Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with

free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-

19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the
company's public news and information website.

Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related

research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this
research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other
publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights
for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means
with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are
granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre
remains active.
 Spatial Statistics 38 (2020) 100443

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Spatial Statistics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/spasta

Determining the spatial effects of COVID-19

using the spatial panel data model
Hasraddin Guliyev
Department of Economics and Business Administration; Scientific-Research Institute of Economic
Studies, Azerbaijan State Economic University, Baku, Azerbaijan

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study investigates the propagation power and effects of the
Received 17 March 2020 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in light of published data.
Received in revised form 30 March 2020 We examine the factors affecting COVID-19 together with the
Accepted 30 March 2020
spatial effects, and use spatial panel data models to determine
Available online 7 April 2020
the relationship among the variables including their spatial ef-
Keywords: fects. Using spatial panel models, we analyse the relationship
COVID-19 between confirmed cases of COVID-19, deaths thereof, and re-
Spatial effects covered cases due to treatment. We accordingly determine and
Spatial panel data models include the spatial effects in this examination after establishing
the appropriate model for COVID-19. The most efficient and
consistent model is interpreted with direct and indirect spatial
effects.
© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Twenty-seven cases of pneumonia of unidentified aetiology were discovered in Wuhan city,

Hubei province of China on 31 December 2019. Wuhan city is the most densely populated city
in central China, with more than 11 million residents. In the 27 cases, most patients were admitted
into hospitals with clinical symptoms of fever, dry cough, dyspnoea, and bilateral lung infiltrates
as seen on imaging. All incidents were correlated to the city’s Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market
which predominantly sells a diversity of fish as well as live animals such as marmots, bats, poultry,
and snakes (Lu et al., 2020). The causative agent was detected from throat swab samples of
patients, taken by the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CCDC) on 7 January
2020. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), as labelled by the World Health Organization
(WHO), was declared to cause Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

E-mail address: hasradding@unec.edu.az.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spasta.2020.100443
2211-6753/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 H. Guliyev / Spatial Statistics 38 (2020) 100443

(WHO Director-General’s remarks at the media briefing on 2019-nCoV on 11 February 2020, 2020
February 11).
To date, most patients with SARS-CoV-2 have had developed mild symptoms, such as sore throat,
dry cough, and fever. Many cases have been unexpectedly determined. However, a minority of
patients have been known to develop fatal complications, such as septic shock, organ failure, severe
pneumonia, pulmonary oedema, and acute respiratory distress syndrome.
As per recent statistics, 54.3% of those diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 were male with a median age
of 56 years. Patients who required intensive care help were, on average, older and/or were previ-
ously diagnosed with comorbidities, such as cerebrovascular, cardiovascular, digestive, endocrine,
and chronic respiratory disease.
Those in intensive care were also more likely to report abdominal pain, dizziness, dyspnoea, and
anorexia (Wang et al., 2020).
Efforts directed toward interpreting the pathophysiology of COVID-19 have led to the EU mobi-
lizing e10,000,000 into research that would ‘‘contribute to more efficient clinical management of
patients infected with the virus, as well as public health preparedness and response’’ (Coronavirus:
EU mobilises e10 million for research, 2020 January 31). Further, US-based corporations such as
Co-Diagnostics and the Novacyt’s molecular diagnostics division Primerdesign have been developing
COVID-19 testing kits for use in the research setting (Primerdesign launches molecular test for new
coronavirus, 2020 January 31). The UK government has also sanctioned £20,000,000 to support the
development of a COVID-19 vaccine (Coronavirus: UK donates £20 m to speed up vaccine, 2020
February 3). Given the nature of the pandemic, COVID-19 has been a subject of intense discussion
since the beginning of 2020. As the pandemic spreads exponentially, healthcare enterprises and
non-profit organizations have already begun work to counter it.
In this study, we investigate the propagation power and effects of COVID-19 in light of published
data. Thus, the factors affecting COVID-19 are examined together with spatial effects, and spatial
panel data models are used to determine the relationship among the variables (factors) with spatial
effects. Using spatial panel models, we analyse the relationship between the rate of confirmed cases
(Rc ) of COVID-19, the rate of deaths (Rd ), the rate of recovered cases (Rr ) due to treatment, with
spatial and temporal effects.

2. Methodology

We first estimate a standard linear panel data model devoid of spatial effects. This model can
be used as a reference for the estimation results of spatial panel data models as well as to check
the robustness of these estimation results (Yang et al., 2017). The formulation of a standard linear
regression model (SLM) is as follows (Baum and Christopher, 2006; Tatoglu, 2012):

yit = x′it β + ui + εit , (1)

where y is the explained variable, i denotes the individuals, and it constitutes the regions (N = 31).
t is the dimension of the time series, that is, from 22 January 2020 to 10 March 2020. x′it is the
1 × k vector of observations of the explanatory variables and β is the k × 1 vector of undetermined
coefficients. ui is an individual effect that cannot be directly observed and quantified and εit is a
disturbance term that varies with the individual and time. If ui is related to xit , the panel data model
is a fixed effects model; otherwise, it is a random effects model (Fotheringham and Rogerson, 2008).
Spatial panel data models include the spatial autoregression model (SAR), spatial error model
(SEM), spatial autocorrelation model (SAC), and spatial Durbin model (SDM). These models consider
the spatial effects based on the SLM and they are estimated using the maximum likelihood principle.
Among them, the SAR model considers the spatial spillover effect of the dependent variable. Hence,
its formula includes the spatial lag term of the dependent variable, which can be expressed as
follows:
yit = ρ Wyt + x′it β + ui + εit , (2)
∑n
where ρ Wyt is the spatial lag of the dependent variable and Wyt = j=1 wij yit is the contiguity
based on the weighted Rook matrix. ρ is the spatial autoregression coefficient. If ρ has statistical
 H. Guliyev / Spatial Statistics 38 (2020) 100443 3

significance, it demonstrates the existence of a significant spatial dependence among the dependent
variables. That is, a confirmed case in a region depends on the contiguous regions. The value of ρ
reflects the degree of the spatial dependence (Gelfand et al., 2010).
The SEM discovers the effects of the omitted variables on the observation of the determined (de-
pendent) variable in a provincial area, which contains a spatial error term. A spatial autocorrelation
among residuals is thus practical and the SEM can be formulated as follows:
yit = x′it β + ui + εit , (3)
εit = λWεt + vit , (4)
where λWεt is the spatial error term, λ is the autoregressive factor, and vit is a random error term
that is usually assumed to be independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.). We can confirm the
existence of hidden independent variables with spatial autocorrelation if λ is statistically significant,
which results in the trend of a noticeable spatial autocorrelation in the residuals. The SAC model is
a combination of the SAR models and SEMs; it consists of the dependent variable spatial lag and a
spatial error term, which can be expressed as follows:
yit = ρ Wyt + x′it β + ui + εit
εit = λWεt + vit , (5)
In the above equation, corresponding to various research functions and needs, SWM W1 and
SWM W2 (spatial weight matrix) can be the same or different (LeSage, 2008; Yang et al., 2017). In
this study, we used the same SWM to estimate the model, that is, W 1 = W 2 = W , and the residual
terms are the same as those revealed above.
The SDM includes the dependent variable spatial lags and explanatory variables. It uses the
marginal effects of the explanatory variables from the nearby regions/state based on the SAR model.
The common specification for the SDM is as follows:
yit = ρ Wyt + x′it β + WXt δ + ui + εit (6)
where WXt δ is the explanatory variables’ spatial lag, Xt is the n × (k − 1) constant independent
variable matrix, and δ is the (k − 1) × 1 vector of the parameters that determine the marginal
effects of the independent variables from nearby observations on yit , the dependent variable.
Fig. 1, which is similar to a part of the figure presented in Elhorst (2010), illustrates the relation-
ships among the previously stated spatial panel models. First, we examine the SLM estimated by
ordinary least squares. We start with this model, as it is the simplest and most common. Though it
is a non-spatial effect model, it is frequently used as a diagnostic tool for model specification and
is a benchmark for comparisons with spatial models.
We also represent the SEM, as the interpretation of the coefficients is similar to that of an
SLM. The SAR is introduced in Section 3. Because of endogenous spatial dependence in this model,
it is more challenging to interpret the coefficients. This section also examines the SAC model
(Kelejian and Prucha, 1998), which is characteristically close to the SAR model. In Section 4, we
present two regression models with spatial lags only in the independent variables—the spatially-
lagged X model (SLX) other than the spatial Durbin error model, both of which include exogenous
spatial dependence. In Section 5, we consider he interpretation of coefficients for an SDM, which
includes both exogenous and endogenous spatial dependencies, consequently complicating the
interpretation more than for the preceding models (Golgher and Voss, 2016).

3. Data and empirical results

3.1. Dataset and descriptive statistics

For the purpose of our objective, we include sampling data from 22 January 2020 to 10 March
2020 for the 311 regions in Mainland China. The data are collected from the COVID-2019 situation

1 Anhui, Beijing, Chongqing, Fujian, Gansu, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hainan, Hebei, Heilongjiang, Henan, Hubei,
Hunan, Inner Mongolia, Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Jilin, Liaoning, Ningxia, Qinghai, Shaanxi, Shandong, Shanghai, Shanxi, Sichuan,
Tianjin, Xinjiang, Tibet, Yunnan, and Zhejiang.
4 H. Guliyev / Spatial Statistics 38 (2020) 100443

Fig. 1. Relationships among spatial panel models.

Source: Source: Some Spatial Models (Golgher and
Voss, 2016).

reports2 by WHO. We analyse the relationship between the rate of confirmed cases (Rc ) of COVID-
19, the rate of deaths (Rd ), and the rate of recovered cases (Rr ), with spatial and temporal effects. The
rates are calculated classifying each variable by the population in the province. Population statistics
for each province is collected from the National Bureau of Statistics of China.3 The statistics of the
rate of confirmed deaths and recovered cases on 10 March 2020 and average statistics are presented
in Table A.1.
Table A.1 shows that Hubei had the highest concentration of the rate of confirmed cases (10.714
cases per 100,000 people), followed by Guangdong (0.214 cases per 100,000 people) and Henan
(0.201 cases per 100,000 people). The least rate of confirmed cases was from Ningxia, Qinghai, and
Tibet. These data are up to 10 March 2020. In Hubei, an average of 6.498 out of 100,000 people
tested positive for COVID-19, 2.126 out of 100,000 patients recovered, and 0.241 out of 100,000
people lost their lives. For Guangdong, these statistics are 0.159, 2.126, and 0.241, respectively.

3.2. Comparison of Spatial Panel Models estimation

Before fitting spatial panel models, we require an SWM matrix. An SWM characterizes the spatial
relationships among variables in a dataset (Fotheringham and Rogerson, 2008; Zeren, 2010). The W
in this research was 31 × 31, row-standardized with zero diagonal factors and developed via the

2 https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports.
3 http://www.stats.gov.cn.
 H. Guliyev / Spatial Statistics 38 (2020) 100443 5

Table 1
Spatial panel models for COVID-19 in China.
Spatial panel models
Variables SLM SAR (1) SEM (2) SAC (3) SLX (4) SDM (5) SDEM (6)
Rr −0.729 −0.734*** −0.729*** −0.734*** −0.734*** −0.734*** −0.734***
Rd 32.378 32.467*** 32.391*** 32.472*** 32.486*** 32.498*** 32.487***
cons 0.001 0.067*** 0.068*** 0.067*** 0.067*** 0.067*** 0.067***
ρ 0.052*** 0.059*** −0.048
λ −0.033 −0.117** −0.067
lag.r −0.127** −0.060 −0.024
lag.d 1.719*** 3.290*** 1.717***
Temporal effects Table A.2
Statistics
F-stat / LR stat 1564*** 82731*** 78735*** 84297*** 85972*** 83092*** 83649***
R2 /Pseudo R2 0.9905 0.9910 0.9905 0.9914 0.9916 0.9911 0.9913
LM test of common 31.627*** 0.600 40.590*** 41.853*** 38.282*** 40.328***
spatial terms
AICc −3802.08 −3720.996 −3690.331 −3724.130 −3725.134 −3723.516 −3724.639
BIC −3530.47 −3444.054 −3413.389 −3413.862 −3445.866 −3435.922 −3437.045
Peseran-CD test stat = 21.791 prob<0.01
SLX model Hausman Test chi (49) = 25.18 (prob<0.001)
SLX Model LMr test chi (1) = 4.02 (prob<0.050)
SLX Model LMd chi (1) = 11.94 (prob<0.001)
* p < 0.10; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01.

conceptualization of spatial relations of the polygon rook contiguity in Stata 16. Formally,
{
1 if regions j shares a common boundary with province i
wij =
′
(7)
0; other w ise
wij′
wij = ∑n (8)
j=1 wij′
n
∑
wij = 1, i = 1, . . . , n (9)
j=1

This form is then transformed into a suitable format for Stata 16.0 and is used in spatial panel
regression.
To manage the spatial autocorrelation effect of the dependent variable and correctly analyse the
affecting factors and their spatial spillover effects, spatial panel data models can be used. Compared
with standard linear panel data models, spatial panel data models take on spatial effects, such as
the spatial dependence and spillover effects. Further, compared with the spatial model built on
cross-sectional data, the spatial panel data model can grasp the individual heterogeneity of spatial
units – that is, individual effects – and can escape missing variables and estimation errors more
efficiently (Elhorst, 2014)
Before estimating spatial panel data models, we need to test for cross-sectional dependence.
The primary issue when confronted with spatially referenced data is to determine whether spatial
dependence exists, that is, whether ‘‘nearby’’ cases are more correlated than distant ones. A flexible
way of assessing whether dependence in the cross-section of a panel dataset is spatially related is
the particularization of the Pesaran (2004) test for general cross-sectional dependence (Croissant
and Millo, 2019; Tatoğlu, 2013).
Table 1 shows the cross-sectional dependence test reports; we can reject that the null hypothesis
errors are i.i.d. This is not surprising given our hit map visual (Fig. 2) appraisal of confirmed
COVID-19 cases. Consequently, we require spatial panel models.
The estimation results for the SLM and the six spatial panel data models are shown in Table 1.
The parameters of the spatial panel models are estimated using the quasi-maximum likelihood
6 H. Guliyev / Spatial Statistics 38 (2020) 100443

Fig. 2. Spread of COVID-19 in Mainland China on 10 March 2020.

estimator derived by Lee and Yu (2010) and the p-value is calculated using the robust standard
error. All of spatial panel data models include two-way effects: individual (cross) and temporal
(time) effects. Temporal effects for each spatial panel model are shown in Table A.2.
Firstly, we eliminated SEM (2), SDM (5) and SDEM (6) models since there was spatial effect no
statistically significant at %5 level. Following, we had to choose from models such as SAR (1), SAC
(3) and SLX (4). The estimated coefficient of the spatially lagged independent variables (LMr and
LMd ) in the SLX (spatially-lagged X) model was statistically significant at the %5 level. That is, the
rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases for provinces in China is spatially correlated. This further suggests
that it is necessary to construct spatial panel data models rather than SLMs, which do not consider
spatial effects, if our objective is to explore the influencing factors of the rate of confirmed cases
and their spatial spillover effects.
The pseudo-R2 (99.16), likelihood ratio-stat (LR-stat) (85972), and Lagrange multiplier (LM) test
of common spatial terms stat (41.853) for the SLX are higher than SAR (1) and SAC (2) models. Its
value of the corrected Akaike information criterion (AICc) (−3725.134), which is calculated for small
samples, and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) (−3725.134) is also lower than the SAR and SAC
models. The LMr , and LMd test statistics for the SLX are significant at the %5 level, and, hence, spatial
effects of explanatory variables (LMr , LMd ) are different from zero. Hausman test statistics is 21.791
for SLX; further, the fixed effects SLX is more consistent in comparison with the random effects
SLX (prob<0.001). Consequently, the SLX can be considered a better-fitting spatial panel regression
model. Therefore, we mainly interpret the influencing factors based on the estimation results of the
SLX in the following analysis.

3.3. Analysis of spatial effects

The average direct, indirect, and total effects of these explanatory variables are presented in Ta-
ble 2. The direct effect expresses the marginal effect of the change in the independent variable of one
percent on the dependent variable of the same unit. The indirect effect is the marginal effect of the
 H. Guliyev / Spatial Statistics 38 (2020) 100443 7

Table 2
Spatial effects of independent variables of the SLX.
Independent dy/dx Delta-Method Prob 95% Confidence interval
variables Std. Err. Lower Higher
Direct spatial effects
Rr 32.485 0.185 <0.001 32.122 33.849
Rd −0.734 0.013 <0.001 −0.759 −0.708
Indirect spatial effects
Rr 1.663 0.481 <0.001 0.720 2.607
Rd −0.025 0.033 0.436 −0.091 0.039
Total spatial effects
Rr 34.150 0.536 <0.001 33.099 35.199
Rd −0.759 0.036 <0.001 −0.831 −0.688

change in the independent variable in one percent on the dependent variable value of all neighbour-
ing units. The total effect is the sum of both effects. The average direct effects of the rate of recovered
cases and the rate of deaths are 32.485 (prob<0.001) and −0.734 (prob<0.001), respectively,
indicating that one-percent increase in the rate of deaths (example, in Hubei) leads to 32% positive
change in the rate of confirmed cases (in Hubei) and a one-percent increase in the rate of recovered
cases leads to 0.7% negative change in the ratio of confirmed cases (in Hubei), respectively.
Compared with the average direct effects and the estimated coefficients, the average indirect
effects can more comprehensively reflect the actual effect of the influencing factors. The indirect
effects of the rate of recovered cases are measured at 1.663 (prob<0.001), indicating that a one-
percent increase in the rate of deaths (in Hubei) leads to 1.7% positive change in the rate of
confirmed cases (in neighbouring regions of Hubei, namely, Henan, Anhui etc.). However, the
indirect effect of the rate of recovered cases is not significant at the 5% level (prob>0.05).
Table A.2 shows temporal effects of SLX model. We consider that the rate of confirmed cases in
the first days increased slightly and it was not statistically significant at %5 level. However, for the
SLX model, after 3 February 2020 date, the rate of confirmed case increases had become statistically
significant. The increase in the rate of confirmed cases since the beginning of March 2020 has
become dramatic. So, we contemplate that the confirmed cases on 10 March 2020 compared to
22 January 2020 date increased by 0.1254 cases in 100,000 people.

4. Conclusion

Built on the spatial panel data of 31 regions in China from 22 January 2020 to 10 March 2020,
we investigated the influencing variables (the rate of deaths and recovered cases) and their spatial
spillover effects of COVID-19. Before we built and compared the spatial panel data models, we tested
the cross-sectional dependence using the Pesaran test. We thus found cross-sectional dependence
between the units.
Among the panel data regression models estimated to capture spatial effects, the most efficient
and consistent model was determined according to the maximum pseudo-R2 , LR-test, LM-test
statistics, and minimum AICc and BIC values. The results of the model comparison allowed us to
select the SLX from the predicted spatial panel data models for interpretation.
In the SLX model, the spatial effects of the dependent and independent variables were examined
separately. Specifically, the independent variables effects were split into the total, indirect (spatial
spillover effects), and direct effects in order to improve the identification of the actual impacts and
spatial interactions of the factor components on COVID-19.
We thus draw the following conclusions:

• As per the total effect, the rate of deaths has significant positive effects, while the rate of
recovered cases has significant negative effects on COVID-19.
8 H. Guliyev / Spatial Statistics 38 (2020) 100443

Table A.1
COVID-19 descriptive statistics in Mainland China.
Region 10 March 2020 Mean
Rc Rr Rd Rc Rr Rd
Hubei 10.7147 7.5495 7.5495 6.4980 2.1258 0.2406
Guangdong 0.2139 0.2015 0.2015 0.1586 0.0784 0.0005
Henan 0.2011 0.1972 0.1972 0.1461 0.0839 0.0018
Zhejiang 0.1921 0.1883 0.1883 0.1460 0.0788 0.0001
Hunan 0.1610 0.1565 0.1565 0.1195 0.0692 0.0003
Anhui 0.1565 0.1556 0.1556 0.1122 0.0610 0.0006
Jiangxi 0.1478 0.1466 0.1466 0.1066 0.0577 0.0001
Shandong 0.1199 0.1137 0.1137 0.0765 0.0352 0.0004
Jiangsu 0.0998 0.0991 0.0991 0.0712 0.0402 0.0000
Chongqing 0.0911 0.0865 0.0865 0.0683 0.0342 0.0006
Sichuan 0.0852 0.0756 0.0756 0.0603 0.0279 0.0003
Heilongjiang 0.0761 0.0686 0.0686 0.0507 0.0223 0.0013
Beijing 0.0678 0.0506 0.0506 0.0481 0.0201 0.0006
Shanghai 0.0544 0.0504 0.0504 0.0409 0.0223 0.0003
Hebei 0.0503 0.0485 0.0485 0.0343 0.0207 0.0005
Fujian 0.0468 0.0466 0.0466 0.0356 0.0177 0.0001
Guangxi 0.0398 0.0370 0.0370 0.0293 0.0129 0.0002
Shaanxi 0.0387 0.0359 0.0359 0.0289 0.0149 0.0001
Yunnan 0.0275 0.0269 0.0269 0.0211 0.0110 0.0001
Hainan 0.0266 0.0251 0.0251 0.0196 0.0105 0.0005
Guizhou 0.0231 0.0204 0.0204 0.0160 0.0083 0.0002
Tianjin 0.0215 0.0207 0.0207 0.0151 0.0078 0.0003
Shanxi 0.0210 0.0207 0.0207 0.0157 0.0088 0.0000
Gansu 0.0198 0.0139 0.0139 0.0115 0.0069 0.0002
Liaoning 0.0198 0.0176 0.0176 0.0150 0.0072 0.0001
Jilin 0.0147 0.0144 0.0144 0.0104 0.0057 0.0001
Xinjiang 0.0120 0.0115 0.0115 0.0082 0.0037 0.0002
Inner Mongolia 0.0119 0.0111 0.0111 0.0085 0.0034 0.0000
Ningxia 0.0119 0.0112 0.0112 0.0081 0.0052 0.0000
Qinghai 0.0028 0.0028 0.0028 0.0023 0.0016 0.0000
Tibet 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000

Note: The rates are multiplied by 100,000.

• As per the direct effect, the rate of deaths has significant positive effects on COVID-19. That
is, a one-percent increase in the rate of deaths leads to 32% the rate of confirmed positive
changes. In addition, the recovered cases have significant negative effects on COVID-19. That
is, a one-percent increases in the rate of recovered cases leads to 0.7% confirmed negative
changes.
• As per the indirect effect, the rate of deaths has significant positive effects on COVID-19 in
the neighbouring region. That is, a one-percent increase in the rate of deaths leads to 1.7%
confirmed positive changes in the neighbouring regions. However, the rate of recovered cases
did not have significant negative effects on COVID-19.
• As a result of the temporal effect analysis, the rate of confirmed cases is increasing day by day.
We compared the date of 22 January 2020 with the date of 10 March 2020, the confirmed cases
had increased nearly by 0.13 cases per 100,000 people, in other word, 13 cases per 10,000,000
people.

Some limitations need to be addressed while discussing the results of the present study. We
cannot model the rate of deaths because of the presence of high proportion of zeros. In addi-
tion, we consider that the time period is short. Future research can be examined with a big
dataset.
In general, this study had provided researchers with information about the effects of the spread
of the COVID-19 virus. Therefore, the effects of the spread of the virus have been addressed both
 H. Guliyev / Spatial Statistics 38 (2020) 100443 9

Table A.2
Temporal effects of spatial panel model.
Spatial panel models
Temporal effects SLM SAR(1) SEM(2) SAC(3) SLX(4) SDM(5) SDEM(6)
22/01/2020 Ref.
23/01/2020 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0005 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006
24/01/2020 0.0013 0.0012 0.0013 0.0012 0.0013 0.0013 0.0012
25/01/2020 0.0026 0.0023 0.0026 0.0022 0.0024 0.0025 0.0024
26/01/2020 0.0043 0.0039 0.0043 0.0037 0.0041 0.0042 0.0040
27/01/2020 0.0050 0.0044 0.0051 0.0043 0.0046 0.0049 0.0046
28/01/2020 0.0105 0.0093 0.0105 0.0092 0.0098 0.0103 0.0098
29/01/2020 0.0138 0.0124 0.0138 0.0122 0.0131 0.0137 0.0131
30/01/2020 0.0187 0.0168 0.0187 0.0166 0.0177 0.0186 0.0178
31/01/2020 0.0225 0.0202 0.0225 0.0199 0.0213 0.0224 0.0213
01/02/2020 0.0275 0.0246 0.0274* 0.0242 0.0260 0.0272 0.026
02/02/2020 0.0351** 0.0313* 0.0351** 0.0308** 0.0330* 0.0346** 0.0330**
03/02/2020 0.0418** 0.0373** 0.0417** 0.0366** 0.0393** 0.0412** 0.0393**
04/02/2020 0.0516*** 0.0463*** 0.0516*** 0.0455*** 0.0488*** 0.0512*** 0.0487***
05/02/2020 0.0594*** 0.0534*** 0.0594*** 0.0524*** 0.0562*** 0.0589*** 0.0561***
06/02/2020 0.0660*** 0.0593*** 0.0659*** 0.0582*** 0.0624*** 0.0654*** 0.0622***
07/02/2020 0.0716*** 0.0641*** 0.0715*** 0.0631*** 0.0675*** 0.0708*** 0.0674***
08/02/2020 0.0743*** 0.0663*** 0.0743*** 0.0651*** 0.0698*** 0.0731*** 0.0697***
09/02/2020 0.0756*** 0.0669*** 0.0756*** 0.0659*** 0.0705*** 0.0740*** 0.0705***
10/02/2020 0.0759*** 0.0667*** 0.0759*** 0.0655*** 0.0702*** 0.0737*** 0.0702***
11/02/2020 0.0747*** 0.0651*** 0.0747*** 0.0638*** 0.0685*** 0.0719*** 0.0684***
12/02/2020 0.0782*** 0.0684*** 0.0782*** 0.0672*** 0.0720*** 0.0756*** 0.0720***
13/02/2020 0.1051*** 0.0926*** 0.1051*** 0.0911*** 0.0975*** 0.1023*** 0.0975***
14/02/2020 0.1161*** 0.1025*** 0.1161*** 0.1008*** 0.1078*** 0.1131*** 0.1078***
15/02/2020 0.1127*** 0.0987*** 0.1127*** 0.0969*** 0.1037*** 0.1088*** 0.1036***
16/02/2020 0.1135*** 0.0990*** 0.1134*** 0.0971*** 0.1040*** 0.1091*** 0.1038***
17/02/2020 0.1150*** 0.1002*** 0.1150*** 0.0982*** 0.1051*** 0.1103*** 0.1050***
18/02/2020 0.1120*** 0.0968*** 0.1119*** 0.0946*** 0.1014*** 0.1064*** 0.1012***
19/02/2020 0.1067*** 0.0915*** 0.1066*** 0.0892*** 0.0957*** 0.1004*** 0.0954***
20/02/2020 0.1008*** 0.0855*** 0.1007*** 0.0831*** 0.0893*** 0.0937*** 0.0889***
21/02/2020 0.1058*** 0.0905*** 0.1057*** 0.0880*** 0.0944*** 0.0991*** 0.0940***
22/02/2020 0.0990*** 0.0834*** 0.0988*** 0.0809*** 0.0868*** 0.0911*** 0.0863***
23/02/2020 0.1005*** 0.0849*** 0.1004*** 0.0826*** 0.0884*** 0.0928*** 0.0880***
24/02/2020 0.0905*** 0.0749*** 0.0904*** 0.0724*** 0.0778*** 0.0817*** 0.0773***
25/02/2020 0.0924*** 0.0767*** 0.0923*** 0.0742*** 0.0796*** 0.0835*** 0.0790***
26/02/2020 0.0952*** 0.0794*** 0.0950*** 0.0769*** 0.0823*** 0.0864*** 0.0817***
27/02/2020 0.1012*** 0.0855*** 0.1011*** 0.0830*** 0.0885*** 0.0929*** 0.0880***
28/02/2020 0.1056*** 0.0898*** 0.1055*** 0.0874*** 0.0930*** 0.0975*** 0.0924***
29/02/2020 0.1102*** 0.0943*** 0.1100*** 0.0918*** 0.0976*** 0.1023*** 0.0970***
01/03/2020 0.1159*** 0.1000*** 0.1158*** 0.0975*** 0.1035*** 0.1084*** 0.1028***
02/03/2020 0.1194*** 0.1034*** 0.1192*** 0.1010*** 0.1070*** 0.1121*** 0.1063***
03/03/2020 0.1230*** 0.1071*** 0.1229*** 0.1046*** 0.1107*** 0.1160*** 0.1100***
04/03/2020 0.1264*** 0.1105*** 0.1263*** 0.1080*** 0.1141*** 0.1196*** 0.1134***
05/03/2020 0.1285*** 0.1126*** 0.1285*** 0.1104*** 0.1163*** 0.1219*** 0.1157***
06/03/2020 0.1305*** 0.1146*** 0.1305*** 0.1123*** 0.1183*** 0.1240*** 0.1177***
07/03/2020 0.1320*** 0.1161*** 0.1320*** 0.1138*** 0.1198*** 0.1255*** 0.1192***
08/03/2020 0.1340*** 0.1181*** 0.1340*** 0.1159*** 0.1219*** 0.1277*** 0.1213***
09/03/2020 0.1355*** 0.1196*** 0.1354*** 0.1173*** 0.1234*** 0.1292*** 0.1227***
10/03/2020 0.1375*** 0.1216*** 0.1374*** 0.1193*** 0.1254*** 0.1314*** 0.1248***

Note: The values of the coefficient are multiplied by 100,000

* p < 0.10; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01.

spatially and temporally, and efforts have been made to produce information that would be useful
to all humanity.

Appendix

See Tables A.1 and A.2.

10 H. Guliyev / Spatial Statistics 38 (2020) 100443

References

Baum, C.F., Christopher, F., 2006. An introduction to modern econometrics using stata. stata press.
Coronavirus: EU mobilises e10 million for research, 2020 January 31. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/coro
navirus-eu-mobilises-eur10-million-for-research-2020-jan-31_en.
Coronavirus: UK donates £20 m to speed up vaccine, 2020 February 3. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/healt
h-51352952.
Croissant, Y., Millo, G., 2019. Panel Data Econometrics with R. Wiley Online Library.
Elhorst, J.P., 2010. Applied spatial econometrics: raising the bar. 5(1), 9–28.
Elhorst, J.P., 2014. Spatial panel data models. In: Spatial Econometrics: From Cross-Sectional Data to Spatial Panels. Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 37–93.
Fotheringham, A.S., Rogerson, P.A., 2008. The SAGE Handbook of Spatial Analysis. Sage.
Gelfand, A.E., Diggle, P., Guttorp, P., Fuentes, M., 2010. Handbook of Spatial Statistics. CRC press.
Golgher, A.B., Voss, P.R.J.S.D., 2016. How to interpret the coefficients of spatial models: Spillovers, direct and indirect
effects. 4(3), 175–205.
Kelejian, H.H., Prucha, I.R., 1998. A generalized spatial two-stage least squares procedure for estimating a spatial
autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances. J. Real Estate Finance Econ. 17, 99–121.
Lee, L.-f., Yu, J., 2010. Estimation of spatial autoregressive panel data models with fixed effects. 154(2), 165–185.
LeSage, J.P., 2008. An introduction to spatial econometrics. (123), 19–44.
Lu, H., Stratton, C.W., Tang, Y.W., 2020. Outbreak of Pneumonia of Unknown Etiology in Wuhan China: The Mystery and
the Miracle.
Pesaran, M.H., 2004. General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels.
Primerdesign launches molecular test for new coronavirus, 2020 January 31. Retrieved from https://www.medicaldevice-
network.com/news/primerdesign-molecular-test-coronavirus/.
Tatoglu, F.Y., 2012. Panel veri ekonometrisi.
Tatoğlu, Y., 2013. İleri panel veri analizi stata uygulamalı.
Wang, D., Hu, B., Hu, C., Zhu, F., Liu, X., Zhang, J., et al., 2020. Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with
2019 Novel Coronavirus–Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA 323 (11), 1061–1069. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/
jama.2020.1585%JJAMA.
WHO Director-General’s remarks at the media briefing on 2019-nCoV on 11 February 2020. Retrieved from
https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-2019-ncov-on-
11-february-2020.
Yang, W., Chen, B.Y., Cao, X., Li, T., Li, P., 2017. The spatial characteristics and influencing factors of modal accessibility
gaps: A case study for Guangzhou, China. 60, 21–32.
Zeren, F., 2010. Mekansal etkileşim analizi. (12), 18–39.