Shifts in the Trend and Nature of Migration in the Ethiopia-South Africa Migration Corridor

Over the past 25 years a significant (but unknown) number of migrants from Ethiopia have been migrating to South Africa through the "southern route.” This male-dominated migration is becoming more and more irregular and includes multiple transit countries, largely controlled by human smugglers. The size of the Ethiopian immigrant population in South Africa has increased. The profile of individuals on the move has also changed in terms of migrants' age, ethnicity, place of origin, gender and socioeconomic status. Youth from rural areas have joined the migration trail, and, increasingly, women are migrating for marriage in South Africa. Today, migrants from southern Ethiopia (Hadiya and Kambata) dominate Ethiopian migration to South Africa. The age and socioeconomic status of the migrants have also changed where teenagers, college graduates and civil servants are entering the migration stream in recent years. Equally changing is the nature and operation of the smuggling and settlement processes. Like the broader field of migration studies in which source and destination countries receive the overwhelming focus, the multiple transit countries Ethiopians on the move to South Africa travel through, and the migration journeys themselves, have not received adequate research attention. The effects these journeys have on the settlement processes are also largely ignored. This article, therefore, explores these emerging patterns with a view to understanding the inequalities faced by Ethiopian migrants on their journey to South Africa and the factors behind it. With the intensification of border closures due to multiple factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic, we examine the shift in the nature and trend of smuggling and how it is reflected in inequalities experienced by Ethiopian migrants in South Africa.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 ICU Patients Have Higher-Than-Expected Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-Adjusted Mortality and Length of Stay Than Viral Pneumonia ICU Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To compare Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-IV-adjusted mortality and length of stay outcomes of adult ICU patients who tested positive for coronavirus disease 2019 with patients admitted to ICU with other viral pneumonias including a subgroup with viral pneumonia and concurrent acute respiratory distress syndrome (viral pneumonia-acute respiratory distress syndrome). DESIGN: Retrospective review of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation data collected from routine clinical care. SETTING: Forty-three hospitals contributing coronavirus disease 2019 patient data between March 14, and June 17, 2020, and 132 hospitals in the United States contributing data on viral pneumonia patients to the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation database between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019. PATIENTS AND MEASUREMENTS: One thousand four hundred ninety-one patients with diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 infection and 4,200 patients with a primary (n = 2,544) or secondary (n = 1,656) admitting diagnosis of noncoronavirus disease viral pneumonia receiving ICU care. A subset of 202 viral pneumonia patients with concurrent acute respiratory distress syndrome was examined separately. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN RESULTS: Mean age was 63.4 for coronavirus disease (p = 0.064) versus 64.1 for viral pneumonia. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-IV scores were similar at 56.7 and 55.0, respectively (p = 0.060), but gender and ethnic distributions differed, as did Pao2 to Fio2 ratio and WBC count at admission. The hospital standardized mortality ratio (95% CI) was 1.52 (1.35-1.68) for coronavirus disease patients and 0.82 (0.75-0.90) for viral pneumonia patients. In the coronavirus disease group, ICU and hospital length of stay were 3.1 and 3.0 days longer than in viral pneumonia patients. Standardized ICU and hospital length of stay ratios were 1.13 and 1.46 in the coronavirus disease group versus 0.95 and 0.94 in viral pneumonia patients. Forty-seven percent of coronavirus disease patients received invasive or noninvasive ventilatory support on their first ICU day versus 65% with viral pneumonia. Ventilator days in survivors were longer in coronavirus disease (10.4 d) than in viral pneumonia (4.3 d) patients, except in the viral pneumonia-acute respiratory distress syndrome subgroup (10.2 d). CONCLUSIONS: Severity-adjusted mortality and length of stay are higher for coronavirus disease 2019 patients than for viral pneumonia patients admitted to ICU. Coronavirus disease patients also have longer time on ventilator and ICU length of stay, comparable with the subset of viral pneumonia patients with concurrent acute respiratory distress syndrome. Mortality and length of stay increase with age and higher scores in both populations, but observed to predicted mortality and length of stay are higher than expected with coronavirus disease patients across all severity of illness levels. These findings have implications for benchmarking ICU outcomes during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

The COronavirus Pandemic Epidemiology (COPE) Consortium: A Call to Action.

The rapid pace of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19) pandemic presents challenges to the real-time collection of population-scale data to inform near-term public health needs as well as future investigations. We established the COronavirus Pandemic Epidemiology (COPE) consortium to address this unprecedented crisis on behalf of the epidemiology research community. As a central component of this initiative, we have developed a COVID Symptom Study (previously known as the COVID Symptom Tracker) mobile application as a common data collection tool for epidemiologic cohort studies with active study participants. This mobile application collects information on risk factors, daily symptoms, and outcomes through a user-friendly interface that minimizes participant burden. Combined with our efforts within the general population, data collected from nearly 3 million participants in the United States and United Kingdom are being used to address critical needs in the emergency response, including identifying potential hot spots of disease and clinically actionable risk factors. The linkage of symptom data collected in the app with information and biospecimens already collected in epidemiology cohorts will position us to address key questions related to diet, lifestyle, environmental, and socioeconomic factors on susceptibility to COVID-19, clinical outcomes related to infection, and long-term physical, mental health, and financial sequalae. We call upon additional epidemiology cohorts to join this collective effort to strengthen our impact on the current health crisis and generate a new model for a collaborative and nimble research infrastructure that will lead to more rapid translation of our work for the betterment of public health.