Search for: All records

Abstract The increasing agglomeration of people in dense urban areas coupled with the existence of efficient modes of transportation connecting such centers, make cities particularly vulnerable to the spread of epidemics. Here we develop a data-driven approach combines with a meta-population modeling to capture the interplay between population density, mobility and epidemic spreading. We study 163 cities, chosen from four different continents, and report a global trend where the epidemic risk induced by human mobility increases consistently in those cities where mobility flows are predominantly between high population density centers. We apply our framework to the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States, providing a plausible explanation for the observed heterogeneity in the spreading process across cities. Based on this insight, we propose realistic mitigation strategies (less severe than lockdowns), based on modifying the mobility in cities. Our results suggest that an optimal control strategy involves an asymmetric policy that restricts flows entering the most vulnerable areas but allowing residents to continue their usual mobility patterns. 

The ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been holding the world hostage for several years now. Mobility is key to viral spreading and its restriction is the main non-pharmaceutical interventions to fight the virus expansion. Previous works have shown a connection between the structural organization of cities and the movement patterns of their residents. This puts urban centers in the focus of epidemic surveillance and interventions. Here we show that the organization of urban flows has a tremendous impact on disease spreading and on the amenability of different mitigation strategies. By studying anonymous and aggregated intra-urban flows in a variety of cities in the United States and other countries, and a combination of empirical analysis and analytical methods, we demonstrate that the response of cities to epidemic spreading can be roughly classified in two major types according to the overall organization of those flows. Hierarchical cities, where flows are concentrated primarily between mobility hotspots, are particularly vulnerable to the rapid spread of epidemics. Nevertheless, mobility restrictions in such types of cities are very effective in mitigating the spread of a virus. Conversely, in sprawled cities which present many centers of activity, the spread of an epidemic is much slower, but the response to mobility restrictions is much weaker and less effective. Investing resources on early monitoring and prompt ad-hoc interventions in more vulnerable cities may prove helpful in containing and reducing the impact of future pandemics.