Effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from the 27 Brazilian states.

BACKGROUND

Despite substantial evidence on the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), there is still limited evidence on the individual effects of different types of NPIs on social distancing, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

We used panel data analysis to evaluate the effects of mandatory social distancing rules on social distancing. We obtained data on six different categories of mandatory restrictions implemented in Brazil, by date and state, from state government gazettes (diários oficiais). We then defined a social distancing rules index (SDI) to measure the strictness of social distancing rules, assigning each a value of 2, 1, or 0 depending on whether restrictions were full, partial, or very limited/non-existent at every given time. A separate variable was defined for masking mandates. We tested whether the following variables were associated to social distancing: SDI, masking mandates, COVID-19 incidence, population socioeconomic status, and political orientation. Data is for each day between March 11th and November 10th, 2020 in the 27 Brazilian states (N = 6615).

FINDINGS

Social distancing increased when social distancing rules were stricter, and decreased when the use of face masks became mandatory. The effects of different types of restrictions varied: suspending in-person classes and gatherings, religious/sport/cultural activities had a greater effect than other types of restrictions. Also, the effect of social distancing rules on people's behaviour decreased over time, especially when rules were stricter.

INTERPRETATION

Mandatory social distancing rules must be adopted to increase social distancing. Stricter rules have a higher impact, but result in decreased compliance over time. Policymakers should prioritize more targeted policies.