Coronavirus Disease 2019 Epidemic Doubling Time in the United States Before and During Stay-at-Home Restrictions

Lurie, Mark N.; Silva, Joe; Yorlets, Rachel R; Tao, Jun; Chan, Philip A.

doi:10.1093/infdis/jiaa491

Cited by 34 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A higher doubling time points to lower transmission while a smaller doubling time points to higher transmission. For context, the doubling time in the United States was estimated at 2.7 days in the early peak (Lurie et al, 2020). 15 Following Ebell & Bagwell-Adams (2020), we calculate doubling time using the 5-day rolling average.…”

Section: Covid-19 Data In Michigan and Washingtonmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

To What Extent Does In-Person Schooling Contribute to the Spread of COVID-19? Evidence from Michigan and Washington

Goldhaber¹,

Imberman²,

Strunk³

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

for providing valuable feedback on this work at various points along the way. Any errors are our own. In addition, all opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our institutions or funders, nor do they necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.

show abstract

Section: Covid-19 Data In Michigan and Washingtonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Michigan, the doubling time was 2.7 prior to the March 24, 2020 stay-at-home order (Executive Order 2020-21) and 21.5 when the order was in place. In Washington, it was 4.3 prior to the March 23, 2020, stay-at-home order and 31.9 during the order(Lurie et al, 2020).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

To What Extent Does In-Person Schooling Contribute to the Spread of COVID-19? Evidence from Michigan and Washington

Goldhaber¹,

Imberman²,

Strunk³

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In other words, the treatment of lockdown is potentially endogenous. Some evidence for this is from Lurie, Silva, Yorlets, Tao, and Chan (2020) who show that Covid-19 case numbers were increasing faster during March, with shorter doubling times, in states that subsequently had a lockdown compared to those states that did not subsequently have a lockdown. 9.…”

Section: Summary and Implications For New Zealandmentioning

confidence: 99%

Government mandated lockdowns do not reduce Covid-19 deaths: implications for evaluating the stringent New Zealand response

Gibson

2020

New Zealand Economic Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The New Zealand policy response to Coronavirus was the most stringent in the world during the Level 4 lockdown. Up to 10 billion dollars of output (≈ 3.3% of GDP) was lost in moving to Level 4 rather than staying at Level 2, according to Treasury calculations. For lockdown to be optimal requires large health benefits to offset this output loss. Forecast deaths from epidemiological models are not valid counterfactuals, due to poor identification. Instead, I use empirical data, based on variation amongst United States counties, over one-fifth of which just had social distancing rather than lockdown. Political drivers of lockdown provide identification. Lockdowns do not reduce Covid-19 deaths. This pattern is visible on each date that key lockdown decisions were made in New Zealand. The apparent ineffectiveness of lockdowns suggests that New Zealand suffered large economic costs for little benefit in terms of lives saved.

show abstract

“…At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, populations experienced rapid exponential growth, e.g. as high as a 2.75 day doubling time in New York City [10]. Through some combination of top-down control measures and individual behavior modifications, many populations subsequently achieved relatively flat case counts, i.e.…”

Section: Control Of Rtmentioning

confidence: 99%

The economic value of quarantine is higher at lower case prevalence, with quarantine justified at lower risk of infection

Petrie

Masel

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1AbstractDifferent combinations of targeted quarantine and broad scale social distancing are equally capable of stemming the transmission of a virus like SARS-CoV-2. Finding the optimal balance between these policies can be operationalized by minimizing the total amount of social isolation needed to achieve a target reproductive number. This results in a risk threshold for triggering quarantine that depends strongly on disease prevalence in a population, suggesting that very different disease control policies should be used at different times or places. Very aggressive quarantine is warranted given low disease prevalence, while populations with a higher base rate of infection should rely more on broad social distancing. Total cost to a society can be greatly reduced given modestly more information about individual risk of infectiousness.

show abstract

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Epidemic Doubling Time in the United States Before and During Stay-at-Home Restrictions

Cited by 34 publications

References 10 publications

To What Extent Does In-Person Schooling Contribute to the Spread of COVID-19? Evidence from Michigan and Washington

To What Extent Does In-Person Schooling Contribute to the Spread of COVID-19? Evidence from Michigan and Washington

Government mandated lockdowns do not reduce Covid-19 deaths: implications for evaluating the stringent New Zealand response

The economic value of quarantine is higher at lower case prevalence, with quarantine justified at lower risk of infection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About