IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cir/cirwor/2020s-24.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimating COVID-19 Prevalence in the United States: A Sample Selection Model Approach

Author

Listed:
  • David Benatia
  • Raphaël Godefroy
  • Joshua Lewis

Abstract

Background: Public health efforts to determine population infection rates from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been hampered by limitations in testing capabilities and the large shares of mild and asymptomatic cases. We developed a methodology that corrects observed positive test rates for non-random sampling to estimate population infection rates across U.S. states from March 31 to April 7. Methods: We adapted a sample selection model that corrects for non-random testing to estimate population infection rates. The methodology compares how the observed positive case rate vary with changes in the size of the tested population, and applies this gradient to infer total population infection rates. Model identification requires that variation in testing rates be uncorrelated with changes in underlying disease prevalence. To this end, we relied on data on day-to-day changes in completed tests across U.S. states for the period March 31 to April 7, which were primarily influenced by immediate supply-side constraints. We used this methodology to construct predicted infection rates across each state over the sample period. We also assessed the sensitivity of the results to controls for state-specific daily trends in infection rates. Results: The median population infection rate over the period March 31 to April 7 was 0.9% (IQR 0.64 1.77). The three states with the highest prevalence over the sample period were New York (8.5%), New Jersey (7.6%), and Louisiana (6.7%). Estimates from models that control for state-specific daily trends in infection rates were virtually identical to the baseline findings. The estimates imply a nationwide average of 12 population infections per diagnosed case. We found a negative bivariate relationship (corr. = -0.51) between total per capita state testing and the ratio of population infections per diagnosed case. Interpretation: The effectiveness of the public health response to the coronavirus pandemic will depend on timely information on infection rates across different regions. With increasingly available high frequency data on COVID-19 testing, our methodology could be used to estimate population infection rates for a range of countries and subnational districts. In the United States, we found widespread undiagnosed COVID-19 infection. Expansion of rapid diagnostic and serological testing will be critical in preventing recurrent unobserved community transmission and identifying the large numbers individuals who may have some level of viral immunity.

Suggested Citation

  • David Benatia & Raphaël Godefroy & Joshua Lewis, 2020. "Estimating COVID-19 Prevalence in the United States: A Sample Selection Model Approach," CIRANO Working Papers 2020s-24, CIRANO.
    • Handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2020s-24
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cirano.qc.ca/files/publications/2020s-24.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James J. Heckman, 1976. "The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models," NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 5, number 4, pages 475-492, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Clay, Karen & Lewis, Joshua & Severnini, Edson, 2018. "Pollution, Infectious Disease, and Mortality: Evidence from the 1918 Spanish Influenza Pandemic," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 78(4), pages 1179-1209, December.
    3. Clay, Karen & Lewis, Joshua & Severnini, Edson, 2019. "What explains cross-city variation in mortality during the 1918 influenza pandemic? Evidence from 438 U.S. cities," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 42-50.
    4. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    5. Whitney K. Newey, 2009. "Two-step series estimation of sample selection models," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 12(s1), pages 217-229, January.
    6. Heckman, James J. & Lalonde, Robert J. & Smith, Jeffrey A., 1999. "The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 31, pages 1865-2097, Elsevier.
    7. Mitali Das & Whitney K. Newey & Francis Vella, 2003. "Nonparametric Estimation of Sample Selection Models," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 70(1), pages 33-58.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Huan Wang & Sarah‐Eve Dill & Huan Zhou & Yue Ma & Hao Xue & Sean Sylvia & Kumi Smith & Matthew Boswell & Alexis Medina & Prashant Loyalka & Cody Abby & Dimitris Friesen & Nathan Rose & Yian Guo & Scot, 2021. "Health, economic, and social implications of COVID‐19 for China's rural population," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(3), pages 495-504, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gayle, George-Levi & Viauroux, Christelle, 2007. "Root-N consistent semiparametric estimators of a dynamic panel-sample-selection model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 141(1), pages 179-212, November.
    2. Martin Huber & Giovanni Mellace, 2014. "Testing exclusion restrictions and additive separability in sample selection models," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 75-92, August.
    3. Richard Blundell & Monica Costa Dias, 2009. "Alternative Approaches to Evaluation in Empirical Microeconomics," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 44(3).
    4. Evgeniy M. Ozhegov, 2014. "The Underwriting, Choice And Performance Of Government-Insured Mortgages In Russia," HSE Working papers WP BRP 31/FE/2014, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    5. Wojtyś, Małgorzata & Marra, Giampiero & Radice, Rosalba, 2018. "Copula based generalized additive models for location, scale and shape with non-random sample selection," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 1-14.
    6. Joo, Joonhwi & LaLonde, Robert J., 2014. "Testing for Selection Bias," IZA Discussion Papers 8455, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Emmanuel O. Ogundimu & Jane L. Hutton, 2016. "A Sample Selection Model with Skew-normal Distribution," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 43(1), pages 172-190, March.
    8. Martin Huber & Giovanni Mellace, 2015. "Sharp Bounds on Causal Effects under Sample Selection," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 77(1), pages 129-151, February.
    9. Huber, Martin & Melly, Blaise, 2011. "Quantile Regression in the Presence of Sample Selection," Economics Working Paper Series 1109, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    10. Martin Huber, 2014. "Treatment Evaluation in the Presence of Sample Selection," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(8), pages 869-905, November.
    11. Zaiceva, Anzelika, 2006. "Self-Selection and the Returns to Geographic Mobility: What Can Be Learned from the German Reunification "Experiment"," IZA Discussion Papers 2524, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Huber, Martin & Mellace, Giovanni, 2011. "Testing instrument validity in sample selection models," Economics Working Paper Series 1145, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    13. Leuven, Edwin & Jolivet, Grégory & Bonhomme, Stéphane, 2012. "Job Characteristics and Labor Turnover: Assessing the Role of Preferences and Opportunities in Teacher Mobility," CEPR Discussion Papers 8841, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Qi Li & Jeffrey Scott Racine, 2006. "Nonparametric Econometrics: Theory and Practice," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 8355.
    15. Denis Y. Orlov & Evgeniy M. Ozhegov, 2016. "Do sequel movies really earn more than non-sequels? Evidence from the US box office," ACEI Working Paper Series AWP-03-2016, Association for Cultural Economics International, revised Apr 2016.
    16. Denis Y. Orlov & Evgeniy M. Ozhegov, 2015. "Estimating the Efficiency of Sequels in the Film Industry," HSE Working papers WP BRP 96/EC/2015, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    17. Martin Huber, 2012. "Identification of Average Treatment Effects in Social Experiments Under Alternative Forms of Attrition," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 37(3), pages 443-474, June.
    18. Miguel Santolino & Magnus Söderberg, 2014. "Modelling appellate courts’ responses in motor injury disputes," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 393-407, December.
    19. Hamermesh, Daniel S. & Donald, Stephen G., 2008. "The effect of college curriculum on earnings: An affinity identifier for non-ignorable non-response bias," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 144(2), pages 479-491, June.
    20. Richard Blundell & Amanda Gosling & Hidehiko Ichimura & Costas Meghir, 2007. "Changes in the Distribution of Male and Female Wages Accounting for Employment Composition Using Bounds," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(2), pages 323-363, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2020s-24. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ciranca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.