SARS-CoV-2 control on a large urban college campus without mass testing.

OBJECTIVE: A small percentage of universities and colleges conducted mass SARS-CoV-2 testing. However, universal testing is resource-intensive, strains national testing capacity, and false negative tests can encourage unsafe behaviors. PARTICIPANTS: A large urban university campus. METHODS: Virus control centered on three pillars: mitigation, containment, and communication, with testing of symptomatic and a random subset of asymptomatic students. RESULTS: Random surveillance testing demonstrated a prevalence among asymptomatic students of 0.4% throughout the term. There were two surges in cases that were contained by enhanced mitigation and communication combined with targeted testing. Cumulative cases totaled 445 for the term, most resulting from unsafe undergraduate student behavior and among students living off-campus. A case rate of 232/10,000 undergraduates equaled or surpassed several peer institutions that conducted mass testing. CONCLUSIONS: An emphasis on behavioral mitigation and communication can control virus transmission on a large urban campus combined with a limited and targeted testing strategy.

Time trends, factors associated with, and reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: A massive online survey of US adults from January-May 2021.

IMPORTANCE: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has become a leading barrier to increasing the US vaccination rate. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate time trends in COVID-19 vaccine intent during the US vaccine rollout, and identify key factors related to and self-reported reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in May 2021. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: A COVID-19 survey was offered to US adult Facebook users in several languages yielding 5,088,772 qualifying responses from January 6 to May 31, 2021. Data was aggregated by month. Survey weights matched the sample to the age, gender, and state profile of the US population. EXPOSURE: Demographics, geographic factors, political/COVID-19 environment, health status, beliefs, and behaviors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: "If a vaccine to prevent COVID-19 were offered to you today, would you choose to get vaccinated." Hesitant was defined as responding probably or definitely would not choose to get vaccinated (versus probably or definitely would, or already vaccinated). RESULTS: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy decreased by one-third from 25.4% (95%CI, 25.3, 25.5) in January to 16.6% (95% CI, 16.4, 16.7) in May, with relatively large decreases among participants with Black, Pacific Islander or Hispanic race/ethnicity and ≤high school education. Independent risk factors for vaccine hesitancy in May (N = 525,644) included younger age, non-Asian race, < 4 year college degree, living in a more rural county, living in a county with higher Trump vote share in the 2020 election, lack of worry about COVID-19, working outside the home, never intentionally avoiding contact with others, and no past-year flu vaccine. Differences in hesitancy by race/ethnicity varied by age (e.g., Black adults more hesitant than White adults <35 years old, but less hesitant among adults ≥45 years old). Differences in hesitancy by age varied by race/ethnicity. Almost half of vaccine hesitant respondents reported fear of side effects (49.2% [95%CI, 48.7, 49.7]) and not trusting the COVID-19 vaccine (48.4% [95%CI, 48.0, 48.9]); over one-third reported not trusting the government, not needing the vaccine, and waiting to see if safe. Reasons differed by degree of vaccine intent and by race/ethnicity. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy varied by demographics, geography, beliefs, and behaviors, indicating a need for a range of messaging and policy options to target high-hesitancy groups.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy January-May 2021 among 18-64 year old US adults by employment and occupation.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy threatens pandemic control efforts. We evaluated vaccine hesitancy in the US by employment status and occupation category during the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. US adults 18-64 years completed an online COVID-19 survey 3,179,174 times from January 6-May 19, 2021. Data was aggregated by month. Survey weights matched the sample to the US population age, gender, and state profile. Weighted percentages and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Changes in vaccine hesitancy from January-May varied widely by employment status (e.g., -7.8% [95%CI, -8.2 - -7.5] among those working outside the home, a 26.6% decrease; -13.3% [95%CI, -13.7 - -13.0] among those not working for pay, a 44.9% decrease), and occupation category (e.g., -15.9% [95%CI, -17.7 - -14.2] in production, a 39.3% decrease; -1.4% [95%CI, -3.8 - -1.0] in construction/extraction, a 3.0% decrease). April 20-May 19, 2021, vaccine hesitancy ranged from 7.3% (95%CI, 6.7 - 7.8) in computer/mathematical professions to 45.2% (95%CI, 43.2-46.8) in construction/extraction. Hesitancy was 9.0% (95%CI, 8.6-9.3) among educators and 14.5% (95%CI, 14.0-15.0) among healthcare practitioners/technicians. While the prevalence of reasons for hesitancy differed by occupation, over half of employed hesitant participants reported concern about side effects (51.7%) and not trusting COVID-19 vaccines (51.3%), whereas only 15.0% didn't like vaccines in general. Over a third didn't believe they needed the vaccine, didn't trust the government, and/or were waiting to see if it was safe. In this massive national survey of adults 18-64 years, vaccine hesitancy varied widely by occupation. Reasons for hesitancy indicate messaging about safety and addressing trust are paramount.

Preprocedural SARS-CoV-2 Testing to Sustain Medically Needed Health Care Delivery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Prospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: We implemented a preprocedural severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) screening initiative designed to sustain health care during a time when the extent of SARS-CoV-2 infection was unknown. METHODS: This was a prospective study of patients undergoing procedures at 3 academic hospitals in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (April 21-June 11), and 19 community hospitals across Middle/Western Pennsylvania and Southwestern New York (May 1-June 11). Patients at academic hospitals underwent symptom screening ≤7 days preprocedure, then SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing 1-4 days preprocedure. A subset also underwent day-of-procedure testing. Community hospital patients underwent testing per local protocols. We report SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rates, impact, and barriers to testing encountered through June 11. PCR positivity rates of optional preprocedural SARS-CoV-2 testing for 2 consecutive periods following the screening initiative are also reported. RESULTS: Of 5881 eligible academic hospital patients, 2415 (41.1%) were tested (April 21-June 11). Lack of interest, distance, self-isolation, and nursing home/incarceration status were barriers. There were 11 PCR-positive patients (10 asymptomatic) among 10 539 patients tested (0.10%; 95% CI, 0.05%-0.19%): 3/2415 (0.12%; 95% CI, 0.02%-0.36%) and 8/8124 (0.10%; 95% CI, 0.04%-0.19%) at academic and community hospitals, respectively. Procedures were performed as scheduled in 40% (4/10) of asymptomatic PCR-positive patients. Positivity increased during subsequent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) surges: 54/34 948 (0.15%; 95% CI, 0.12%-0.20%) and 101/24 741 (0.41%; 95% CI, 0.33%-0.50%) PCR-positive patients from June 12-September 10 and September 11-December 15, respectively (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing preprocedural PCR testing was complex and revealed low infection rates (0.24% overall), which increased during COVID-19 surges. Additional studies are needed to define the COVID-19 prevalence threshold at which universal preprocedural screening is warranted.