Stay at home to stay safe: Effectiveness of stay‐at‐home orders in containing the COVID‐19 pandemic

Abstract

Since the outbreak of the COVID‐19 pandemic, the effectiveness of stay‐at‐home orders implemented in many states in the United States has been the subject of ongoing debate. Whereas proponents believe these orders help reduce person‐to‐person contact and therefore the spread of the pandemic, opponents argue these orders are unnecessary and ineffective. In this study, we use eight states that did not implement the orders as a control group and six neighboring states that did implement them as a treatment group to estimate the effectiveness of stay‐at‐home orders. We find that although residents in both groups were staying at home even before the implementation of any order, these orders reduced the number of new COVID‐19 cases by 7.6%. To understand the mechanisms behind these results, we compare the mobility of residents in the control and treatment groups over time. We find stay‐at‐home orders significantly reduced residents' mobility at grocery stores and pharmacies, transit stations, workplaces, and retail and recreation locations. The results of this study are useful to policymakers in conducting cost–benefit analyses of back‐to‐work plans versus stay‐at‐home policies and deciding whether to implement, extend, lift, or reimplement stay‐at‐home orders amid a pandemic such as COVID‐19. Our results are also useful to researchers because we highlight the importance of correcting for potential selection issues. As we illustrate in this study, ignoring potential selection issues would lead to the wrong conclusion that stay‐at‐home orders increase the number of new COVID‐19 cases.

Islamic higher education students’ expenditure before and during pandemic in Indonesia

“…This is consistent with the results of Asif et al that students considered online learning to be more flexible, cheaper, support independent learning, and more convenient than face-to-face lectures [16]. According to Wang [17], mobility was significantly reduced during the pandemic, yet it does not hinder access to learning, specifically in terms of time and place flexibility. Belhaj discovered that this flexibility in learning during the pandemic has prompted more than 51% of Saudi Arabia's students to desire online learning implementation in the future [18].…”

A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality II

“…Policy responses being studied are not naturally occurring, but are decisions driven by the pandemic's trajectory and social and political will"). The Kepp andBjørnskov (2021), Fukumoto et al (2021), and Wang (2022) are not included in our review and meta-analysis, because they focus on cases and not on COVID-19 mortality. Dave et al (2020) is not included in our review, because it is a synthetic control method and lack jurisdictional variance.…”

Linking government interventions to firm performance: the influence of stringency and support during the COVID-19 pandemic

“…Examples of common responses include shelter-in-place orders, school and workplace closures, travel restrictions, public gathering prohibitions and stay-at-home orders. These responses have put stringent constraints on human movement to curb the spread of the virus (Wang, 2022; Delasay et al ., 2022). Many states also released coronavirus relief funds for emergency investments in healthcare facilities and provided income support to families as well as businesses to ease the financial strain resulting from COVID-19.…”