Showing papers by "David Wong published in 2020"

Spreading of COVID-19: Density matters.

Abstract: Physical distancing has been argued as one of the effective means to combat the spread of COVID-19 before a vaccine or therapeutic drug becomes available. How far people can be spatially separated is partly behavioral but partly constrained by population density. Most models developed to predict the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. do not include population density explicitly. This study shows that population density is an effective predictor of cumulative infection cases in the U.S. at the county level. Daily cumulative cases by counties are converted into 7-day moving averages. Treating the weekly averages as the dependent variable and the county population density levels as the explanatory variable, both in logarithmic scale, this study assesses how population density has shaped the distributions of infection cases across the U.S. from early March to late May, 2020. Additional variables reflecting the percentages of African Americans, Hispanic-Latina, and older adults in logarithmic scale are also included. Spatial regression models with a spatial error specification are also used to account for the spatial spillover effect. Population density alone accounts for 57% of the variation (R-squared) in the aspatial models and up to 76% in the spatial models. Adding the three population subgroup percentage variables raised the R-squared of the aspatial models to 72% and the spatial model to 84%. The influences of the three population subgroups were substantial, but changed over time, while the contributions of population density have been quite stable after the first several weeks, ascertaining the importance of population density in shaping the spread of infection in individual counties, and in their neighboring counties. Thus, population density and sizes of vulnerable population subgroups should be explicitly included in transmission models that predict the impacts of COVID-19, particularly at the sub-county level.

Taking the pulse of COVID-19: a spatiotemporal perspective

Abstract: The sudden outbreak of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) swept across the world in early 2020, triggering the lockdowns of several billion people across many countries, including China, Spain, Ind...

Taking the pulse of COVID-19: A spatiotemporal perspective.

Abstract: The sudden outbreak of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) swept across the world in early 2020, triggering the lockdowns of several billion people across many countries, including China, Spain, India, the U.K., Italy, France, Germany, and most states of the U.S. The transmission of the virus accelerated rapidly with the most confirmed cases in the U.S., and New York City became an epicenter of the pandemic by the end of March. In response to this national and global emergency, the NSF Spatiotemporal Innovation Center brought together a taskforce of international researchers and assembled implemented strategies to rapidly respond to this crisis, for supporting research, saving lives, and protecting the health of global citizens. This perspective paper presents our collective view on the global health emergency and our effort in collecting, analyzing, and sharing relevant data on global policy and government responses, geospatial indicators of the outbreak and evolving forecasts; in developing research capabilities and mitigation measures with global scientists, promoting collaborative research on outbreak dynamics, and reflecting on the dynamic responses from human societies.

Ever‐transient FDI and ever‐polarizing regional development: Revisiting conventional theories of regional development in the context of China, Southeast and South Asia

Abstract: In this new age of globalization, regions attempt to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) in order to achieve regionally balanced development. We revisit existing theories of regional development and FDI by analyzing recent data sets on FDI, employment, and trade in China, Southeast Asia, and South Asia. Using Chinese provincial data in 2004, 2008, and 2013 and applying panel estimations, our econometric results demonstrate that FDI remarkably influenced the concentration of employment in manufacturing, financial, and business services industries within the three Chinese macro‐regions. We also find that FDI is ever transient, always moving away from high‐cost to low‐cost production bases across different regions. This transient nature of FDI is spatially selective and biased, and not able to generate the trickle‐down effects to other neighboring regions. That is why FDI recently moved from China to Southeast and South Asia rather than from its coastal to inland regions. Furthermore, we show that this nature of FDI generally leads to polarization development for regions. As a synthesis or extension of the existing theories, we propose a leapfrog polarization pattern and strategy for vast developing countries in considering their regional development strategies.

No more "social distancing" but practice physical separation.

Abstract: Dear Editor: Nations around the world have been urging their citizens to practice “social distancing.” It has become the moniker for what we “need” to do to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. However, social distancing is a misnomer. It is not self-explanatory, conceptually ambiguous, practically misleading, and intellectually misplaced. A recent Oxford English Dictionary update reflects social distancing in the context it is in use currently—separating ourselves physically to avoid infection (Paton 2020). In public health, social distancing refers to community infection-control measures to achieve physical separation by restricting movements of and contacts between individuals during outbreaks (Fong et al. 2020). The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020) guideline for social distancing directs people to stay “at least 6 feet (2 meters) from others,” and “out of crowded places...” Thus, practices of social distancing are purely physical-spatial with nothing social in nature. In fact, “...social distance,... as an epidemiologic principle, has not been used in the exact terminology adapted by sociologists...” (Ipsen 1959, p. 162). The concept of social distance, which originated from Georg Simmel (Ethington 1997), has long been used in sociology, psychology, and geography to evaluate social separation among individuals and population groups. Measured on the Bogardus (1925) Social Distance Scale, it is interpreted as a function of an individual’s “prejudice” toward a/any sociological group. Thus, social distance is not the same as physical distance, although they can correlate (Forrest, La Grange, & Yip 2004). This distinction renders the current and past use of social distancing in public health problematic and out of sync with what the term actually means. Consequently, some authorities had provided confusing guidelines. For instance, England’s social distancing guideline instructed people to reduce “social interaction,” but also directed citizens to maintain social interaction using information-communication technologies (Public Health England 2020). A literal and intuitive interpretation of the social distancing message may indeed result in unintended social isolation. Similarly, advocating social distancing undermines the importance of “physical” separation essential for breaking the chain of infection to limit its spread. While some (cf. Government of Canada 2020) have transitioned away from the term, others continue to use it (cf. CDC 2020). Some have supported the continued use of social distancing because it is now a familiar phrase, and switching to a more physical term may no longer be needed (Gale 2020). Any such claim founded solely on the current context is shortsighted. The succession of zoonotic pandemics in the twenty-first century directs us to a longer-term outlook for better public health preparedness. Moreover, rapidly evolving global events require sharing of information across cultures and disciplines, but the misleading nature of the term inhibits this communication. Removing social distancing from the public health vocabulary and replacing it with a term such as physical distancing or separation would ensure unambiguous health messaging and avoid further academic confusion. We urge governments and public health officials to lead the change and appeal to the media to support correct public health messaging. No more “social distancing” but practice physical separation.

Congressional districts: How “equal” are they?

Abstract: Congressional redistricting is the process of delineating boundaries for districts in which voters elect members to the United States (U.S.) House of Representatives. Currently, state legislative bodies and committees may consider up to eight criteria when determining the boundaries of districts and this paper focuses on one of those criteria, equal population. Congressional districts (CDs) are drawn to provide quality representation for a large population and are often redrawn due to changes in population reflected by the decennial census. The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided that equal population refers to the total population of a state, rather than any subgroups (e.g. registered voters, voting eligible population) but did not dictate that states could not evenly distribute any subgroups as well. This paper discusses how eligible voters may be defined and their distributions in each state for the 113th Congress. States with a large proportion of children or prisoners were expected to have CDs with eligible voting populations deviated from the equal population counts, but the results show that populations of children and prisoners were not significant factors related to the deviations from equal population counts at the state level. However, the changes in population between 2000 and 2010, and the non-citizen and Hispanic populations were strongly and significantly associated with the deviations from the ideals.

Exploring different dimensions in defining the Alabama Black Belt

Abstract: The Alabama Black Belt region has played a significant role throughout Alabama’s history. However, the geographical extent of the region is subject to dispute. Multiple definitions of the region’s boundaries using different dimensions, taken at different times have been put forth by scholars. The lack of consistency makes it difficult to compare study results. A historically-defined boundary has the potential to increase the effectiveness of policies developed and implemented to address the persistent poverty in portions of the region. This paper seeks to define the boundary using historical dimensions based on quantifiable characteristics of the cotton culture which were unique to the Alabama Black Belt region. It uses physical dimensions as well as quantifiable agricultural characteristics of the cotton culture at the county level at two points in time, 1860 and 1900 to show that at the county level the Black Belt region remained stable and well defined through the first 100 years of Alabama history.