ABSTRACT
Objectives To determine the impact of restrictions on mobility on reducing transmission of COVID-19.
Design Daily incidence rates lagged by 14 days were regressed on mobility changes using LOESS regression and logit regression between the day of the 100th case in each country to August 31, 2020.
Setting 34 OECD countries plus Singapore and Taiwan.
Participants Google mobility data were obtained from people who turned on mobile device-based global positioning system (GPS) and agreed to share their anonymized position information with Google.
Interventions We examined the association of COVID-19 incidence rates with mobility changes, defined as changes in categories of domestic location, against a pre-pandemic baseline, using country-specific daily incidence data on newly confirmed COVID-19 cases and mobility data.
Results In two thirds of examined countries, reductions of up to 40% in commuting mobility (to workplaces, transit stations, retailers, and recreation) were associated with decreased COVID-19 incidence, more so early in the pandemic. However, these decreases plateaued as mobility remained low or decreased further. We found smaller or negligible associations between mobility restriction and incidence rates in the late phase in most countries.
Conclusion Mild to moderate degrees of mobility restriction in most countries were associated with reduced incidence rates of COVID-19 that appear to attenuate over time, while some countries exhibited no effect of such restrictions. More detailed research is needed to precisely understand the benefits and limitations of mobility restrictions as part of the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC Since SARS-CoV-2 became a pandemic, restrictions on mobility such as limitations on travel and closure of offices, restaurants, and shops have been imposed in an unprecedented way in both scale and scope to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the absence of effective treatment options or a vaccine. Although mobility restriction has also brought about tremendous costs such as negative economic growth and other collateral impacts on health such as increased morbidity and mortality from lack of access to other essential health services, little evidence exists on the effectiveness of mobility restriction for the prevention of disease transmission. A search of PUBMED and Google Scholar for publications on this topic through Sep 20, 2020 revealed that most of the evidence on the effectiveness of physical distancing comes from mathematical modeling studies using a variety of assumptions. One study investigated only the combined effect of several interventions, including physical distancing, among SARS-CoV-2 infected patients.
WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS This is the first study to investigate the association between change in mobility and incidence of COVID-19 globally using real-time measures of mobility at the population level. For this, we used Google Global Mobility data and the daily incidence of COVID-19 for 36 countries from the day of 100th case detection through August 31, 2020. Our findings from LOESS regression show that in two-thirds of countries, reductions of up to 40% in commuting mobility were associated with decreased COVID-19 incidence, more so early in the pandemic. This decrease, however, plateaued as mobility decreased further. We found that associations between mobility restriction and incidence became smaller or negligible in the late phase of the pandemic in most countries. The reduced incidence rate of COVID-19 cases with a mild to moderate degree of mobility restriction in most countries suggests some value to limited mobility restriction in early phases of epidemic mitigation. The lack of impact in some others, however, suggests further research is needed to confirm these findings and determine the distinguishing factors for when mobility restrictions are helpful in decreasing viral transmission. Governments should carefully consider the level and period of mobility restriction necessary to achieve the desired benefits and minimize harm.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
none
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The data used in our analyses are secondary data.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
