Efficacy of Localized Lockdowns in the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic

Six months into the pandemic, non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g., social distancing) are the only available measure to control severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission. Around the world, policymakers have implemented localized lockdowns in small geographic areas to prevent spread of the disease. Using an integrated dataset from Chile, we estimated the direct and indirect (spillover) causal effects of localized lockdowns on SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Our results show that the effectiveness of localized lockdowns is strongly modulated by duration and is affected by spillover effects from neighboring geographic areas. Our projections suggest that extending localized lockdowns will slow down the epidemic but by themselves will be unable to control epidemic growth due to spillovers from neighboring areas with high interdependencies, unless those contiguous areas also implement lockdowns.


3
Behavioral non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are the only readily available measures to prevent and control transmission of the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). NPIs range from simple individual-level recommended behaviors, such as wearing face 30 masks, frequent hand-washing, or maintaining physical distance; to society-level regulatory actions, such as school closures, quarantines, or lockdowns (1). The effects of those interventions have been typically described using mathematical models (2)(3)(4)(5) and have informed health policy since the beginning of the pandemic (6, 7). However, there is a lack of empirical evidence of the causal effects of NPIs (8,9), as most research focuses on associations (10,11). Understanding 35 the impact of NPIs in SARS-CoV-2 transmission is crucial, because those interventions will probably continue until an effective vaccine or treatment becomes available (1,2).
Several countries have managed to control the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic using NPIs (5,(12)(13)(14). As governments have begun easing restrictions, localized lockdowns are becoming an increasingly relevant policy option in cases of resurgence (15)(16)(17). Localized lockdowns are typically 40 implemented in transmission hotspots and can be implemented for populations/areas large and small to suppress an outbreak. In principle, localized lockdowns can reduce social and economic costs compared to larger-scale SARS-CoV-2 suppression strategies and can provide a gradual exit from nationwide lockdowns. Early in the pandemic, the Chinese government imposed a localized lockdown and other strict NPIs in the city of Wuhan (5), effectively suppressing the 45 SARS-CoV-2 transmission (10). Subsequently, similar targeted lockdowns have been implemented in neighborhoods (e.g., Beijing, China), suburbs (e.g., Melbourne, Australia), towns (e.g., Vo, Italy), districts (e.g., North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany), and, most recently, at the city level in Leicester, England (12,16). Despite the increasing prevalence of localized lockdowns, there is limited evidence of their effectiveness. 50 4 On May 22, 2020, the World Health Organization declared South America the new epicenter of COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. The first COVID-19 case in Chile was reported in March 3, 2020, and by the end of March, national borders, schools, and non-essential businesses were closed and night-time curfews were enforced (18) (Fig. 1A). Most importantly, policymakers in Chile implemented localized lockdowns at the municipality (comuna) level, the 55 smallest administrative subdivision in the country, at various points in time. The criteria used by the government to impose lockdowns were loosely defined as a function of the number and density (per km 2 ) of infectious COVID-19 cases, increases in case incidence, and health system capacity (18). Across the country, there was substantial variation in the duration of these municipality-level localized lockdowns and, for each municipality under lockdown, in the 60 lockdown status of neighboring municipalities. We used this policy as a natural experiment to evaluate the efficacy of localized lockdowns on SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
Allowing for interference between municipalities (19,20), we estimated the individual direct effects of extending the duration of these local lockdowns and the individual total (sum of direct and spillover) effects of maintaining lockdowns in neighboring municipalities. We characterized 65 transmission by the instantaneous reproduction number (Rt); that is, the average number of secondary cases per primary infected case (21). We did this using causal time-series analysis at the municipality level based on the daily series of COVID-19 cases reported by the Ministry of Health (22), adjusted for the time-lag between onset of symptoms and case report ( Fig. 1A) (10,21). Based on the potential outcomes framework for causal inference (23, 24), we used the 70 augmented synthetic control method to analyze the progression of the epidemic in comparable municipalities that underwent different lockdown interventions (25,26), varying the duration of the intervention (∆D) and the proportion of the population under lockdown in the neighboring 5 municipalities at each time point t (Pt ) (Fig. 1E). We estimated the counterfactual progression that the disease would have exhibited had an alternative lockdown policy taken place (Fig. 1E). 75 We adjusted for or balanced several municipality-level characteristics that may affect virus transmission (table S2)   Providencia, and Santiago, the municipality of Punta Arenas was placed under lockdown early 7 on in the pandemic, from April 1 to May 7. It initiated lockdown with one of the highest case 120 incidence per 100,000 population in the country. Notably, Punta Arenas is geographically isolated and has few local interdependencies that could result in active transmission networks during a localized lockdown. Our estimates show negligible spillover effects: increasing Pt from 0 to 1 would only result in a reduction of Rt =0.02 (Fig. S5 and Table S13), probably due its geographical isolation and minor interdependencies with neighboring municipalities. 125 Having assessed the role of duration and spillovers, we evaluate the impact of lockdowns in geographic areas of increasing size. We considered three target lockdown areas (Fig. 4A): the municipality of Ñuñoa (red), a cluster of six municipalities (orange), and Greater Santiago (green). We extended the study period to encompass the mandatory lockdown for Greater Santiago that began on May 15, and varied the population under lockdown in the targeted area 130 and the proportion of the population under lockdown in neighboring municipalities (Pt). Fig. 4B shows the estimated Rt from March 15 to June 15. In general, an epidemic will continue to grow as long as Rt is greater than one. Fig. 4 shows that the epidemic kept expanding in all three target areas until a city-wide lockdown was implemented on May 15. These results highlight the challenges of suppressing virus transmission in areas with a high degree of economic and social 135 interdependencies, such as Chile's capital, when there is a substantial proportion of neighbors that are not under lockdown.
Epidemiologists have long known that the only way to stop an epidemic is to break the chain of transmission. Today, strategies to suppress SARS-CoV-2 transmission are limited to NPIs. In principle, localized lockdowns can break transmission chains by limiting contact between 140 infectious and susceptible individuals, and this goal could be achieved at household, neighborhood, municipality, county, or state levels. The social distancing imposed by a 8 lockdown, however, must be maintained and enforced until an adequate control of transmission is achieved. Localized lockdowns may also provide a gradual exit to larger-scale strategies at lower cost, if effectively implemented. In this paper, we have shown that effective 145 implementation of localized lockdowns is challenging and is affected by spillovers from neighboring areas where transmission networks exist, such as in a city.
We used recent methods from the causal inference literature to provide empirical estimates for the effects of localized lockdowns and, crucially, of the effects of interventions on neighboring areas. We found that localized lockdowns can help contain transmission, but their efficacy is 150 dependent on the duration of the intervention and potential spillovers from neighboring areas.
For instance, the efficacy of localized lockdowns within Greater Santiago, where there is high economic and social interdependency between municipalities, was strongly affected by suppression measures in place in neighboring municipalities. In contrast, localized lockdowns showed good results in municipalities such as Punta Arenas, which are geographically isolated 155 and thus have transmission networks that are relatively unaffected by neighboring areas.