Confirmed COVID-19 Cases per Economic Activity during Autumn Wave in Belgium

Johan Verbeeck, Godelieve Vandersmissen, Jannes Peeters, Sofieke Klamer, Sharon Hancart, Tinne Lernout, Mathias Dewatripont, Lode Godderis and Geert Molenberghs
Additional contact information
Johan Verbeeck: Data Science Institute, I-BioStat, Universiteit Hasselt, 3500 Hasselt, Belgium
Godelieve Vandersmissen: IDEWE, External Service for Prevention and Protection at Work, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium
Jannes Peeters: Data Science Institute, I-BioStat, Universiteit Hasselt, 3500 Hasselt, Belgium
Sofieke Klamer: Sciensano, Belgian Institute for Health, 1050 Brussels, Belgium
Sharon Hancart: Sciensano, Belgian Institute for Health, 1050 Brussels, Belgium
Tinne Lernout: Sciensano, Belgian Institute for Health, 1050 Brussels, Belgium
Mathias Dewatripont: I3h, ECARES and Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, 1050 Brussels, Belgium
Lode Godderis: IDEWE, External Service for Prevention and Protection at Work, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium
Geert Molenberghs: Data Science Institute, I-BioStat, Universiteit Hasselt, 3500 Hasselt, Belgium

IJERPH, 2021, vol. 18, issue 23, 1-12

Abstract: Some occupational sectors, such as human health and care, food service, cultural and sport activities, have been associated with a higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection than other sectors. To curb the spread of SARS-CoV-2, it is preferable to apply targeted non-pharmaceutical interventions on selected economic sectors, rather than a full lockdown. However, the effect of these general and sector-specific interventions on the virus circulation has only been sparsely studied. We assess the COVID-19 incidence under different levels of non-pharmaceutical interventions per economic activity during the autumn 2020 wave in Belgium. The 14-day incidence of confirmed COVID-19 cases per the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community (NACE–BEL) sector is modelled by a longitudinal Gaussian-Gaussian two-stage approach. This is based on exhaustive data on all employees in all sectors. In the presence of sanitary protocols and minimal non-pharmaceutical interventions, many sectors with close contact with others show considerably higher COVID-19 14-day incidences than other sectors. The effect of stricter non-pharmaceutical interventions in the general population and non-essential sectors is seen in the timing of the peak incidence and the width and height of the post-peak incidence. In most sectors incidences returned to higher levels after the peak than before and this decrease took longer for the health and care sector. Sanitary protocols for close proximity occupations may be sufficient during periods of low-level virus circulation, but progressively less with increasing circulation. Stricter general and sector-specific non-pharmaceutical interventions adequately decrease COVID-19 incidences, even in close proximity in essential sectors under solely sanitary protocols.

Keywords: longitudinal study; occupational health; cross-sectional study; Gaussian-Gaussian model; COVID-19; non-pharmaceutical interventions (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/23/12489/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/23/12489/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:23:p:12489-:d:689414

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().