Abstract
Background As states reopen in May 2020, the United States is still trying to curb the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. To appropriately design policies and anticipate behavioral change, it is important to understand how different Americans’ social distancing behavior shifts in relation to policy announcements according to individual characteristics, and community vulnerability.
Methods This cross-sectional study used Unacast’s social distancing data from February 24th - May 10th, 2020 to study how social distancing changed before and after: 1) The World Health Organization’s declaration of a global pandemic, 2) White House announcement of “Opening Up America Again” (OUAA) guidelines, and 3) the week of April 27 when several states reopened. To measure intention to social distance, we assessed the difference between weekday and weekend behavior as more individuals have more control over weekend leisure time. To investigate social distancing’s sensitivity to different population characteristics, we compared social distancing time-series data across county vulnerability as measured by the COVID-19 Community Vulnerability Index (CCVI) which defines vulnerability across socioeconomic, household composition, minority status, epidemiological, and healthcare-system related factors. We also compared social distancing across population groupings by race, 2016 presidential election voting choice, and employment sectors.
Results Movement reduced significantly throughout March reaching peak reduction on April 12th (-56.1%) prior the enactment of any reopening policies. Shifts in social distancing began after major announcements but prior to specific applied policies: Following the WHO declaration, national social distancing significantly increased on weekdays and weekends (-18.6% and -41.3% decline in mobility, respectively). Social distancing significantly declined on weekdays and weekends after OUAA guidelines (i.e. before state reopening) (+1.1% and +5.3% increase in mobility, respectively) with additional significant decline after state reopening (+10.0% and +20.9% increase in mobility, respectively). Social distancing was significantly greater on weekends than weekdays throughout March, however, the trend reversed by early May with significantly less social distancing on weekends, suggesting a shift in intent to social distance during leisure time. In general, vulnerable counties social distanced less than non-vulnerable counties, and had a greater difference between weekday and weekend behavior until state reopening. This may be driven by structural barriers that vulnerable communities face, such as higher rates of employment in particular sectors. At all time periods studied, the average black individual in the US social distanced significantly more than the average white individual, and the average 2016 Clinton voter social distanced significantly more than the average 2016 Trump voter. Social distancing behavior differed across industries with three clusters of employment sectors.
Conclusion Both signaling of a policy change and implementation of a policy are important factors that seem to influence social distancing. Behaviors shifted with national announcements prior to mandates, though social distancing further declined nationwide as the first states reopened. The variation in behavioral drivers including vulnerability, race, political affiliation, and employment industry demonstrates the need for targeted policy messaging and interventions tailored to address specific barriers for improved social distancing and mitigation.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding was received.
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:
All data sets were deidentified and aggregated before we received them. We received Unacast's deidentified social distancing data already aggregated at the level of counties, which cannot be traced to individuals. Unacast has an explicit privacy and consent policy (https://www.unacast.com/opt-out) stating that mobile phone users have opt-in consent for the collection of location data from mobile devices. Since the current study is a secondary analysis of existing, deidentified datasets obtained at the county-level, it did not require IRB approval. Surgo Foundation approved the study.
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
Data Availability
Data are available with their respective owners and repositories.
https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19
https://precisionforcovid.org/ccvi
https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/VOQCHQ
