SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is thought to spread from person to person primarily by the respiratory route and mainly through close contact (1). Community mitigation strategies can lower the risk for disease transmission by limiting or preventing personto-person interactions (2). U.S. states and territories began implementing various community mitigation policies in March 2020. One widely implemented strategy was the issuance of orders requiring persons to stay home, resulting in decreased population movement in some jurisdictions (3). Each state or territory has authority to enact its own laws and policies to protect the public's health, and jurisdictions varied widely in the type and timing of orders issued related to stay-at-home requirements. To identify the broader impact of these stay-athome orders, using publicly accessible, anonymized location data from mobile devices, CDC and the Georgia Tech Research Institute analyzed changes in population movement relative to stay-at-home orders issued during March 1-May 31, 2020, by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories.* During this period, 42 states and territories issued mandatory stay-at-home orders. When counties subject to mandatory state-and territory-issued stay-at-home orders were stratified along rural-urban categories, movement decreased significantly relative to the preorder baseline in all strata. Mandatory stayat-home orders can help reduce activities associated with the spread of COVID-19, including population movement and close person-to-person contact outside the household. Data on state and territorial stay-at-home orders were obtained from government websites containing executive or administrative orders or press releases for each jurisdiction. Each order was analyzed and coded into one of five mutually exclusive categories: 1) mandatory for all persons; 2) mandatory only for persons in certain areas of the jurisdiction; 3) mandatory only for persons at increased risk in the jurisdiction; 4) mandatory only for persons at increased risk in certain areas of the jurisdiction; or 5) advisory or recommendation (i.e., nonmandatory). Jurisdictions that did not issue an order were coded as having no state-or territory-issued

On June 12, 2020, this report was posted as an MMWR Early Release on the MMWR website (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr). SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is thought to be transmitted mainly by person-toperson contact (1). Implementation of nationwide public health orders to limit person-to-person interaction and of guidance on personal protective practices can slow transmission (2,3). Such strategies can include stay-at-home orders, business closures, prohibitions against mass gatherings, use of cloth face coverings, and maintenance of a physical distance between persons (2,3). To assess and understand public attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs related to this guidance and COVID-19, representative panel surveys were conducted among adults aged ≥18 years in New York City (NYC) and Los Angeles, and broadly across the United States during May 5-12, 2020. Most respondents in the three cohorts supported stay-at-home orders and nonessential business closures* (United States, 79.5%; New York City, 86.7%; and Los Angeles, 81.5%), reported always or often wearing cloth face coverings in public areas (United States, 74.1%, New York City, 89.6%; and Los Angeles 89.8%), and believed that their state's restrictions were the right balance or not restrictive enough (United States, 84.3%; New York City, 89.7%; and Los Angeles, 79.7%). Periodic assessments of public attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs can guide evidence-based public health decision-making and related prevention messaging about mitigation strategies needed as the COVID-19 pandemic evolves. During May 5-12, 2020, a total of 4,042 adults aged ≥18 years in the United States were invited to complete a web-based survey administered by Qualtrics, LLC. † Surveys were conducted among residents of NYC and Los Angeles to enable comparison of the two most populous cities in the United States with each * Respondents were informed that, for the survey, stay-at-home orders mean that all nonessential services (e.g., dine-in restaurants, bars, social venues, gyms, fitness studios, and convention centers) are shut down. Essential services (e.g., groceries, pharmacies, gas stations, food banks, convenience stores, and delivery restaurants) remain open. Banks, local governments, and law enforcement agencies also remain open. Persons are still allowed to leave their homes but encouraged to observe social distancing guidelines. Public events and gatherings are not allowed. † Eligibility for the nationwide U.S. cohort was determined on the basis of informed consent, age, and residence within the United States. Therefore, consented adult potential respondents residing in NYC and Los Angeles metro areas were eligible to complete surveys as part of the nationwide U.S. or NYC and Los Angeles cohorts. * Nationwide cohort (n = 1,676) only unless otherwise specified. The six respondent characteristic categories shown in the table (gender, age, ethnicity, race, employment status, and essential worker status) account for 32 of 34 significant associations among the 108...

Introduction Little cigars are comparable to cigarettes in terms of shape, size, filters and packaging. Disproportionate tobacco excise taxes, which directly affect purchase price, may lead consumers to substitute cigarettes with less expensive little cigars. This study estimated the effects of little cigar and cigarette prices on little cigar sales. Methods Sales data from a customised retail scanner database were used to model a log–log equation to infer own-price and cross-price elasticity of demand for little cigars relative to little cigar and cigarette prices, respectively, from quarter 4 of 2011 to quarter 4 of 2013. Data were available for convenience stores (C-stores) (n=29 states); food, drug and mass merchandisers (FDMs) (n=44 states); and C-stores and FDMs combined (n=27 states). The dependent variable was per capita little cigar pack sales, and key independent variables were the price index for little cigars and cigarettes. Results A 10% increase in little cigar price was associated with a 25% (p<0.01) decrease in little cigar sales in C-stores alone, and a 31.7% (p<0.01) decrease in C-stores and FDMs combined. A 10% increase in cigarette price was associated with a 21.5% (p<0.05) increase in little cigar sales in C-stores, and a 27.3% (p<0.01) increase in C-stores and FDMs combined. Conclusions Our results suggest that US cigarette smokers are avoiding the high cost of cigarettes by switching to lower priced little cigars. Increasing and equalising prices among comparable products, like cigarettes and little cigars, may motivate cost-conscious smokers to quit.

Introduction In recent years, self-reported cigarette smoking has declined among youth and adults, while electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use has increased. However, sales trends for these products are less certain. This study assessed national and state patterns of U.S. cigarette and e-cigarette unit sales. Methods Trends in cigarette and e-cigarette unit sales were analyzed using retail scanner data from September 25, 2011 through January 9, 2016 for: (1) convenience stores; and (2) all other outlets combined, including supermarkets, mass merchandisers, drug, dollar, and club stores, and military commissaries (online, tobacco-only, and “vape“ shops were not available). Data by store type were available for the total contiguous U.S. and 29 states; combined data were available for the remaining states, except Alaska, Hawaii, and DC. Results During 2011–2015, cigarette sales exhibited a small, significant decrease; however, positive year-over-year growth occurred in convenience stores throughout most of 2015. E-cigarette unit sales significantly increased during 2011–2015, but year-over-year growth slowed and was occasionally negative. Cigarette unit sales exceeded e-cigarettes by 64:1 during the last 4-week period. During 2014–2015, cigarette sales increases occurred in 15 of 48 assessed states; e-cigarette sales increased in 18 states. Conclusions Despite overall declines during 2011–2015, cigarette sales in 2015 grew for the first time in a decade. E-cigarette sales growth was positive, but slowed over the study period in assessed stores. Cigarette sales continued to exceed e-cigarette sales, reinforcing the importance of efforts to reduce the appeal and accessibility of cigarettes and other combusted tobacco products.