5% were assigned to COVID-19. Some regions (Mideast, Great Lakes, New England, and Far West) reported the most excess deaths in large central metros, whereas other regions (Southwest, Southeast, Plains, and Rocky Mountains) reported the highest excess mortality in nonmetro areas. The proportion assigned to COVID-19 was lowest in large central metro areas (79.3%). Regionally, the proportion of excess deaths assigned to COVID-19 was lowest in the Southeast (81.6%), Southwest (82.6%), Far West (83.7%), and Rocky Mountains (86.7%). Across the regions, the number of excess deaths exceeded the number of directly assigned COVID-19 deaths in most counties. The exception to this pattern occurred in New England, which reported more directly assigned COVID-19 deaths than excess deaths in metro and nonmetro areas. Many county sets had substantial numbers of excess deaths that were not accounted for in direct COVID-19 death counts. Estimates of excess mortality at the local level can inform the allocation of resources to areas most impacted by the pandemic and contribute to positive behavior feedback loops, such as increases in mask-wearing and vaccine uptake.
| S-EPMC8730693 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEarly in the pandemic, in 2020, Koehlmoos et al completed a framework synthesis of currently available self-reported symptom tracking programs for COVID-19. This framework described relevant programs, partners and affiliates, funding, responses, platform, and intended audience, among other considerations.ObjectiveThis study seeks to update the existing framework with the aim of identifying developments in the landscape and highlighting how programs have adapted to changes in pandemic response.MethodsOur team developed a framework to collate information on current COVID-19 self-reported symptom tracking programs using the "best-fit" framework synthesis approach. All programs from the previous study were included to document changes. New programs were discovered using a Google search for target keywords. The time frame for the search for programs ranged from March 1, 2021, to May 6, 2021.ResultsWe screened 33 programs, of which 8 were included in our final framework synthesis. We identified multiple common data elements, including demographic information such as race, age, gender, and affiliation (all were associated with universities, medical schools, or schools of public health). Dissimilarities included questions regarding vaccination status, vaccine hesitancy, adherence to social distancing, COVID-19 testing, and mental health.ConclusionsAt this time, the future of self-reported symptom tracking for COVID-19 is unclear. Some sources have speculated that COVID-19 may become a yearly occurrence much like the flu, and if so, the data that these programs generate is still valuable. However, it is unclear whether the public will maintain the same level of interest in reporting their symptoms on a regular basis if the prevalence of COVID-19 becomes more common.
| S-EPMC8651180 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Currently, no federal policies exist in the United States regarding private wells; this authority is devolved to states. This study inventoried state-level policies governing private wells in the United States in order to identify the topics addressed by each state, division of responsibilities across state agencies, and geographic differences in policy comprehensiveness. From May to August 2016, two independent reviewers conducted an online search followed by directly contacting state agencies (98% response) to identify all state-level policies in the United States that directly reference private wells. The search, updated in April 2018, confirmed the existing water policy list and identified 23 additional policies. Policies were then coded according to nine not-mutually-exclusive classifications. The results indicate that all states had at least one policy addressing private well drilling or construction. Significant geographic differences exist in maintenance-related policies. In conclusion, although drilling and construction safety are addressed by each state, some policy domains are addressed inconsistently across states, and other policy domains are absent in most states.
| S-EPMC6656387 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate whether a digital surveillance model using Google Trends is feasible for obtaining accurate data on coronavirus disease 2019 and whether accurate predictions can be made regarding new cases.MethodsData on total and daily new cases in each US state were collected from January 22, 2020, to April 6, 2020. Information regarding 10 keywords was collected from Google Trends, and correlation analyses were performed for individual states as well as for the United States overall.ResultsAmong the 10 keywords analyzed from Google Trends, face mask, Lysol, and COVID stimulus check had the strongest correlations when looking at the United States as a whole, with R values of 0.88, 0.82, and 0.79, respectively. Lag and lead Pearson correlations were assessed for every state and all 10 keywords from 16 days before the first case in each state to 16 days after the first case. Strong correlations were seen up to 16 days prior to the first reported cases in some states.ConclusionThis study documents the feasibility of syndromic surveillance of internet search terms to monitor new infectious diseases such as coronavirus disease 2019. This information could enable better preparation and planning of health care systems.
| S-EPMC7439962 | biostudies-literature