Evidence for Behavioral Autorepression in Covid-19 Epidemiological Dynamics

Abstract

AbstractIt has long been hypothesized that behavioral reactions to epidemic severity autoregulate infection dynamics, for example when susceptible individuals self-sequester based on perceived levels of circulating disease. However, evidence for such ‘behavioral autorepression’ has remained elusive, and its presence could significantly affect epidemic forecasting and interventions. Here, we analyzed early COVID-19 dynamics at 708 locations over three epidemiological scales (96 countries, 50 US states, and 562 US counties). Signatures of behavioral autorepression were identified through: (i) a counterintuitive mobility-death correlation, (ii) fluctuation-magnitude analysis, and (iii) dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 infection waves. These data enabled calculation of the average behavioral-autorepression strength (i.e., negative feedback ‘gain’) across different populations. Surprisingly, incorporating behavioral autorepression into conventional models was required to accurately forecast COVID-19 mortality. Models also predicted that the strength of behavioral autorepression has the potential to alter the efficacy of non-pharmaceutical interventions. Overall, these results provide evidence for the long-hypothesized existence of behavioral autorepression, which could improve epidemic forecasting and enable more effective application of non-pharmaceutical interventions during future epidemics.SignificanceChallenges with epidemiological forecasting during the COVID-19 pandemic suggested gaps in underlying model architecture. One long-held hypothesis, typically omitted from conventional models due to lack of empirical evidence, is that human behaviors lead to intrinsic negative autoregulation of epidemics (termed ‘behavioral autorepression’). This omission substantially alters model forecasts. Here, we provide independent lines of evidence for behavioral autorepression during the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrate that it is sufficient to explain counterintuitive data on ‘shutdowns’, and provides a mechanistic explanation of why early shutdowns were more effective than delayed, high-intensity shutdowns. We empirically measure autorepression strength, and show that incorporating autorepression dramatically improves epidemiological forecasting. The autorepression phenomenon suggests that tailoring interventions to specific populations may be warranted.