Table 3.
Lag, daysb | Fatiguec | |
|
r | P value |
22 | 0.3926 | <.001 |
23 | 0.3782 | <.001 |
24 | 0.3632 | .001 |
25 | 0.4947 | <.001 |
26 | 0.5296 | <.001 |
27 | 0.5171 | <.001 |
28 | 0.5480 | <.001 |
29 | 0.5253 | <.001 |
30 | 0.4720 | <.001 |
31 | 0.5342 | <.001 |
32 | 0.5016 | <.001 |
33 | 0.5427 | <.001 |
34 | 0.5521 | <.001 |
35 | 0.5664 | <.001 |
36 | 0.6350d | <.001 |
37 | 0.4981 | <.001 |
38 | 0.4711 | <.001 |
39 | 0.4388 | <.001 |
40 | 0.4631 | <.001 |
41 | 0.4915 | <.001 |
42 | 0.5325 | <.001 |
aPearson correlation coefficients and P values for fatigue are based on the comparison between Google Trends searches for the term and daily polymerase chain reaction-positive cases.
bThis column refers to the days of lag between the two variables being compared.
cThe searches for “fatigue” correlated less strongly than the searches for the symptoms in Table 1, but they do show stronger correlations after 36 days. Therefore, we presented these results in a separate table with a different scale of days.
dThis is the highest correlation with regard to searches for “fatigue.”