COVID-19 Booster Dose Vaccination Coverage and Factors Associated with Booster Vaccination among Adults, United States, March 2022.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a COVID-19 vaccine booster dose for all persons >18 years of age. We analyzed data from the National Immunization Survey-Adult COVID Module collected during February 27-March 26, 2022 to assess COVID-19 booster dose vaccination coverage among adults. We used multivariable logistic regression analysis to assess factors associated with vaccination. COVID-19 booster dose coverage among fully vaccinated adults increased from 25.7% in November 2021 to 63.4% in March 2022. Coverage was lower among non-Hispanic Black (52.7%), and Hispanic (55.5%) than non-Hispanic White adults (67.7%). Coverage was 67.4% among essential healthcare personnel, 62.2% among adults who had a disability, and 69.9% among adults who had medical conditions. Booster dose coverage was not optimal, and disparities by race/ethnicity and other factors are apparent in coverage uptake. Tailored strategies are needed to educate the public and reduce disparities in COVID-19 vaccination coverage.

Behavioral and Social Drivers of COVID-19 Vaccination in the United States, August-November 2021.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and widely available, but many adults in the U.S. have not been vaccinated for COVID-19. This study examined the associations between behavioral and social drivers of vaccination with COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the U.S. adults and their prevalence by region. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of U.S. adults participated in a cross-sectional telephone survey in August-November 2021; the analysis was conducted in January 2022. Survey questions assessed self-reported COVID-19 vaccine initiation, demographics, and behavioral and social drivers of vaccination. RESULTS: Among the 255,763 respondents, 76% received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccine uptake was higher among respondents aged ≥75 years (94%), females (78%), and Asian non-Hispanic people (94%). The drivers of vaccination most strongly associated with uptake included higher anticipated regret from nonvaccination, risk perception, and confidence in vaccine safety and importance, followed by work- or school-related vaccination requirements, social norms, and provider recommendation (all p<0.05). The direction of association with uptake varied by reported level of difficulty in accessing vaccines. The prevalence of all of these behavioral and social drivers of vaccination was highest in the Northeast region and lowest in the Midwest and South. CONCLUSIONS: This nationally representative survey found that COVID-19 vaccine uptake was most strongly associated with greater anticipated regret, risk perception, and confidence in vaccine safety and importance, followed by vaccination requirements and social norms. Interventions that leverage these social and behavioral drivers of vaccination have the potential to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and could be considered for other vaccine introductions.

Characteristics of the Moveable Middle: Opportunities Among Adults Open to COVID-19 Vaccination.

INTRODUCTION: Focusing on subpopulations that express the intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccination but are unvaccinated may improve the yield of COVID-19 vaccination efforts. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of 789,658 U.S. adults aged ≥18 years participated in the National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module from May 2021 to April 2022. The survey assessed respondents' COVID-19 vaccination status and intent by demographic characteristics (age, urbanicity, educational attainment, region, insurance, income, and race/ethnicity). This study compared composition and within-group estimates of those who responded that they definitely or probably will get vaccinated or are unsure (moveable middle) from the first and last month of data collection. RESULTS: Because vaccination uptake increased over the study period, the moveable middle declined among persons aged ≥18 years. Adults aged 18-39 years and suburban residents comprised most of the moveable middle in April 2022. Groups with the largest moveable middles in April 2022 included persons with no insurance (10%), those aged 18-29 years (8%), and those with incomes below poverty (8%), followed by non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (7%), non-Hispanic multiple or other race (6%), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native persons (6%), non-Hispanic Black or African American persons (6%), those with below high school education (6%), those with high school education (5%), and those aged 30-39 years (5%). CONCLUSIONS: A sizable percentage of adults open to receiving COVID-19 vaccination remain in several demographic groups. Emphasizing engagement of persons who are unvaccinated in some racial/ethnic groups, aged 18-39 years, without health insurance, or with lower income may reach more persons open to vaccination.

Public Health Actions to Control Measles Among Afghan Evacuees During Operation Allies Welcome - United States, September-November 2021.

On August 29, 2021, the United States government oversaw the emergent establishment of Operation Allies Welcome (OAW), led by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and implemented by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and U.S. Department of State (DoS), to safely resettle U.S. citizens and Afghan nationals from Afghanistan to the United States. Evacuees were temporarily housed at several overseas locations in Europe and Asia* before being transported via military and charter flights through two U.S. international airports, and onward to eight U.S. military bases,† with hotel A used for isolation and quarantine of persons with or exposed to certain infectious diseases.§ On August 30, CDC issued an Epi-X notice encouraging public health officials to maintain vigilance for measles among Afghan evacuees because of an ongoing measles outbreak in Afghanistan (25,988 clinical cases reported nationwide during January-November 2021) (1) and low routine measles vaccination coverage (66% and 43% for the first and second doses, respectively, in 2020) (2).

Cluster analysis of adults unvaccinated for COVID-19 based on behavioral and social factors, National Immunization Survey-Adult COVID Module, United States.

By the end of 2021, approximately 15% of U.S. adults remained unvaccinated against COVID-19, and vaccination initiation rates had stagnated. We used unsupervised machine learning (K-means clustering) to identify clusters of unvaccinated respondents based on Behavioral and Social Drivers (BeSD) of COVID-19 vaccination and compared these clusters to vaccinated participants to better understand social/behavioral factors of non-vaccination. The National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module collects data on U.S. adults from September 26-December 31,2021 (n = 187,756). Among all participants, 51.6% were male, with a mean age of 61 years, and the majority were non-Hispanic White (62.2%), followed by Hispanic (17.2%), Black (11.9%), and others (8.7%). K-means clustering procedure was used to classify unvaccinated participants into three clusters based on 9 survey BeSD items, including items assessing COVID-19 risk perception, social norms, vaccine confidence, and practical issues. Among unvaccinated adults (N = 23,397), 3 clusters were identified: the "Reachable" (23%), "Less reachable" (27%), and the "Least reachable" (50%). The least reachable cluster reported the lowest concern about COVID-19, mask-wearing behavior, perceived vaccine confidence, and were more likely to be male, non-Hispanic White, with no health conditions, from rural counties, have previously had COVID-19, and have not received a COVID-19 vaccine recommendation from a healthcare provider. This study identified, described, and compared the characteristics of the three unvaccinated subgroups. Public health practitioners, healthcare providers and community leaders can use these characteristics to better tailor messaging for each sub-population. Our findings may also help inform decisionmakers exploring possible policy interventions.

Public Health Response to a Case of Paralytic Poliomyelitis in an Unvaccinated Person and Detection of Poliovirus in Wastewater - New York, June-August 2022.

On July 18, 2022, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) notified CDC of detection of poliovirus type 2 in stool specimens from an unvaccinated immunocompetent young adult from Rockland County, New York, who was experiencing acute flaccid weakness. The patient initially experienced fever, neck stiffness, gastrointestinal symptoms, and limb weakness. The patient was hospitalized with possible acute flaccid myelitis (AFM). Vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 (VDPV2) was detected in stool specimens obtained on days 11 and 12 after initial symptom onset. To date, related Sabin-like type 2 polioviruses have been detected in wastewater* in the patient's county of residence and in neighboring Orange County up to 25 days before (from samples originally collected for SARS-CoV-2 wastewater monitoring) and 41 days after the patient's symptom onset. The last U.S. case of polio caused by wild poliovirus occurred in 1979, and the World Health Organization Region of the Americas was declared polio-free in 1994. This report describes the second identification of community transmission of poliovirus in the United States since 1979; the previous instance, in 2005, was a type 1 VDPV (1). The occurrence of this case, combined with the identification of poliovirus in wastewater in neighboring Orange County, underscores the importance of maintaining high vaccination coverage to prevent paralytic polio in persons of all ages.

Geographic Heterogeneity in Behavioral and Social Drivers of COVID-19 Vaccination.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about how the drivers of COVID-19 vaccination vary across the U.S. To inform vaccination outreach efforts, this study explores geographic variation in correlates of COVID-19 nonvaccination among adults. METHODS: Participants were a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults identified through random-digit dialing for the National Immunization Survey-Adult COVID Module. Analyses examined the geographic and temporal landscape of constructs in the Behavioral and Social Drivers of Vaccination Framework among unvaccinated respondents from May 2021 to December 2021 (n=531,798) and sociodemographic and geographic disparities and Behavioral and Social Drivers of Vaccination predictors of COVID-19 nonvaccination from October 2021 to December 2021 (n=187,756). RESULTS: National coverage with at least 1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine was 79.3% by December 2021, with substantial geographic heterogeneity. Regions with the largest proportion of unvaccinated persons who would probably get a COVID-19 vaccine or were unsure resided in the Southeast and Midwest (Health and Human Services Regions 4 and 5). Both regions had similar temporal trends regarding concerns about COVID-19 and confidence in vaccine importance, although the Southeast had especially low confidence in vaccine safety in December 2021, lowest in Florida (5.5%) and highest in North Carolina (18.0%). The strongest Behavioral and Social Drivers of Vaccination correlate of not receiving a COVID-19 vaccination was lower confidence in COVID-19 vaccine importance (adjusted prevalence ratio=5.19, 95% CI=4.93, 5.47; strongest in the Northeast, Southwest, and Mountain West and weakest in the Southeast and Midwest). Other Behavioral and Social Drivers of Vaccination correlates also varied by region. CONCLUSIONS: Contributors to nonvaccination showed substantial geographic heterogeneity. Strategies to improve COVID-19 vaccination uptake may need to be tailored regionally.

There are no equal opportunity infectors: Epidemiological modelers must rethink our approach to inequality in infection risk.

Mathematical models have come to play a key role in global pandemic preparedness and outbreak response: helping to plan for disease burden, hospital capacity, and inform nonpharmaceutical interventions. Such models have played a pivotal role in the COVID-19 pandemic, with transmission models-and, by consequence, modelers-guiding global, national, and local responses to SARS-CoV-2. However, these models have largely not accounted for the social and structural factors, which lead to socioeconomic, racial, and geographic health disparities. In this piece, we raise and attempt to clarify several questions relating to this important gap in the research and practice of infectious disease modeling: Why do epidemiologic models of emerging infections typically ignore known structural drivers of disparate health outcomes? What have been the consequences of a framework focused primarily on aggregate outcomes on infection equity? What should be done to develop a more holistic approach to modeling-based decision-making during pandemics? In this review, we evaluate potential historical and political explanations for the exclusion of drivers of disparity in infectious disease models for emerging infections, which have often been characterized as "equal opportunity infectors" despite ample evidence to the contrary. We look to examples from other disease systems (HIV, STIs) and successes in including social inequity in models of acute infection transmission as a blueprint for how social connections, environmental, and structural factors can be integrated into a coherent, rigorous, and interpretable modeling framework. We conclude by outlining principles to guide modeling of emerging infections in ways that represent the causes of inequity in infection as central rather than peripheral mechanisms.

Vaccine Hesitancy and Rejection of a Vaccine for the Novel Coronavirus in the United States.

The arrival of the COVID-19 vaccine has been accompanied by increased discussion of vaccine hesitancy. However, it is unclear if there are shared patterns between general vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection, or if these are two different concepts. This study characterized rejection of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine, and compared patterns of association between general vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection. The survey was conducted online March 20-22, 2020. Participants answered questions on vaccine hesitancy and responded if they would accept the vaccine given different safety and effectiveness profiles. We assessed differences in COVID-19 rejection and general vaccine hesitancy through logistic regressions. Among 713 participants, 33.0% were vaccine hesitant, and 18.4% would reject a COVID-19 vaccine. Acceptance varied by effectiveness profile: 10.2% would reject a 95% effective COVID-19 vaccine, but 32.4% would reject a 50% effective vaccine. Those vaccine hesitant were significantly more likely to reject COVID-19 vaccination [odds ratio (OR): 5.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.39, 9.11]. In multivariable logistic regression models, there were similar patterns for vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection by gender, race/ethnicity, family income, and political affiliation. But the direction of association flipped by urbanicity (P=0.0146, with rural dwellers less likely to be COVID-19 vaccine rejecters but more likely to be vaccine hesitant in general), and age (P=0.0037, with fewer pronounced differences across age for COVID-19 vaccine rejection, but a gradient of stronger vaccine hesitancy in general among younger ages). During the COVID-19 epidemic's early phase, patterns of vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection were relatively similar. A significant minority would reject a COVID-19 vaccine, especially one with less-than-ideal effectiveness. Preparations for introducing the COVID-19 vaccine should anticipate substantial hesitation and target concerns, especially among younger adults.

Modification of a vaccine hesitancy scale for use in adult vaccinations in the United States and China.

Most research on vaccine hesitancy has focused on parental attitudes toward childhood vaccination, but it will be important to understand dimensions of vaccine hesitancy in the adult population as more adult vaccines are introduced in the future. We modified the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale to target adult vaccines and provide measures of its reliability and validity relative to influenza vaccine uptake and COVID-19 vaccination acceptance in cross-sectional internet surveys in the United States and in China. We assessed the impact of vaccine hesitancy on influenza and COVID-19 vaccination using multivariable regression modeling, which informed concurrent validity of the adult Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (aVHS). Among 1103 participants in the March 2020 China survey, 5.4% would not accept a COVID-19 vaccine, whereas this figure was 18.8% for the March 2020 US survey and 27.3% for the June 2020 US survey. The aVHS exhibits good internal consistency in all three surveys. Models adjusted for age, gender and income level show that prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was a fraction as high in those who scored higher on the VHS than those who scored lower on all three surveys. Prevalence of past and future flu vaccine acceptance was a fraction as high in those with higher aVHS scores than those with lower scores. Prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance is lower in those with higher vaccine hesitancy scores, which supports the scale's concurrent validity. The aVHS exhibits good internal consistency, making it a valid and reliable tool for measuring vaccination uptake.

Fine-scale spatial clustering of measles nonvaccination that increases outbreak potential is obscured by aggregated reporting data.

The United States experienced historically high numbers of measles cases in 2019, despite achieving national measles vaccination rates above the World Health Organization recommendation of 95% coverage with two doses. Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, resulting in suspension of many clinical preventive services, pediatric vaccination rates in the United States have fallen precipitously, dramatically increasing risk of measles resurgence. Previous research has shown that measles outbreaks in high-coverage contexts are driven by spatial clustering of nonvaccination, which decreases local immunity below the herd immunity threshold. However, little is known about how to best conduct surveillance and target interventions to detect and address these high-risk areas, and most vaccination data are reported at the state-level-a resolution too coarse to detect community-level clustering of nonvaccination characteristic of recent outbreaks. In this paper, we perform a series of computational experiments to assess the impact of clustered nonvaccination on outbreak potential and magnitude of bias in predicting disease risk posed by measuring vaccination rates at coarse spatial scales. We find that, when nonvaccination is locally clustered, reporting aggregate data at the state- or county-level can result in substantial underestimates of outbreak risk. The COVID-19 pandemic has shone a bright light on the weaknesses in US infectious disease surveillance and a broader gap in our understanding of how to best use detailed spatial data to interrupt and control infectious disease transmission. Our research clearly outlines that finer-scale vaccination data should be collected to prevent a return to endemic measles transmission in the United States.

Social distancing in response to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) in the United States.

In order to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2, much of the US was placed under social distancing guidelines during March 2020. We characterized risk perceptions and adherence to social distancing recommendations in March 2020 among US adults aged 18+ in an online survey with age and gender quotas to match the general US population (N = 713). We used multivariable logistic and linear regression to estimate associations between age (by generational cohort) and these outcomes. The median perceived risk of infection with COVID-19 within the next month was 32%, and 65% of individuals were practicing more social distancing than before the outbreak. Baby Boomers had lower perceived risk than Millennials (-10.6%, 95% CI: -16.2%, -5.0%), yet were more frequently social distancing (OR = 1.64; 95% CI: 1.05, 2.56). Public health outreach should focus on raising compliance with social distancing recommendations, especially among high risk groups. Efforts to address risk perceptions alone may be inadequate.