Mobility network models of COVID-19 explain inequities and inform reopening.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic markedly changed human mobility patterns, necessitating epidemiological models that can capture the effects of these changes in mobility on the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)1. Here we introduce a metapopulation susceptible-exposed-infectious-removed (SEIR) model that integrates fine-grained, dynamic mobility networks to simulate the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in ten of the largest US metropolitan areas. Our mobility networks are derived from mobile phone data and map the hourly movements of 98 million people from neighbourhoods (or census block groups) to points of interest such as restaurants and religious establishments, connecting 56,945 census block groups to 552,758 points of interest with 5.4 billion hourly edges. We show that by integrating these networks, a relatively simple SEIR model can accurately fit the real case trajectory, despite substantial changes in the behaviour of the population over time. Our model predicts that a small minority of 'superspreader' points of interest account for a large majority of the infections, and that restricting the maximum occupancy at each point of interest is more effective than uniformly reducing mobility. Our model also correctly predicts higher infection rates among disadvantaged racial and socioeconomic groups2-8 solely as the result of differences in mobility: we find that disadvantaged groups have not been able to reduce their mobility as sharply, and that the points of interest that they visit are more crowded and are therefore associated with higher risk. By capturing who is infected at which locations, our model supports detailed analyses that can inform more-effective and equitable policy responses to COVID-19.

Computational analysis of 140 years of US political speeches reveals more positive but increasingly polarized framing of immigration.

We classify and analyze 200,000 US congressional speeches and 5,000 presidential communications related to immigration from 1880 to the present. Despite the salience of antiimmigration rhetoric today, we find that political speech about immigration is now much more positive on average than in the past, with the shift largely taking place between World War II and the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1965. However, since the late 1970s, political parties have become increasingly polarized in their expressed attitudes toward immigration, such that Republican speeches today are as negative as the average congressional speech was in the 1920s, an era of strict immigration quotas. Using an approach based on contextual embeddings of text, we find that modern Republicans are significantly more likely to use language that is suggestive of metaphors long associated with immigration, such as "animals" and "cargo," and make greater use of frames like "crime" and "legality." The tone of speeches also differs strongly based on which nationalities are mentioned, with a striking similarity between how Mexican immigrants are framed today and how Chinese immigrants were framed during the era of Chinese exclusion in the late 19th century. Overall, despite more favorable attitudes toward immigrants and the formal elimination of race-based restrictions, nationality is still a major factor in how immigrants are spoken of in Congress.

Measuring vaccination coverage and concerns of vaccine holdouts from web search logs.

To design effective vaccine policies, policymakers need detailed data about who has been vaccinated, who is holding out, and why. However, existing data in the US are insufficient: reported vaccination rates are often delayed or not granular enough, and surveys of vaccine hesitancy are limited by high-level questions and self-report biases. Here we show how search engine logs and machine learning can help to fill these gaps, using anonymized Bing data from February to August 2021. First, we develop a vaccine intent classifier that accurately detects when a user is seeking the COVID-19 vaccine on Bing. Our classifier demonstrates strong agreement with CDC vaccination rates, while preceding CDC reporting by 1-2 weeks, and estimates more granular ZIP-level rates, revealing local heterogeneity in vaccine seeking. To study vaccine hesitancy, we use our classifier to identify two groups, vaccine early adopters and vaccine holdouts. We find that holdouts, compared to early adopters matched on covariates, are 67% likelier to click on untrusted news sites, and are much more concerned about vaccine requirements, development, and vaccine myths. Even within holdouts, clusters emerge with different concerns and openness to the vaccine. Finally, we explore the temporal dynamics of vaccine concerns and vaccine seeking, and find that key indicators predict when individuals convert from holding out to seeking the vaccine.