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

No abstract

, this report was posted as an MMWR Early Release on the MMWR website (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr). CDC recommends a combination of evidence-based strategies to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1). Because the virus is transmitted predominantly by inhaling respiratory droplets from infected persons, universal mask use can help reduce transmission (1). Starting in April, 39 states and the District of Columbia (DC) issued mask mandates in 2020. Reducing person-to-person interactions by avoiding nonessential shared spaces, such as restaurants, where interactions are typically unmasked and physical distancing (≥6 ft) is difficult to maintain, can also decrease transmission (2). In March and April 2020, 49 states and DC prohibited any on-premises dining at restaurants, but by mid-June, all states and DC had lifted these restrictions. To examine the association of state-issued mask mandates and allowing on-premises restaurant dining with COVID-19 cases and deaths during March 1-December 31, 2020, countylevel data on mask mandates and restaurant reopenings were compared with county-level changes in COVID-19 case and death growth rates relative to the mandate implementation and reopening dates. Mask mandates were associated with decreases in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, and 81-100 days after implementation. Allowing any on-premises dining at restaurants was associated with increases in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 41-60, 61-80, and 81-100 days after reopening, and increases in daily COVID-19 death growth rates 61-80 and 81-100 days after reopening. Implementing mask mandates was associated with reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whereas reopening restaurants for on-premises dining was associated with increased transmission. Policies that require universal mask use and restrict any on-premises restaurant dining are important components of a comprehensive strategy to reduce exposure to and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (1). Such efforts are increasingly important given the emergence of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States (3,4). County-level data on state-issued mask mandates and restaurant closures were obtained from executive and administrative orders

Purpose Early COVID-19 mitigation relied on people staying home except for essential trips. The ability to stay home may differ by sociodemographic factors. We analyzed how factors related to social vulnerability impact a community's ability to stay home during a stay-at-home order. Methods Using generalized, linear mixed models stratified by stay-at-home order (mandatory or not mandatory), we analyzed county-level stay-at-home behavior (inferred from mobile devices) during a period when a majority of United States counties had stay-at-home orders (April 7–April 20, 2020) with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index (CDC SVI). Results Counties with higher percentages of single-parent households, mobile homes, and persons with lower educational attainment were associated with lower stay-at-home behavior compared with counties with lower respective percentages. Counties with higher unemployment, higher percentages of limited-English-language speakers, and more multi-unit housing were associated with increases in stay-at-home behavior compared with counties with lower respective percentages. Stronger effects were found in counties with mandatory orders. Conclusions Sociodemographic factors impact a community's ability to stay home during COVID-19 stay-at-home orders. Communities with higher social vulnerability may have more essential workers without work-from-home options or fewer resources to stay home for extended periods, which may increase risk for COVID-19. Results are useful for tailoring messaging, COVID-19 vaccine delivery, and public health responses to future outbreaks.

Background and Objective : Community mitigation strategies could help reduce COVID-19 incidence. In a national county-level analysis, we examined the probability of being identified as a county with rapidly increasing COVID-19 incidence (rapid riser identification) during the summer of 2020 by implementation of mitigation policies prior to the summer, overall and by urbanicity. Methods : We analyzed county-level data on rapid riser identification during June 1–September 30, 2020 and statewide closures and statewide mask mandates starting March 19 (obtained from state government websites). Poisson regression models with robust standard error estimation were used to examine differences in the probability of rapid riser identification by implementation of mitigation policies ( P -value<.05); associations were adjusted for county population size. Results : Counties in states that closed for 0–59 days were more likely to become a rapid riser county than those that closed for >59 days, particularly in nonmetropolitan areas. The probability of becoming a rapid riser county was 43% lower among counties that had statewide mask mandates at reopening (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 0.57; 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 0.51–0.63); when stratified by urbanicity, associations were more pronounced in nonmetropolitan areas. Conclusions : These results underscore the potential value of community mitigation strategies in limiting the COVID-19 spread, especially in nonmetropolitan areas.