RESUMO
BACKGROUND: National-scale linear regression-based modeling may mischaracterize localized patterns, including hyperlocal peaks and neighborhood- to regional-scale gradients. For studies focused on within-city differences, this mischaracterization poses a risk of exposure misclassification, affecting epidemiological and environmental justice conclusions. OBJECTIVE: Characterize the difference between intraurban pollution patterns predicted by national-scale land use regression modeling and observation-based estimates within a localized domain and examine the relationship between that difference and urban infrastructure and demographics. METHODS: We compare highly resolved (0.01 km2) observations of NO2 mixing ratio and ultrafine particle (UFP) count obtained via mobile monitoring with national model predictions in thirteen neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Grid cell-level divergence between modeled and observed concentrations is termed "localized difference." We use a flexible machine learning modeling technique, Bayesian Additive Regression Trees, to investigate potentially nonlinear relationships between discrepancy between localized difference and known local emission sources as well as census block group racial/ethnic composition. RESULTS: We find that observed local pollution extremes are not represented by land use regression predictions and that observed UFP count significantly exceeds regression predictions. Machine learning models show significant nonlinear relationships among localized differences between predictions and observations and the density of several types of pollution-related infrastructure (roadways, commercial and industrial operations). In addition, localized difference was greater in areas with higher population density and a lower share of white non-Hispanic residents, indicating that exposure misclassification by national models differs among subpopulations. IMPACT: Comparing national-scale pollution predictions with hyperlocal observations in the San Francisco Bay Area, we find greater discrepancies near major roadways and food service locations and systematic underestimation of concentrations in neighborhoods with a lower share of non-Hispanic white residents. These findings carry implications for using national-scale models in intraurban epidemiological and environmental justice applications and establish the potential utility of supplementing large-scale estimates with publicly available urban infrastructure and pollution source information.
RESUMO
As severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission continues to evolve, understanding the contribution of location-specific variations in nonpharmaceutical interventions and behaviors to disease transmission during the initial epidemic wave will be key for future control strategies. We offer a rigorous statistical analysis of the relative effectiveness of the timing of both official stay-at-home orders and population mobility reductions during the initial stage of the US coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic. We used a Bayesian hierarchical regression to fit county-level mortality data from the first case on January 21, 2020, through April 20, 2020, and quantify associations between the timing of stay-at-home orders and population mobility with epidemic control. We found that among 882 counties with an early local epidemic, a 10-day delay in the enactment of stay-at-home orders would have been associated with 14,700 additional deaths by April 20 (95% credible interval: 9,100, 21,500), whereas shifting orders 10 days earlier would have been associated with nearly 15,700 fewer lives lost (95% credible interval: 11,350, 18,950). Analogous estimates are available for reductions in mobility-which typically occurred before stay-at-home orders-and are also stratified by county urbanicity, showing significant heterogeneity. Results underscore the importance of timely policy and behavioral action for early-stage epidemic control.
