It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, countries have sought to control SARS-CoV-2 transmission by restricting population movement through social distancing interventions, thus reducing the number of contacts. Mobility data represent an important proxy measure of social distancing, and here, we characterise the relationship between transmission and mobility for 52 countries around the world. Transmission significantly decreased with the initial reduction in mobility in 73% of the countries analysed, but we found evidence of decoupling of transmission and mobility following the relaxation of strict control measures for 80% of countries. For the majority of countries, mobility explained a substantial proportion of the variation in transmissibility (median adjusted R-squared: 48%, interquartile range - IQR - across countries [27–77%]). Where a change in the relationship occurred, predictive ability decreased after the relaxation; from a median adjusted R-squared of 74% (IQR across countries [49–91%]) pre-relaxation, to a median adjusted R-squared of 30% (IQR across countries [12–48%]) post-relaxation. In countries with a clear relationship between mobility and transmission both before and after strict control measures were relaxed, mobility was associated with lower transmission rates after control measures were relaxed indicating that the beneficial effects of ongoing social distancing behaviours were substantial.
Social distancing policies aiming to reduce COVID-19 transmission have been reflected in reductions in human mobility. Here, the authors show that reduced mobility is correlated with decreased transmission, but that this relationship weakened over time as social distancing measures were relaxed.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details























1 Imperial College London, St Mary’s Campus, MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, J-IDEA, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London, UK (GRID:grid.7445.2) (ISNI:0000 0001 2113 8111); University of Sussex, School of Life Sciences, Brighton, UK (GRID:grid.12082.39) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7590)
2 Imperial College London, St Mary’s Campus, MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, J-IDEA, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London, UK (GRID:grid.7445.2) (ISNI:0000 0001 2113 8111)
3 Imperial College London, St Mary’s Campus, MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, J-IDEA, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London, UK (GRID:grid.7445.2) (ISNI:0000 0001 2113 8111); University of Oxford, Department of Statistics, Oxford, UK (GRID:grid.4991.5) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8948)