Public Compliance With Social Distancing Measures and SARS-CoV-2 Spread

Abstract

Objective We quantified the association between public compliance with social distancing measures and the spread of SARS-CoV-2 during the first wave of the epidemic (March–May 2020) in 5 states that accounted for half of the total number of COVID-19 cases in the United States. Methods We used data on mobility and number of COVID-19 cases to longitudinally estimate associations between public compliance, as measured by human mobility, and the daily reproduction number and daily growth rate during the first wave of the COVID-19 epidemic in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. Results The 5 states mandated social distancing directives during March 19-24, 2020, and public compliance with mandates started to decrease in mid-April 2020. As of May 31, 2020, the daily reproduction number decreased from 2.41-5.21 to 0.72-1.19, and the daily growth rate decreased from 0.22-0.77 to –0.04 to 0.05 in the 5 states. The level of public compliance, as measured by the social distancing index (SDI) and daily encounter-density change, was high at the early stage of implementation but decreased in the 5 states. The SDI was negatively associated with the daily reproduction number (regression coefficients range, –0.04 to –0.01) and the daily growth rate (from –0.009 to –0.01). The daily encounter-density change was positively associated with the daily reproduction number (regression coefficients range, 0.24 to 1.02) and the daily growth rate (from 0.05 to 0.26). Conclusions Social distancing is an effective strategy to reduce the incidence of COVID-19 and illustrates the role of public compliance with social distancing measures to achieve public health benefits.

Effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and covid-19 mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis

“…This review attempted to assess the overall effectiveness of the public health intervention packages by reporting the percentage difference in outcome before and after implementation of measures or between regions or countries studied. Eleven of the 37 included studies noted a difference of between 26% and 50% in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and incidence of covid-19,7172737475767778798081 nine noted a difference of between 51% and 75% in SARS-CoV-2 transmission, covid-19 incidence, and covid-19 mortality,828384858687888990 and 14 noted a difference of more than 75% in transmission of SARS-CoV-2, covid-19 incidence and covid-19 mortality 808190919293949596979899100101. For the remaining studies, the overall effectiveness was not assessed owing to a lack of comparators (see supplementary material 3, table 3).…”

“…Two studies that assessed universal lockdown and physical distancing reported a decrease of between 0% and 25% in SARS-CoV-2 transmission and covid-19 incidence 80102. Studies that included school and workplace closures,929697 isolation or stay at home measures,8195 or a combination of both8090949899100 reported decreases of more than 75% in SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Supplementary material 3, table 2 provides detailed information on each study.…”

Public Compliance Matters in Evidence-Based Public Health Policy: Evidence from Evaluating Social Distancing in the First Wave of COVID-19

“…Social distancing policy played a substantial role in the response to COVID-19 [ 32 ]. It was assumed to mitigate the spread of the virus, but debate emerged due to selecting the measurement of its impact [ 33 , 34 ]. Apart from using the COVID-19 case growth rate and mortality growth rate, Greenstone and Nigam (2020) sought empirical proof by considering deaths as a proxy of social distancing performance [ 35 ].…”

Impact of NPIs for COVID-19 on Other Infectious Diseases and Mental Illnesses in South Korea

“…Similarly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many studies have demonstrated that NPIs are effective in reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory infections (Cowling et al, 2020). On the other hand, negative outcomes for mental health have been reported due to economic and social hardships and inadequate public compliance when implementing NPIs (Strong and Welburn, 2020, Witteveen and Velthorst, 2020, and Liu et al, 2021.…”