Required and Voluntary Occupational Use of Hazard Controls for COVID-19 Prevention in Non-Health Care Workplaces - United States, June 2020

Distribution of COVID-19 mitigation measures by industry and work arrangement-US blood donors, May 2021-December 2021

OBJECTIVE

To describe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mitigation measures in workplaces of employed US blood donors by industry and work arrangement.

METHODS

During May-December 2021, blood donors responded to a survey; we describe the distribution of reported workplace mitigation measures by industry and work arrangement, organized using the hierarchy of controls.

RESULTS

Of 53,433 respondents representing 21 industries, ventilation upgrades were reported by 4%-38% of respondents (overall: 20%); telework access ranged from 14%-80% (53% overall). Requiring masks (overall: 84%; range: 40%-94%), physical distancing (77%; 51%-86%), paid leave for illness (70%; 38%-87%), and encouraging vaccination (61%; 33%-80%) were common. Independent workers reported fewer mitigation measures than those in traditional employment settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Mitigation measures varied by industry and work arrangement. Some mitigation measures may be challenging to implement or irrelevant in certain industries, supporting the idea that mitigation is not a one-size-fits-all strategy.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Tailored strategies to mitigate workplace risks of disease transmission are vital. Strategies should rely on effective methods for identifying workplace controls (e.g., through the hierarchy of controls) and account for industry-specific characteristics and workplace environments.

COVID-19 mortality among Massachusetts workers and the association with telework ability, 2020

BACKGROUND

Working outside the home put some workers at risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exposure and might partly explain elevated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality rates in the first months of the pandemic in certain groups of Massachusetts workers. To further investigate this premise, we examined COVID-19 mortality among Massachusetts workers, with a specific focus on telework ability based on occupation.

METHODS

COVID-19-associated deaths between January 1 and December 31, 2020 among Massachusetts residents aged 18-64 years were analyzed. Deaths were categorized into occupation-based quadrants (Q) of telework ability. Age-adjusted rates were calculated by key demographics, industry, occupation, and telework quadrant using American Community Survey workforce estimates as denominators. Rate ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals comparing rates for quadrants with workers unlikely able to telework (Q2, Q3, Q4) to that among those likely able to telework (Q1) were calculated.

RESULTS

The overall age-adjusted COVID-19-associated mortality rate was 26.4 deaths per 100,000 workers. Workers who were male, Black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, born outside the US, and with lower than a high school education level experienced the highest rates among their respective demographic groups. The rate varied by industry, occupation and telework quadrant. RRs comparing Q2, Q3, and Q4 to Q1 were 0.99 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.8-1.2), 3.2 (95% CI: 2.6-3.8) and 2.5 (95% CI: 2.0-3.0), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest a positive association between working on-site and COVID-19-associated mortality. Work-related factors likely contributed to COVID-19 among Massachusetts workers and should be considered in future studies of COVID-19 and similar diseases.

Film production during the Covid-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for the film industry. Following a shutdown of productions, The Safe Way Forward document was developed to outline disease mitigation protocols. Despite this framework, many unanticipated scenarios arose during reopening of film production with the ongoing pandemic.

AIMS

To identify and document promising practices for mitigating COVID-19 transmission in the film industry that can inform future pandemics and other industries.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search to review research regarding COVID-19 disease mitigation efforts in the film industry. Through client-facing consultancy and consultant group meetings, we identified those factors most important for disease mitigation in the film industry and applicable to future pandemics and other industries. The Delphi Method enabled experts to review lessons learned as studio consultants during the COVID-19 pandemic; learnings were coded and analyzed for recurring themes.

RESULTS

We identified anxiety, mistrust, and poor communication as key contributors to decreased compliance with COVID-19 protocols. In response, our team demonstrated multi-specialty expertise, provided scientific explanations, and developed trust by listening empathetically and responding with clear, consistent messaging. These measures served to alleviate anxiety, improve compliance, and provide a safe return to production.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the ability and agility of multi-disciplinary experts acting in the absence of clear guidance to support a safe return to film production. Workplace anxiety and non-compliance can be alleviated through effective communication by trusted experts. Lessons learned by our consultancy group can help protect workers across diverse industries in future pandemics.

Ranking Food Safety Priorities of the Fresh Produce Industry in the United States

A broad understanding of community member food safety priorities in the fresh produce supply chain does not currently exist. This information is essential to improve food safety knowledge and practices effectively and efficiently throughout the fresh produce industry; therefore, the goal of this study was to identify and rank community produce safety priorities in the United States. Survey questions were designed and approved by food safety experts for participants to rank 24 fresh produce safety priorities. The anonymous survey was distributed online via Qualtrics™ to fresh produce community members from November 2020 to May 2021. A score was calculated for each priority by summing weighted ranking scores across responses. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to determine frequencies and distribution of response and identify factors (e.g., role in produce safety, size/location of organization/operation) that influenced rankings. A total of 281 respondents represented fourteen different roles in the fresh produce industry, with most identified as growers (39.5%). Produce operations were distributed across the U.S. and annual produce sales ranged from below $25,000 to over $5,000,000. Health and hygiene, training, postharvest sanitation, traceability, and harvest sanitation were ranked as the top five food safety priorities. These findings provide insight into community member priorities in fresh produce safety and can be used to inform intervention efforts, ranging from specialized training for produce growers and packers, industry-driven research projects, and gaps in risk communication strategies.

Excess risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among in-person nonhealthcare workers in six states, September 2020-June 2021

BACKGROUND

While the occupational risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection for healthcare personnel in the United States has been relatively well characterized, less information is available on the occupational risk for workers employed in other settings. Even fewer studies have attempted to compare risks across occupations and industries. Using differential proportionate distribution as an approximation, we evaluated excess risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by occupation and industry among non-healthcare workers in six states.

METHODS

We analyzed data on occupation and industry of employment from a six-state callback survey of adult non-healthcare workers with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and population-based reference data on employment patterns, adjusted for the effect of telework, from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. We estimated the differential proportionate distribution of SARS-CoV-2 infection by occupation and industry using the proportionate morbidity ratio (PMR).

RESULTS

Among a sample of 1111 workers with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, significantly higher-than-expected proportions of workers were employed in service occupations (PMR 1.3, 99% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-1.5) and in the transportation and utilities (PMR 1.4, 99% CI 1.1-1.8) and leisure and hospitality industries (PMR 1.5, 99% CI 1.2-1.9).

CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence of significant differences in the proportionate distribution of SARS-CoV-2 infection by occupation and industry among respondents in a multistate, population-based survey, highlighting the excess risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection borne by some worker populations, particularly those whose jobs require frequent or prolonged close contact with other people.

COVID-19 Workplace Mitigation Strategies and Employee Leave Policies Implemented during the Height of the Pandemic, United States, Fall 2020 and 2021

COVID-19 workplace mitigation strategies implemented within US businesses have been effective at preventing disease and protecting workers, but the extent of their use is not well understood. We examined reported COVID-19 workplace mitigation strategies by business size, geographic region, and industry using internet panel survey data from US adult respondents working full- or part-time outside the home (fall 2020, N = 1168) andfull- or part-time, inside or outside the home (fall 2021, N = 1778). We used chi-square tests to assess the differences in the strategies used (e.g., masking and COVID-19 screening) and ANOVA tests to examine the group differences on a mitigation strategies summative score. Fewer COVID-19 mitigation strategies were reported by respondents in fall 2021 (compared to fall 2020) across businesses of different sizes and regions. The participants in microbusinesses (1-10 employees) reported significantly (p < 0.05) lower mitigation scores than all other business sizes, and the respondents in these businesses were significantly less likely (p < 0.05) to have paid leave than those in enterprises with >10 employees. The healthcare and education sectors had the highest reported mean score of COVID-19 workplace mitigation strategies. Small and essential businesses are critical to the US economy. Insight is needed on their use of mitigation strategies to protect workers during the current and future pandemics.

Did prioritizing essential workers help to achieve racial/ethnic equity in early COVID-19 vaccine distribution? The LA pandemic surveillance cohort study

Background

Most US states and counties prioritized essential workers for early access to COVID‐19 vaccines due to their heightened occupational risk. Racial/ethnic groups most impacted by COVID‐19 are overrepresented among essential workers. This study estimates the effects of prioritizing essential workers on racial/ethnic equity in COVID‐19 vaccination.

Methods

Survey data were collected from 5500 Los Angeles County adult residents in March and April 2021. Multivariate regression models were used to assess marginal changes in probabilities of vaccination attributable to essential worker status by race/ethnicity. These probabilities were multiplied by population proportions of essential workers in each racial/ethnic group to estimate the effects of prioritizing essential workers on vaccine equity in the population.

Results

While Latinos (24.9%), Blacks (22.4%), and Asians (21.4%) were more likely to be prioritized essential workers than Whites (14.3%), their marginal gains in vaccine uptake due to their essential worker status did not significantly differ from that of Whites. At the population‐level, prioritizing vaccines for essential workers increased the probabilities of vaccination by small and similar amounts among Asians (5.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.3%, 7.5%), Blacks (4.0%; 95% CI: 1.7%, 6.5%), Latinos (3.7%; 95% CI: 2.3%, 5.1%), and Whites (2.9%; 95% CI :1.9%, 3.9%).

Conclusions

Prioritizing essential workers did not provide proportionally greater early vaccine uptake benefits to racial/ethnic groups that were disproportionately affected by COVID‐19. Early prioritization of essential workers during vaccine campaigns is an important but insufficient strategy for reducing racial/ethnic disparities in early vaccine uptake. Additional strategies addressing access and trust are needed to achieve greater equity in vaccine distribution.

Racial and ethnic differentials in COVID-19-related job exposures by occupational standing in the US

Researchers and journalists have argued that work-related factors may be partly responsible for disproportionate COVID-19 infection and death rates among vulnerable groups. We evaluate these issues by describing racial and ethnic differences in the likelihood of work-related exposure to COVID-19. We extend previous studies by considering 12 racial and ethnic groups and five types of potential occupational exposure to the virus: exposure to infection, physical proximity to others, face-to-face discussions, interactions with external customers and the public, and working indoors. Most importantly, we stratify our results by occupational standing, defined as the proportion of workers within each occupation with at least some college education. This measure serves as a proxy for whether workplaces and workers employ COVID-19-related risk reduction strategies. We use the 2018 American Community Survey to identify recent workers by occupation, and link 409 occupations to information on work context from the Occupational Information Network to identify potential COVID-related risk factors. We then examine the racial/ethnic distribution of all frontline workers and frontline workers at highest potential risk of COVID-19, by occupational standing and by sex. The results indicate that, contrary to expectation, White frontline workers are often overrepresented in high-risk jobs while Black and Latino frontline workers are generally underrepresented in these jobs. However, disaggregation of the results by occupational standing shows that, in contrast to Whites and several Asian groups, Latino and Black frontline workers are overrepresented in lower standing occupations overall and in lower standing occupations associated with high risk, and thus may be less likely to have adequate COVID-19 protections. Our findings suggest that greater work exposures likely contribute to a higher prevalence of COVID-19 among Latino and Black adults and underscore the need for measures to reduce potential exposure for workers in low standing occupations and for the development of programs outside the workplace.

Racial and ethnic differentials in COVID-19-related job exposures by occupational standing in the US

Researchers and journalists have argued that work-related factors may be partly responsible for disproportionate COVID-19 infection and death rates among vulnerable groups. We evaluate these claims by examining racial and ethnic differences in the likelihood of work-related exposure to COVID-19. We extend previous studies by considering 12 racial and ethnic groups and five types of potential occupational exposure to the virus: exposure to infection, physical proximity to others, face-to-face discussions, interactions with external customers and the public, and working indoors. Most importantly, we stratify our results by occupational standing, defined as the proportion of workers within each occupation with at least some college education. This measure serves as a proxy for whether workplaces and workers employ significant COVID-19-related risk reduction strategies. We use the 2018 American Community Survey to identify recent workers by occupation, and link 409 occupations to information on work context from the Occupational Information Network to identify potential COVID-related risk factors. We then examine the racial/ethnic distribution of all frontline workers and frontline workers at highest potential risk of COVID-19, by occupational standing and by sex. The results indicate that, contrary to expectation, White frontline workers are often overrepresented in high-risk jobs while Black and Latino frontline workers are generally underrepresented in these jobs. However, disaggregation of the results by occupational standing shows that, in contrast to Whites and several Asian groups, Latino and Black frontline workers are overrepresented in lower status occupations overall and in lower status occupations associated with high risk, and are thus less likely to have adequate COVID-19 protections. Our findings suggest that greater work exposures likely contribute to a higher prevalence of COVID-19 among Latino and Black adults and underscore the need for measures to reduce potential exposure for workers in low status occupations and for the development of programs outside the workplace.