Associations between rurality and regional differences in sociodemographic factors and the 1918-20 influenza and 2020-21 COVID-19 pandemics in Missouri counties: An ecological study.

This study compares pandemic experiences of Missouri's 115 counties based on rurality and sociodemographic characteristics during the 1918-20 influenza and 2020-21 COVID-19 pandemics. The state's counties and overall population distribution have remained relatively stable over the last century, which enables identification of long-lasting pandemic attributes. Sociodemographic data available at the county level for both time periods were taken from U.S. census data and used to create clusters of similar counties. Counties were also grouped by rural status (RSU), including fully (100%) rural, semirural (1-49% living in urban areas), and urban (>50% of the population living in urban areas). Deaths from 1918 through 1920 were collated from the Missouri Digital Heritage database and COVID-19 cases and deaths were downloaded from the Missouri COVID-19 dashboard. Results from sociodemographic analyses indicate that, during both time periods, average farm value, proportion White, and literacy were the most important determinants of sociodemographic clusters. Furthermore, the Urban/Central and Southeastern regions experienced higher mortality during both pandemics than did the North and South. Analyses comparing county groups by rurality indicated that throughout the 1918-20 influenza pandemic, urban counties had the highest and rural had the lowest mortality rates. Early in the 2020-21 COVID-19 pandemic, urban counties saw the most extensive epidemic spread and highest mortality, but as the epidemic progressed, cumulative mortality became highest in semirural counties. Additional results highlight the greater effects both pandemics had on county groups with lower rates of education and a lower proportion of Whites in the population. This was especially true for the far southeastern counties of Missouri ("the Bootheel") during the COVID-19 pandemic. These results indicate that rural-urban and socioeconomic differences in health outcomes are long-standing problems that continue to be of significant importance, even though the overall quality of health care is substantially better in the 21st century.

Accounting for uncertainty in ecological analysis: the strengths and limitations of hierarchical statistical modeling.

Analyses of ecological data should account for the uncertainty in the process(es) that generated the data. However, accounting for these uncertainties is a difficult task, since ecology is known for its complexity. Measurement and/or process errors are often the only sources of uncertainty modeled when addressing complex ecological problems, yet analyses should also account for uncertainty in sampling design, in model specification, in parameters governing the specified model, and in initial and boundary conditions. Only then can we be confident in the scientific inferences and forecasts made from an analysis. Probability and statistics provide a framework that accounts for multiple sources of uncertainty. Given the complexities of ecological studies, the hierarchical statistical model is an invaluable tool. This approach is not new in ecology, and there are many examples (both Bayesian and non-Bayesian) in the literature illustrating the benefits of this approach. In this article, we provide a baseline for concepts, notation, and methods, from which discussion on hierarchical statistical modeling in ecology can proceed. We have also planted some seeds for discussion and tried to show where the practical difficulties lie. Our thesis is that hierarchical statistical modeling is a powerful way of approaching ecological analysis in the presence of inevitable but quantifiable uncertainties, even if practical issues sometimes require pragmatic compromises.