The Relationship (or lack thereof) Between COVID-19 State Restrictions and Prevalence

By Clive Riddle, July 10, 2020

Wallet Hub earlier this week released updated rankings of States by Coronavirus Restrictions. The rankings were based on data available on July 6^th, and assigned scores based on 18 metrics including “whether the state has any penalties for non-compliance with COVID-19 legislation to whether the state has required face masks in public and health checks at restaurants.”

They found the five least restrictive states – in order – to be South Dakota, Wisconsin, Utah, Wyoming and Oklahoma. They found the five most restrictive states – in order – to be California, Colorado, Hawaii, New Jersey, and New Mexico.

We thought it would be interesting to compare their rankings to COVD-19 prevalence, using current CDC deaths and cases per 100,000 population rates by state. The question to examine, if is there is a relative relationship between the levels of restrictions and COVID-19 deaths and cases per capita. The spreadsheet we compiled is provided below.

We reversed the rankings provided by WalletHub. They ranked states by the least restrictive – South Dakota was #1, California was #51. But in comparing Death and Case Rates where #1 would be the highest rates, we decided to rank states by the most restrictive – with the hypothesis that the most restrictive states should have the greatest prevalence.

The results were very mixed – you can select certain states to make whichever case you want. To go with the above hypothesis – you can point to Atlantic states like New Jersey, New York, Delaware and Maryland – all with a close relationship between their high levels of restrictions and high COVID-19 prevalence. You can also point to Wyoming on the other end of the scale that lines up #48 in restrictions, #48 in death rates and #44 in case rates.

On the other hand, there is Hawaii ranking third in most restrictions, but lowest in the nation in death and case rates, bolstering those who want to argue that imposing restrictions up front can result in lower prevalence (or an argument to move your state to an island.) MaIne also can make such a case – ranking 6^th in restrictions but 43^rd in deaths and 45^th in cases (or perhaps a case to move your state further north than Toronto.) But on still another hand, California is less compelling, ranking first in restrictions but 30^th in deaths and 29^th in cases (California had a compelling case that deteriorated during the past month.)

And California’s deterioration of course highlights the problem that this exercise doesn’t address – the greater importance of recent change rates vs cumulative rates, and the impact of changes in restrictions. But for now, examining relationships between state approaches, and state incidence of COVID-19, is like everything else to do with the virus – quite a mess.