The Impact of Keeping Indoor Dining Closed on COVID-19 Rates Among Large US Cities

Abstract

Background: Indoor dining is one of the potential drivers of COVID-19 transmission. We used the heterogeneity among state government preemption of city indoor dining closures to estimate the impact of keeping indoor dining closed on COVID-19 incidence. Methods: We obtained case rates and city or state reopening dates from March to October 2020 in 11 US cities. We categorized cities as treatment cities that were allowed by the state to reopen but kept indoor dining closed or comparison cities that would have kept indoor dining closed but that were preempted by their state and had to reopen indoor dining. We modeled associations using a differencein-difference approach and an event study specification. We ran negative binomial regression models, with city-day as the unit of analysis, city population as an offset, and controlling for time-varying nonpharmaceutical interventions, as well as city and time fixed effects in sensitivity analysis and the event study specification. Results: Keeping indoor dining closed was associated with a 55% (IRR = 0.45; 95% confidence intervals = 0.21, 0.99) decline in the new COVID-19 case rate over 6 weeks compared with cities that reopened indoor dining, and these results were consistent after testing alternative modeling strategies. Conclusions: Keeping indoor dining closed may be directly or indirectly associated with reductions in COVID-19 spread. Evidence of the relationship between indoor dining and COVID-19 case rates can inform policies to restrict indoor dining as a tailored strategy to reduce COVID-19 incidence. See video abstract at, http://links.lww. com/EDE/B902.

Concentric regulatory zones failed to halt surging COVID-19: Brooklyn 2020

“…They differ from the classic remedy of containment, which entails restrictions not just on access, but also on overall population movement ( 47 – 49 ). Although restricting access to some critical locations is indeed likely to reduce disease propagation ( 15 – 17 , 50 , 51 ), the question here is whether focused controls on access alone were sufficient to alter the underlying population movement patterns that served as the template for a surge in COVID-19 cases. While some have cited increasing indoor activity with the arrival of colder fall weather ( 52 ) or a trend toward large family gatherings as the Thanksgiving holiday approached ( 53 ), we have in mind more fundamental, well-established contact networks.…”

“…Our findings appear to go against the well-documented relationship between a reduction in mobility and a subsequent decline in COVID-19 incidence ( 9 – 14 ). To resolve the apparent contradiction, we distinguish between two types of mobility controls: regulations concerning access ( 15 – 17 ) and restrictions on movement ( 18 – 20 ).…”

General practitioner visits after SARS-CoV-2 omicron compared with the delta variant in children in Norway: a prospective nationwide registry study

“…7 The approach is widely used in social sciences and now also increasingly popular in epidemiology and public health as it can display an abnormal shift in trend, and attribute that shift to an event. [8][9][10][11][12] The temporal aORs of being infected by omicron and delta were estimated from 5 weeks before to 4 weeks after the week 0 of infection. We regress weeks to and from confirmed positive test on binary GP visits using the following expression:…”

Informe de respuesta rápida sobre la efectividad de las medidas no farmacológicas que afectan a la actividad de la restauración interior, restauración exterior y ocio nocturno en el contexto de la pandemia por COVID-19

“…Se incluyen 20 trabajos científicos (estudios de modelización (10,11,69,79), estudios de inferencia estadística (22,41,71,(80)(81)(82)(83)(84), estudios de brotes (8,(85)(86)(87)(88)(89)(90)). La evidencia sitúa las actividades sociales vinculadas al ámbito de la hostelería como uno de los entornos de actividad con mayor número de brotes con respecto a otros ámbitos.…”