COVID-19: US shelter-in-place orders and demographic characteristics linked to cases, mortality, and recovery rates

Colocation of COVID-19 Vaccination Services at Syringe Service Programs for People Who Inject Drugs and People Experiencing Houselessness in Oregon

OBJECTIVES

Integrating vaccination services with other essential health services could increase vaccination rates among socially marginalized populations. We examined the associations between colocation of vaccines at syringe service programs and COVID-19 vaccination status among people who inject drugs and people experiencing houselessness.

METHODS

This study included 1891 participants aged ≥18 years at 9 sites in Oregon from July 2021 through March 2022. Participants self-reported whether they had ever received ≥1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. We calculated site-level COVID-19 vaccine availability and overall vaccination rates. We compared site-level vaccination rates and analyzed the association between vaccine availability and vaccination status.

RESULTS

We found no significant difference in vaccination rates between sites that did and did not offer COVID-19 vaccines (t7 = -0.33; P = .75). We also found no significant association between vaccine availability and vaccination status. However, the odds of having received a COVID-19 vaccine were 2.79 times higher for each additional site visit during which COVID-19 vaccines were available (odds ratio [OR] = 2.79; 95% CI, 2.18-3.58; P < .001). The association between vaccine availability and vaccine status was not moderated by participant age (OR = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.99-1.07; P = .13) or housing instability (OR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.13-2.60; P = .48).

CONCLUSIONS

Colocating COVID-19 vaccines at syringe service programs was only positively associated with vaccination status if vaccines were offered frequently on-site. Future work should examine whether the frequency of offering vaccination services increases willingness to engage in vaccination and examine trust and convenience as potential mechanisms.

Effectiveness of social distancing measures and lockdowns for reducing transmission of COVID-19 in non-healthcare, community-based settings

Social distancing measures (SDMs) are community-level interventions that aim to reduce person-to-person contacts in the community. SDMs were a major part of the responses first to contain, then to mitigate, the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the community. Common SDMs included limiting the size of gatherings, closing schools and/or workplaces, implementing work-from-home arrangements, or more stringent restrictions such as lockdowns. This systematic review summarized the evidence for the effectiveness of nine SDMs. Almost all of the studies included were observational in nature, which meant that there were intrinsic risks of bias that could have been avoided were conditions randomly assigned to study participants. There were no instances where only one form of SDM had been in place in a particular setting during the study period, making it challenging to estimate the separate effect of each intervention. The more stringent SDMs such as stay-at-home orders, restrictions on mass gatherings and closures were estimated to be most effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Most studies included in this review suggested that combinations of SDMs successfully slowed or even stopped SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the community. However, individual effects and optimal combinations of interventions, as well as the optimal timing for particular measures, require further investigation. This article is part of the theme issue 'The effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic: the evidence'.

The Effects of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions on COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalizations, and Mortality: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

To assess the effects of various non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) on cases, hospitalizations, and mortality during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

To empirically investigate the impacts of different NPIs on COVID-19-related health outcomes, a systematic literature review was conducted. We studied the effects of 10 NPIs on cases, hospitalizations, and mortality across three periodic lags (2, 3, and 4 weeks-or-more following implementation). Articles measuring the impact of NPIs were sourced from three databases by May 10, 2022, and risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

Results

Across the 44 papers, we found that mask wearing corresponded to decreased per capita cases across all lags (up to -2.71 per 100,000). All NPIs studied except business and bar/restaurant closures corresponded to reduced case growth rates in the two weeks following implementation, while policy stringency and travelling restrictions were most effective after four. While we did not find evidence of reduced deaths in our per capita estimates, policy stringency, masks, SIPOs, limited gatherings, school and business closures were associated with decreased mortality growth rates. Moreover, the two NPIs studied in hospitalizations (SIPOs and mask wearing) showed negative estimates.

Conclusions

When assessing the impact of NPIs, considering the duration of effectiveness following implementation has paramount significance. While some NPIs may reduce the COVID-19 impact, others can disrupt the mitigative progression of containing the virus. Policymakers should be aware of both the scale of their effectiveness and duration of impact when adopting these measures for future COVID-19 waves.

A scoping review of the impacts of COVID-19 physical distancing measures on vulnerable population groups

Most governments have enacted physical or social distancing measures to control COVID-19 transmission. Yet little is known about the socio-economic trade-offs of these measures, especially for vulnerable populations, who are exposed to increased risks and are susceptible to adverse health outcomes. To examine the impacts of physical distancing measures on the most vulnerable in society, this scoping review screened 39,816 records and synthesised results from 265 studies worldwide documenting the negative impacts of physical distancing on older people, children/students, low-income populations, migrant workers, people in prison, people with disabilities, sex workers, victims of domestic violence, refugees, ethnic minorities, and people from sexual and gender minorities. We show that prolonged loneliness, mental distress, unemployment, income loss, food insecurity, widened inequality and disruption of access to social support and health services were unintended consequences of physical distancing that impacted these vulnerable groups and highlight that physical distancing measures exacerbated the vulnerabilities of different vulnerable populations.

Employment inequality in India during the pandemic

Purpose

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-induced response policies initiated by the Indian states disproportionately impact the employment of different groups in terms of gender, caste and religion. This study analyses the impact of the COVID-19-induced labor policies on employment inequality across different groups in India.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors identify different exogenous COVID-19-induced labor policies initiated by the Indian states, and synthesize them into direct and indirect labor policies. The authors employ a panel model to examine the impact of COVID-19-induced labor policies on employment inequality.

Findings

The authors find that the direct and indirect labor policies induce a decline in the employment rate, and create employment inequality among gendered and religious sub-groups. Females and Muslims have not significantly benefited from the COVID-19-induced labor policies. However, disadvantaged caste groups have benefited from direct and indirect labor policies.

Research limitations/implications

The time period during which this research was conducted was quite brief, and the qualitative impact of labor policies on employment inequality has not been accounted for.

Practical implications

This study unravels the distributive impact of the COVID-19-induced direct and indirect labor policies on the well-being of vulnerable laborers.

Social implications

The study provides novel empirical evidence of the beneficial role of a proactive government. This study’s findings suggest the need for specific distributive labor policies to address employment inequality among gender and religious groups in India.

Originality/value

The study employs new data sources and synthesizes the COVID-19-induced labor policies into direct and indirect labor policies. In addition, the study contributes to understanding the impact of COVID-19 induced direct and indirect labor policies on employment inequality across gender, caste and religious sub-groups in India.