| Literature DB >> 35187468 |
Faraz Zargari1, Nima Aminpour2, Mohammad Amir Ahmadian1, Amir Samimi1, Saeid Saidi2.
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate the impact of mobility on the spread of COVID-19 in Tehran, Iran. We have performed a time series analysis between the indicators of public transit use and inter-city trips on the number of infected people. Our results showed a significant relationship between the number of infected people and mobility variables with both short-term and long-term lags. The long-term effect of mobility showed to have a consistent lag correlation with the weekly number of new COVID-19 positive cases. In our statistical analysis, we also investigated key non-transportation variables. For instance, the mandatory use of masks in public transit resulted in observing a 10% decrease in the number of infected people. In addition, the results confirmed that super-spreading events had significant increases in the number of positive cases. We have also assessed the impact of major events and holidays throughout the study period and analyzed the impacts of mobility patterns in those situations. Our analysis shows that holidays without inter-city travel bans have been associated with a 27% increase in the number of weekly positive cases. As such, while holidays decrease transit usage, it can overall negatively affect spread control if proper control measures are not put in place. The result and discussions in this paper can help authorities understand the effects of different strategies and protocols with a pandemic control and choose the most beneficial ones.Entities:
Keywords: Autoregressive model; COVID-19 control; Mobility; Public transit; Time-series analysis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35187468 PMCID: PMC8841218 DOI: 10.1016/j.trip.2022.100567
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transp Res Interdiscip Perspect ISSN: 2590-1982
Fig. 1Weekly COVID-19 cases trend from Feb 2020 to Oct 2020 in Tehran.
Fig. 2Flowchart of destination inference of mass transit in Tehran from Automated data.
Fig. 3Weekly COVID-19 and Passenger-Kilometer trend form Jan 2020 to Oct 2020.
Fig. 4Weekly COVID-19 cases and Number of Trips trend from Jan 2020 to Oct 2020.
Description of variables and symbols used in the model.
| Variable | Description |
|---|---|
| Weekly number of infected people in unit of 1000 individuals. (dependent variable) | |
| Weekly mass transit passenger-kilometer data in unit of million kilometer. | |
| Weekly trip data in unit of 1 million vehicles. | |
| Average of | |
| Average of | |
| Binary variable with | |
| Binary variable with |
Fig. 5R-squared trends of each variable with different lag ranges.
Statistical information of variables used in model.
| Infected | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unit | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 | 1 Million | 1 Million | Binary | Binary |
| Number of value | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 |
| Min | 0.64 | 0.64 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Max | 4.98 | 4.98 | 0.07 | 0.10 | 0.29 | 0.33 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Median | 2.31 | 2.10 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.19 | 0.18 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| Mean | 2.51 | 2.43 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.18 | 0.16 | 0.78 | 0.09 |
| Average Standard Error | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.05 |
| Variance | 1.61 | 1.55 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.18 | 0.09 |
Model development summary for INF as dependent variable.
| Model (1) | Model (2) | Model (3) | Model (4) | Model (5) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | −0.09 | ||||
| [0.48] | |||||
| −7.10 | −3.11 | −3.12 | |||
| [0.34] | [0.27] | [0.16] | |||
| 1.35 | |||||
| [0.50] | |||||
| [0.02] | |||||
| N. obs. | 34 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 |
| R squared | 0.69 | 0.72 | 0.83 | 0.88 | 0.90 |
| Adjusted R squared | 0.68 | 0.69 | 0.79 | 0.85 | 0.87 |
| F statistic | 72.41 | 23.66 | 24.74 | 29.35 | 31.99 |
| P value | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
*** p < 0.01; ** p < 0.05; * p < 0.1.
P-value in brackets.
Fig. 6Linearity test results.
F-Test results of comparing models of Table 3.
| F-statics | Degree of Freedom1 | Degree of Freedom2 | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 – Model 3 | 5.35 | 4 | 26 | 0.002 |
| Model 3 – Model 4 | 10.42 | 1 | 25 | 0.003 |
| Model 4 – Model 5 | 4.80 | 1 | 24 | 0.038 |
Fig. 7Stability of model coefficients with their confidence intervals in different time slots.
Fig. 8Average elasticity change of variables for each decile.
Fig. 9Impact of important holidays on the number of infected people.