Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Dec 14;4(12):e2020GH000332.
doi: 10.1029/2020GH000332. eCollection 2020 Dec.

The Coupled Impact of Emergency Responses and Population Flows on the COVID-19 Pandemic in China

Affiliations

The Coupled Impact of Emergency Responses and Population Flows on the COVID-19 Pandemic in China

Changxiu Cheng et al. Geohealth. .

Abstract

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread around the world and requires effective control measures. Like the human-to-human transmission of the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the distribution of COVID-19 was driven by population flow and required emergency response measures to slow down its spread and degrade the epidemic risk. The local epidemic risk of COVID-19 is a combination of emergency response measures and population flow. Because of the spatial heterogeneity, the different impacts of coupled emergency responses and population flow on the COVID-19 epidemic during the outbreak period and a control period are unclear. We examined and compared the impact of emergency response measures and population flow on China's epidemic risk after the Wuhan lockdown during the outbreak period and a control period. We found that the population flow out of Wuhan had a long-term impact on the epidemic's spread. In the outbreak period, a large population flow out of Wuhan led to nationwide migration mobility, which directly increased the epidemic in each province. Meanwhile, quick emergency responses mitigated the spread. Although low population flow to provinces far from Hubei delayed the outbreak in those provinces, relatively delayed emergency response increased the epidemic in the control period. Consequently, due to the strong transmission ability of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, no region correctly estimated the epidemic, and the relaxed emergency response raised the epidemic risks in the context of the outbreak.

Keywords: COVID‐19; GWR; infectious disease; spatial heterogeneity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest relevant to this study.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The development of the COVID‐19 epidemic in China. The y axis represents the date. Red boxes indicate the critical timing of COVID‐19 confirmed cases, blue boxes show the emergency responses and their levels, and the purple box indicates the Wuhan lockdown's timing. The green box represents the beginning of a stable situation in most areas in China.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Division of temporal COVID‐19 trend in China. The y axis represents the DNC, excluding Hubei province. The x axis indicates the date. The arrow indicates the Wuhan lockdown date. The shallow red region indicates the outbreak period of COVID‐19 from 24 January to 3 February. The shallow green region indicates the control period of COVID‐19 from 4–16 February.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Spatial distribution of average DNC in China in outbreak and control periods. The red color represents the provincial average DNC during the outbreak period from 24 January to 3 February (a) and the provincial average DNC during the control period from 4–16 February (b). DNC change between two periods is shown in (c).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Spatial distribution of population flows and emergency response efficiency in China. (a–c) The spatial distribution of PPW (the proportion of population moving out of Wuhan), MSI (migration scale index), and RE (response efficiency), respectively.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Distribution map of GWR coefficients of factors affecting the epidemic development at different periods. (a–c) GWR coefficients of three respective factors during the outbreak period. (b–d) GWR coefficients of three respective factors during the control period. Warm colors (red and orange) indicate a positive effect, while cool colors (green and blue) indicate a negative effect. The darker the color, the greater the influence.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Coupled impact of population mobility and emergency response in different regions. (a) The coupled impact in the area close to the epidemic center and (b) the coupled impact in the area far from the epidemic center. Green represents a safety incident, while red represents a dangerous incident.

References

    1. Aho, K. , Derryberry, D. , & Peterson, T. (2014). Model selection for ecologists: The worldviews of AIC and BIC. Ecology, 95(3), 631–636. 10.1890/13-1452.1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bai, Y. , Yao, L. , Wei, T. , Tian, F. , Jin, D. , Chen, L. , & Wang, M. (2020). Presumed asymptomatic carrier transmission of COVID‐19. JAMA, 323(14), 1406–1407. 10.1001/jama.2020.2565 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Barrett, C. (2020). Actions now can curb food systems fallout from COVID‐19. Nature Food, 1(6), 319–320. 10.1038/s43016-020-0085-y - DOI - PubMed
    1. Blustein, D. L. , Duffy, R. , Ferreira, J. A. , Cohen‐Scali, V. , Cinamon, R. G. , & Allan, B. A. (2020). Unemployment in the time of COVID‐19: A research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 119, 103436 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103436 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bonaccorsi, G. , Pierri, F. , Cinelli, M. , Flori, A. , Galeazzi, A. , Porcelli, F. , Schmidt, A. L. , Valensise, C. M. , Scala, A. , Quattrociocchi, W. , & Pammolli, F. (2020). Economic and social consequences of human mobility restrictions under COVID‐19. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(27), 15,530–15,535. 10.1073/pnas.2007658117 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources