Table 4.

Full sample: Sensitivity overview

	Dependent variable
	Cases	log Cases	R0	log R0
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Original estimates	− 2.252∗∗∗	− 0.358∗∗	− 0.279∗∗∗	− 0.314∗∗∗
	(0.632)	(0.144)	(0.100)	(0.112)
w/o Bratislava district	− 2.376∗∗∗	− 0.423∗∗∗	− 0.214∗∗	− 0.265∗∗
	(0.683)	(0.154)	(0.106)	(0.118)
w/o Košice district	− 2.279∗∗∗	− 0.365∗∗	− 0.271∗∗∗	− 0.301∗∗∗
	(0.652)	(0.148)	(0.103)	(0.115)
w/o Bratislava and Košice districts	− 2.428∗∗∗	− 0.442∗∗∗	− 0.195∗	− 0.301∗∗∗
	(0.713)	(0.160)	(0.111)	(0.115)
Unweighted	− 1.790∗∗	− 0.312∗	− 0.133	− 0.194
	(0.694)	(0.173)	(0.125)	(0.138)
PCR only	− 1.654∗∗∗	− 0.249∗	− 0.247∗∗∗	− 0.266∗∗
	(0.450)	(0.138)	(0.093)	(0.111)
Considering mobility	− 2.537∗∗∗	− 0.415∗∗∗	− 0.310∗∗∗	− 0.329∗∗∗
	(0.719)	(0.154)	(0.108)	(0.121)
R0 based on 7 day avg			− 0.213∗∗∗	− 0.216∗∗∗
			(0.078)	(0.078)
7 day avg of R0			− 0.204∗∗	− 0.196∗∗
			(0.085)	(0.079)
Date of Second Mass Testing (Nov 1)	− 0.749	0.120	− 0.041	− 0.101
	(0.703)	(0.142)	(0.144)	(0.115)

This table presents the results for the key parameter β₁ from Eq. (1) estimated on a full sample with population sizes used as weights. Rows 2 to 5 show the results when excluding large urban districts from our analysis and using unweighted regressions respectively (Appendix A2.1). Row 6 presents the results considering only test results from PCR data only (Appendix A2.2) and row 7 shows the results when including workplace mobility in the estimation (Appendix A2.3). Rows 8 and 9 present results based on R0 measure calculated on a 7-day average of infection cases and on a 7-day average of R0 respectively (Appendix A2.4). Finally, the last row shows estimates from placebo regression using a different date (Appendix A2.5)

Districts weighted by their population size

^∗∗∗p < 0.01; ^∗∗p < 0.05; ^∗p < 0.1