Validation of a neighborhood-level COVID Local Risk Index in 47 large U.S. cities.

OBJECTIVES: To present the COVID Local Risk Index (CLRI), a measure of city- and neighborhood-level risk for SARS COV-2 infection and poor outcomes, and validate it using sub-city SARS COV-2 outcome data from 47 large U.S. cities. METHODS: Cross-sectional validation analysis of CLRI against SARS COV-2 incidence, percent positivity, hospitalization, and mortality. CLRI scores were validated against ZCTA-level SARS COV-2 outcome data gathered in 2020-2021 from public databases or through data use agreements using a negative binomial model. RESULTS: CLRI was associated with each SARS COV-2 outcome in pooled analysis. In city-level models, CLRI was positively associated with positivity in 11/14 cities for which data were available, hospitalization in 6/6 cities, mortality in 13/14 cities, and incidence in 33/47 cities. CONCLUSIONS: CLRI is a valid tool for assessing sub-city risk of SARS COV-2 infection and illness severity. Stronger associations with positivity, hospitalization and mortality may reflect differential testing access, greater weight on components associated with poor outcomes than transmission, omitted variable bias, or other reasons. City stakeholders can use the CLRI, publicly available on the City Health Dashboard (www.cityhealthdashboard.com), to guide SARS COV-2 resource allocation.

Heterogeneity in Spatial Inequities in COVID-19 Vaccination Across 16 Large US Cities.

Differences in vaccination coverage can perpetuate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disparities. We explored the association between neighborhood-level social vulnerability and COVID-19 vaccination coverage in 16 large US cities from the beginning of the vaccination campaign in December 2020 through September 2021. We calculated the proportion of fully vaccinated adults in 866 zip code tabulation areas (ZCTAs) of 16 large US cities: Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco, and San Jose, all in California; Chicago, Illinois; Indianapolis, Indiana; Minneapolis, Minnesota; New York, New York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio, all in Texas. We computed absolute and relative total and Social Vulnerability Index-related inequities by city. COVID-19 vaccination coverage was 0.75 times (95% confidence interval: 0.69, 0.81) or 16 percentage points (95% confidence interval: 12.1, 20.3) lower in neighborhoods with the highest social vulnerability as compared with those with the lowest. These inequities were heterogeneous, with cities in the West generally displaying narrower inequities in both the absolute and relative scales. The Social Vulnerability Index domains of socioeconomic status and of household composition and disability showed the strongest associations with vaccination coverage. Inequities in COVID-19 vaccinations hamper efforts to achieve health equity, as they mirror and could lead to even wider inequities in other COVID-19 outcomes.

Tracking COVID-19 Inequities Across Jurisdictions Represented in the Big Cities Health Coalition (BCHC): The COVID-19 Health Inequities in BCHC Cities Dashboard.

Objectives. To describe the creation of an interactive dashboard to advance the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic from an equity and urban health perspective across 30 large US cities that are members of the Big Cities Health Coalition (BCHC). Methods. We leveraged the Drexel‒BCHC partnership to define the objectives and audience for the dashboard and developed an equity framework to conceptualize COVID-19 inequities across social groups, neighborhoods, and cities. We compiled data on COVID-19 trends and inequities by race/ethnicity, neighborhood, and city, along with neighborhood- and city-level demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, and built an interactive dashboard and Web platform to allow interactive comparisons of these inequities across cities. Results. We launched the dashboard on January 21, 2021, and conducted several dissemination activities. As of September 2021, the dashboard included data on COVID-19 trends for the 30 cities, on inequities by race/ethnicity in 21 cities, and on inequities by neighborhood in 15 cities. Conclusions. This dashboard allows public health practitioners to contextualize racial/ethnic and spatial inequities in COVID-19 across large US cities, providing valuable insights for policymakers. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(6):904-912. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306708).

The Impact of Keeping Indoor Dining Closed on COVID-19 Rates Among Large US Cities: A Quasi-Experimental Design.

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 difference-in-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.