| Literature DB >> 35180949 |
Muhammad Irfan1, Asif Razzaq2, Wanich Suksatan3, Arshian Sharif4, Rajvikram Madurai Elavarasan5, Chuxiao Yang6, Yu Hao7, Abdul Rauf8.
Abstract
The emergence of new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has become a significant public health issue worldwide. Some researchers have identified a positive link between temperature and COVID-19 cases. However, no detailed research has highlighted the impact of temperature on COVID-19 spread in India. This study aims to fill this research gap by investigating the impact of temperature on COVID-19 spread in the five most affected Indian states. Quantile-on-Quantile regression (QQR) approach is employed to examine in what manner the quantiles of temperature influence the quantiles of COVID-19 cases. Empirical results confirm an asymmetric and heterogenous impact of temperature on COVID-19 spread across lower and higher quantiles of both variables. The results indicate a significant positive impact of temperature on COVID-19 spread in the three Indian states (Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka), predominantly in both low and high quantiles. Whereas, the other two states (Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh) exhibit a mixed trend, as the lower quantiles in both states have a negative effect. However, this negative effect becomes weak at middle and higher quantiles. These research findings offer valuable policy recommendations.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; India; Quantile-on-quantile regression; Temperature; Transmissibility
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35180949 PMCID: PMC8450230 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtherbio.2021.103101
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Therm Biol ISSN: 0306-4565 Impact factor: 2.902
Fig. 1Confirmed COVID-19 cases in the five Indian states.
Notes: Y-axis depicts confirmed COVID-19 cases and X-axis represents the time period.
Fig. 2Temperature patterns in the five COVID-19 affected Indian states.
Notes: Y-axis represents temperature (centigrade °C) and X-axis represents the time period.
Fig. 3Map of Indian states with maximum COVID-19 cases.
Results of descriptive statistics and unit root.
| States | Mean | Min | Max | Std. Dev | J-B stats | ADF (1) | ZA (1) | Breaks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Panel A: Temperature | ||||||||
| Maharashtra | 29.89 | 26.38 | 32.65 | 1.625 | 8.9292*** | −9.181*** | −9.872*** | 29-Jun-20 |
| Tamil Nadu | 30.98 | 28.13 | 33.65 | 1.340 | 6.593*** | −10.205*** | −4.769*** | 24-Jun-20 |
| Andhra Pradesh | 29.83 | 27.09 | 32.24 | 1.491 | 12.160*** | −9.678*** | −4.183*** | 01-Jun-20 |
| Karnataka | 28.16 | 21.17 | 34.06 | 3.424 | 11.436*** | −15.272*** | −5.651*** | 24-May-20 |
| Uttar Pradesh | 31.86 | 19.26 | 41.96 | 4.811 | 8.574*** | −12.658*** | −5.185*** | 21-May-20 |
| Panel B: COVID-19 cases | ||||||||
| Maharashtra | 2904.57 | 2 | 24886 | 3070.149 | 23.958*** | −14.450*** | −12.195*** | 21-Jun-20 |
| Tamil Nadu | 1695.64 | 1 | 6993 | 2032.449 | 29.837*** | −10.118*** | −10.426*** | 03-Jun-20 |
| Andhra Pradesh | 972.02 | 1 | 9999 | 2198.778 | 557.321*** | −7.327*** | −8.068*** | 06-Jul-20 |
| Karnataka | 855.99 | 1 | 9464 | 1563.063 | 136.390*** | −13.600*** | −9.632*** | 8-Jun-20 |
| Uttar Pradesh | 589.51 | 1 | 7016 | 887.56 | 242.973*** | −8.824*** | −5.144*** | 29-Jun-20 |
Notes: Significance level (***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05); Std. Dev: standard deviation; J-B stats: Jarque-Berra Normality Test.
BDS test results for non-linearity.
| States | m = 2 | m = 3 | m = 4 | m = 5 | m = 6 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature | ||||||||||
| Maharashtra | 23.72 | 0.000 | 22.70 | 0.000 | 23.56 | 0.000 | 23.79 | 0.000 | 24.16 | 0.000 |
| Tamil Nadu | 42.89 | 0.000 | 38.75 | 0.000 | 37.16 | 0.000 | 41.24 | 0.000 | 39.10 | 0.000 |
| Andhra Pradesh | 17.51 | 0.000 | 18.16 | 0.000 | 19.76 | 0.000 | 18.53 | 0.000 | 20.12 | 0.000 |
| Karnataka | 14.30 | 0.000 | 14.09 | 0.000 | 15.39 | 0.000 | 14.86 | 0.000 | 15.82 | 0.000 |
| Uttar Pradesh | 19.64 | 0.000 | 18.88 | 0.000 | 19.69 | 0.000 | 19.89 | 0.000 | 20.32 | 0.000 |
| COVID-19 cases | ||||||||||
| Maharashtra | 19.60 | 0.000 | 20.20 | 0.000 | 18.59 | 0.000 | 18.26 | 0.000 | 18.05 | 0.000 |
| Tamil Nadu | 27.76 | 0.000 | 28.54 | 0.000 | 27.21 | 0.000 | 27.19 | 0.000 | 27.47 | 0.000 |
| Andhra Pradesh | 19.40 | 0.000 | 19.67 | 0.000 | 17.76 | 0.000 | 16.97 | 0.000 | 16.33 | 0.000 |
| Karnataka | 19.90 | 0.000 | 20.91 | 0.000 | 19.84 | 0.000 | 20.05 | 0.000 | 20.50 | 0.000 |
| Uttar Pradesh | 19.46 | 0.000 | 19.59 | 0.000 | 17.59 | 0.000 | 16.70 | 0.000 | 15.87 | 0.000 |
Null hypothesis: Data is linear (null of linearity is rejected across all five dimensions).
Results of correlation analysis between temperature and COVID-19.
| States | Correlation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Maharashtra | −0.439148 | 5.845241 | 0.000 |
| Tamil Nadu | −0.757951 | 13.89488 | 0.000 |
| Andhra Pradesh | −0.488167 | 6.688765 | 0.000 |
| Karnataka | −0.728709 | 12.72457 | 0.000 |
| Uttar Pradesh | 0.072734 | 0.087208 | 0.000 |
Results of the Quantile unit root test.
| Quantile | Maharashtra | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Uttar Pradesh | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TEMP | COVID-19 | TEMP | COVID-19 | TEMP | COVID-19 | TEMP | COVID-19 | TEMP | COVID-19 | |||||||||||
| α(τ) | t-stats | α(τ) | t-stats | α(τ) | t-stats | α(τ) | t-stats | α(τ) | t-stats | α(τ) | t-stats | α(τ) | t-stats | α(τ) | t-stats | α(τ) | t-stats | α(τ) | t-stats | |
| 0.05 | 1.013 | 0.546 | 0.929 | −1.163 | 0.966 | −1.864 | 0.964 | −1.276 | 0.898 | −2.367 | 0.927 | −2.373 | 0.956 | −1.527 | 0.973 | −0.775 | 0.966 | −2.447 | 0.988 | −0.46 |
| 0.10 | 0.973 | −1.507 | 0.963 | −1.446 | 0.981 | −0.983 | 0.986 | −0.657 | 0.958 | −1.191 | 0.947 | −2.642 | 0.976 | −1.191 | 0.979 | −1.323 | 0.977 | −1.651 | 0.969 | −1.871 |
| 0.20 | 0.967 | −2.46 | 0.975 | −1.847 | 0.988 | −1.241 | 1.002 | 0.219 | 0.982 | −1.899 | 0.966 | −1.642 | 0.992 | −0.816 | 0.97 | −2.477 | 0.996 | −0.674 | 0.995 | −0.555 |
| 0.30 | 0.979 | −1.372 | 0.968 | −1.268 | 0.991 | −0.693 | 1.002 | 0.123 | 0.989 | −0.86 | 0.985 | −0.849 | 0.982 | −1.804 | 0.976 | −1.285 | 0.977 | −1.712 | 0.988 | −0.873 |
| 0.40 | 0.983 | −2.019 | 0.921 | −1.437 | 1.029 | 2.496 | 0.988 | −0.609 | 1.021 | 0.857 | 0.986 | −0.724 | 0.988 | −0.419 | 0.997 | −0.211 | 0.939 | −0.54 | 0.978 | −0.965 |
| 0.50 | 0.978 | −0.799 | 0.954 | −1.681 | 0.966 | −2.015 | 0.937 | −1.065 | 1.003 | 0.064 | 0.958 | −2.252 | 0.99 | −0.566 | 0.968 | −1.509 | 0.988 | −0.036 | 1.001 | 0.008 |
| 0.60 | 0.988 | −1.266 | 0.971 | −2.113 | 0.989 | −1.438 | 0.972 | −1.335 | 0.983 | −0.995 | 0.972 | −2.004 | 0.993 | −1.141 | 0.993 | −0.57 | 0.993 | −0.518 | 0.993 | −0.524 |
| 0.70 | 1.002 | 0.312 | 0.992 | −0.772 | 1.100 | −0.105 | 0.991 | −0.644 | 0.994 | −0.64 | 0.991 | −0.96 | 0.992 | −1.856 | 1.007 | 0.709 | 0.999 | −0.144 | 1.008 | 0.781 |
| 0.80 | 1.009 | 1.189 | 0.999 | −0.005 | 1.008 | 0.893 | 0.989 | −0.395 | 0.975 | −1.362 | 1.017 | 1.193 | 0.99 | −1.503 | 0.995 | −0.339 | 1.002 | 0.262 | 0.989 | −0.458 |
| 0.90 | 1.024 | 1.762 | 1.025 | 1.096 | 1.005 | 0.528 | 1.008 | 0.172 | 0.979 | −0.924 | 1.052 | 3.332 | 0.988 | −0.918 | 0.992 | −0.551 | 1.016 | 0.793 | 0.981 | −1.029 |
| 0.95 | 1.001 | 0.187 | 0.942 | −1.296 | 0.99 | −2.127 | 1.005 | 0.278 | 1.001 | 0.122 | 0.941 | −0.805 | 1.031 | 0.754 | 0.985 | −1.701 | 1.022 | 0.511 | 0.969 | −1.336 |
Notes: The table shows point estimates and t-statistics values for the 5% significance level. Here the t-statistic is numerically smaller than the critical value so we reject the null hypothesis of α (τ) = 1 at the 5% level.
Results of the Quantile cointegration test.
| Maharashtra | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | |||||
| COVID-19t vs. TEMPt | β | 3,078.264 | 2,108.647 | 1,846.347 | 1,438.225 |
| α | 894.331 | 708.105 | 563.318 | 408.389 | |
| Tamil Nadu | |||||
| Model | |||||
| COVID-19t vs. TEMPt | β | 1,825.334 | 1,412.089 | 1,120.347 | 896.316 |
| α | 795.028 | 685.318 | 534.387 | 423.241 | |
| Andhra Pradesh | |||||
| Model | |||||
| COVID-19t vs. TEMPt | Β | 4,255.292 | 3,593.489 | 2,326.722 | 1,948.466 |
| α | 122.298 | 102.339 | 60.773 | 48.916 | |
| Karnataka | |||||
| Model | |||||
| COVID-19t vs. TEMPt | β | 6,152.755 | 3,157.881 | 2,385.316 | 1,948.987 |
| α | 176.171 | 79.851 | 56.601 | 50.017 | |
| Uttar Pradesh | |||||
| Model | |||||
| COVID-19t vs. TEMPt | Β | 5,631.058 | 3,514.815 | 3,377.57 | 3,328.695 |
| α | 1,132.562 | 952.336 | 825.326 | 817.845 | |
Fig. 4The QQR estimations of the slope coefficient, .
Notes: The graphs show the estimates of the slope coefficient in the z-axis against the quantiles of COVID-19 in the y-axis and the quantiles of Temperature in the x-axis and vice versa.
Fig. 5Comparative analysis between QQR and QR estimates.
Notes: The red line represents the standard quantile regression (QR) parameters. In contrast, the average QQR parameters are represented by a blue line at different temperatures and COVID-19 quantiles for the five Indian states. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)