Back

Quantifying social contact patterns in Minnesota during Stay-at-Home social distancing order

Dorelien, A. M.; Venkateswaran, N.; Deng, J.; Searle, K.; Enns, E.; Kulasingam, S.

2021-07-15 epidemiology
10.1101/2021.07.12.21260216 medRxiv
Show abstract

SARS-CoV-2 is primarily transmitted through person-to-person contacts. It is important to collect information on age-specific contact patterns because SARS-CoV-2 susceptibility, transmission, and morbidity vary by age. To reduce risk of infection, social distancing measures have been implemented. Social contact data, which identify who has contact with whom especially by age and place are needed to identify high-risk groups and serve to inform the design of non-pharmaceutical interventions. We estimated and used negative binomial regression to compare the number of daily contacts during the first wave (April-May 2020) of the Minnesota Social Contact Study, based on respondents age, gender, race/ethnicity, region, and other demographic characteristics. We used information on age and location of contacts to generate age-structured contact matrices. Finally, we compared the age-structured contact matrices during the stay-at-home order to pre-pandemic matrices. During the state-wide stay-home order, the mean daily number of contacts was 5.6. We found significant variation in contacts by age, gender, race, and region. Adults between 40 and 50 years had the highest number of contacts. Respondents in Black households had 2.1 more contacts than respondent in White households, while respondents in Asian or Pacific Islander households had approximately the same number of contacts as respondent in White households. Respondents in Hispanic households had approximately two fewer contacts compared to White households. Most contacts were with other individuals in the same age group. Compared to the pre-pandemic period, the biggest declines occurred in contacts between children, and contacts between those over 60 with those below 60.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.