No 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.

With limited US federal leadership on closing and re-opening strategies to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic, cities and states were left to enact their own policies. This article examines two key sets of policies—in-person learning in public elementary schools and indoor dining—across 30 of the largest US cities in the summer, fall, and winter of 2020. We review indoor dining and in-person elementary education policy decisions between 1 May 2020 and 14 December 2020 across 30 US cities. We review the public health evidence, political power, and jurisdictional challenges that cities faced, and the policy implications of these factors. Overwhelmingly, indoor dining re-opened in cities while in-person elementary schools were kept closed; indoor dining re-opened in all cities in fall 2020, while only 40% of public elementary schools re-opened for in-person instruction. Looking ahead to fully bringing students back for in-person learning, and considering future potential community outbreaks, this retrospective analysis can help inform city and state governments on policy decisions around indoor dining and reopening/closing schools for in-person learning.

Objective: Indoor dining is one of the potential key drivers of COVID-19 transmission. We leverage the heterogeneity in 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/state re-opening dates from March to October 2020 in 11 U.S. cities. We categorized cities as (treatment) cities that were allowed by the state to reopen but kept indoor dining closed; and (comparison) cities that would have kept indoor dining closed but were preempted by their state and had to reopen indoor dining. Results: Keeping indoor dining closed was associated with a 43% (IRR=0.57, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.69) decline in COVID-19 incidence over 4-weeks compared with cities that reopened indoor dining. These results were consistent after testing alternative modeling strategies. Conclusions: Keeping indoor dining closed contributes to reductions in COVID-19 spread. Policy Implications: Evidence of the relationship between indoor dining and COVID-19 incidence can inform state and local decisions to restrict indoor dining as a tailored strategy to reduce COVID-19 incidence.

No abstract