Data-Driven Estimation of Effectiveness of COVID-19 Non-pharmaceutical Intervention Policies

Non-pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs), such as Stay-at-Home, and Face-Mask-Mandate, are essential components of the public health response to contain an outbreak like COVID-19. However, it is very challenging to quantify the individual or joint effectiveness of NPIs and their impact on people from different racial and ethnic groups or communities in general. Therefore, in this paper, we study the following two research questions: 1) How can we quantitatively estimate the effectiveness of different NPI policies pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic?; and 2) Do these policies have considerably different effects on communities from different races and ethnicity? To answer these questions, we model the impact of an NPI as a joint function of stringency and effectiveness over a duration of time. Consequently, we propose a novel stringency function that can provide an estimate of how strictly an NPI was implemented on a particular day. Next, we applied two popular tree-based discriminative classifiers, considering the change in daily COVID cases and death counts as binary target variables, while using stringency values of different policies as independent features. Finally, we interpreted the learned feature weights as the effectiveness of COVID-19 NPIs. Our experimental results suggest that, at the country level, restaurant closures and stay-at-home policies were most effective in restricting the COVID-19 confirmed cases and death cases respectively; and overall, restaurant closing was most effective in hold-down of COVID-19 cases at individual community levels such as Asian, White, Black, AIAN and, NHPI. Additionally, we also performed a comparative analysis between race-specific effectiveness and country-level effectiveness to see whether different communities were impacted differently. Our findings suggest that the different policies impacted communities (race and ethnicity) differently.

[1]  H. Kim,et al.  Understanding chaos in COVID-19 and its relationship to stringency index: Applications to large-scale and granular level prediction models , 2022, PloS one.

[2]  Richard B. Freeman.  Planning for the “Expected Unexpected”: Work and Retirement in the U.S. After the COVID-19 Pandemic Shock , 2022 .

[3]  D. Buckeridge,et al.  Stringency of containment and closures on the growth of SARS-CoV-2 in Canada prior to accelerated vaccine roll-out , 2021, International Journal of Infectious Diseases.

[4]  G. Shaddick,et al.  A dynamic microsimulation model for epidemics , 2021, Social Science & Medicine.

[5]  S. Mishra,et al.  The relationship between time to a high COVID-19 response level and timing of peak daily incidence: an analysis of governments’ Stringency Index from 148 countries , 2021, Infectious Diseases of Poverty.

[6]  Greta M. Massetti,et al.  Association of State-Issued Mask Mandates and Allowing On-Premises Restaurant Dining with County-Level COVID-19 Case and Death Growth Rates — United States, March 1–December 31, 2020 , 2021, MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report.

[7]  S. Majumdar,et al.  A global panel database of pandemic policies (Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker) , 2021, Nature Human Behaviour.

[8]  M. Warner,et al.  Social Safety Nets and COVID-19 Stay Home Orders across US States: A Comparative Policy Analysis , 2021 .

[9]  Suzana Duran Bernardes,et al.  Time lag effects of COVID-19 policies on transportation systems: A comparative study of New York City and Seattle , 2021, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.

[10]  R. Mezencev,et al.  Stringency of the containment measures in response to COVID-19 inversely correlates with the overall disease occurrence over the epidemic wave , 2021, medRxiv.

[11]  S. Coughlin,et al.  Early detection of change patterns in COVID-19 incidence and the implementation of public health policies: A multi-national study , 2020, Public Health in Practice.

[12]  S. C. Dass,et al.  A data driven change-point epidemic model for assessing the impact of large gathering and subsequent movement control order on COVID-19 spread in Malaysia , 2020, medRxiv.

[13]  K. Lum,et al.  Estimating the Number of SARS-CoV-2 Infections and the Impact of Mitigation Policies in the United States , 2020 .

[14]  Shaobo He,et al.  SEIR modeling of the COVID-19 and its dynamics , 2020, Nonlinear Dynamics.

[15]  Y. Teh,et al.  The effectiveness of eight nonpharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 in 41 countries , 2020 .

[16]  C. Milas,et al.  Effectiveness of Government Policies in Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak , 2020 .

[17]  T. Marwala,et al.  Bayesian inference of COVID-19 spreading rates in South Africa , 2020, medRxiv.

[18]  J. Hodge.  Federal vs. State Powers in Rush to Reopen Amid the Coronavirus Pandemic , 2020 .

[19]  E. Gibney.  Whose coronavirus strategy worked best? Scientists hunt most effective policies , 2020, Nature.

[20]  N. Banholzer,et al.  Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on documented cases of COVID-19 , 2020, medRxiv.

[21]  Peng Wu,et al.  Impact assessment of non-pharmaceutical interventions against coronavirus disease 2019 and influenza in Hong Kong: an observational study , 2020, The Lancet Public Health.

[22]  M. Mello,et al.  Thinking Globally, Acting Locally - The U.S. Response to Covid-19. , 2020, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  Erwan Scornet,et al.  A random forest guided tour , 2015, TEST.

[24]  M. Muric,et al.  The Phenomenon of Lag in Application of the Measures of Monetary Policy , 2011 .

[25]  J. Friedman.  Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. , 2001 .

[26]  J. Culbertson.  Friedman on the Lag in Effect of Monetary Policy , 1960, Journal of Political Economy.