Receipt of COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines in California (USA) during the 2021-2022 influenza season.

BACKGROUND: Despite lower circulation of influenza virus throughout 2020-2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic, seasonal influenza vaccination has remained a primary tool to reduce influenza-associated illness and death. The relationship between the decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and/or an influenza vaccine is not well understood. METHODS: We assessed predictors of receipt of 2021-2022 influenza vaccine in a secondary analysis of data from a case-control study enrolling individuals who received SARS-CoV-2 testing. We used mixed effects logistic regression to estimate factors associated with receipt of seasonal influenza vaccine. We also constructed multinomial adjusted marginal probability models of being vaccinated for COVID-19 only, seasonal influenza only, or both as compared with receipt of neither vaccination. RESULTS: Among 1261 eligible participants recruited between 22 October 2021-22 June 2022, 43% (545) were vaccinated with both seasonal influenza vaccine and >1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 34% (426) received >1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine only, 4% (49) received seasonal influenza vaccine only, and 19% (241) received neither vaccine. Receipt of >1 COVID-19 vaccine dose was associated with seasonal influenza vaccination (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 3.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.15-6.43); this association was stronger among participants receiving >1 COVID-19 booster dose (aOR = 16.50 [10.10-26.97]). Compared with participants testing negative for SARS- CoV-2 infection, participants testing positive had lower odds of receipt of 2021-2022 seasonal influenza vaccine (aOR = 0.64 [0.50-0.82]). CONCLUSIONS: Recipients of a COVID-19 vaccine were more likely to receive seasonal influenza vaccine during the 2021-2022 season. Factors associated with individuals' likelihood of receiving COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines will be important to account for in future studies of vaccine effectiveness against both conditions. Participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in our sample were less likely to have received seasonal influenza vaccine, suggesting an opportunity to offer influenza vaccination before or after a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Real-world uptake of COVID-19 vaccination among individuals expressing vaccine hesitancy: A registry-linkage study.

INTRODUCTION: Uptake of COVID-19 vaccination remains suboptimal in the United States and other settings. Though early reports indicated that a strong majority of people were interested in receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, the association between vaccine intention and uptake is not yet fully understood. Ourobjective was todescribe predictors of vaccine uptake, and estimate the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of self-reported COVID-19 vaccine status compared to a comprehensive statewide COVID-19 vaccine registry. METHODS: A cohort of California residents that received a molecular test for SARS-CoV-2 infection during 24 February-5 December 2021 were enrolled in a telephone-administered survey. Survey participants were matched with records in a statewide immunization registry. Cox proportional hazards model were used to compare time to vaccination among those unvaccinated at survey enrollment by self-reported COVID-19 vaccination intention. RESULTS: Among 864 participants who were unvaccinated at the time of interview, 272 (31%) had documentation of receipt of COVID-19 vaccination at a later date; including 194/423 (45.9%) who had initially reported being willing to receive vaccination, 41/185 (22.2%) who reported being unsure about vaccination, and 37/278 (13.3%) who reported unwillingness to receive vaccination.Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for registry-confirmed COVID-19 vaccination were 0.49 (95% confidence interval: 0.32-0.76) and 0.21 (0.12-0.36) for participants expressing uncertainty and unwillingness to receive vaccination, respectively, as compared with participants who reported being willing to receive vaccination. Time to vaccination was shorter among participants from higher-income households (aHR = 3.30 [2.02-5.39]) and who reported co-morbidities or immunocompromising conditions (aHR = 1.54 [1.01-2.36]).Sensitivity of self-reported COVID-19 vaccination status was 82% (80-85%) overall, and 98% (97-99%) among those referencing vaccination records; specificity was 87% (86-89%). CONCLUSION: Willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccination was an imperfect predictor of real-world vaccine uptake. Improved messaging about COVID-19 vaccination regardless of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status may help improve uptake.

Waning of 2-Dose BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 Vaccine Effectiveness Against Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection Accounting for Depletion-of-Susceptibles Bias.

Concerns about the duration of protection conferred by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have arisen in postlicensure evaluations. "Depletion of susceptibles," a bias driven by differential accrual of infection among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, may obscure vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates, hindering interpretation. We enrolled California residents who received molecular SARS-CoV-2 tests in a matched, test-negative design, case-control study to estimate VE of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines between February 23 and December 5, 2021. We analyzed waning protection following 2 vaccine doses using conditional logistic regression models. Additionally, we used data from a population-based serological study to adjust for "depletion-of-susceptibles" bias and estimated VE for 3 doses, by time since second dose receipt. Pooled VE of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was 91.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 83.8, 95.4) at 14 days after second-dose receipt and declined to 50.8% (95% CI: 19.7, 69.8) at 7 months. Adjusting for depletion-of-susceptibles bias, we estimated VE of 53.2% (95% CI: 23.6, 71.2) at 7 months after primary mRNA vaccination series. A booster dose of BN162b2 or mRNA-1273 increased VE to 95.0% (95% CI: 82.8, 98.6). These findings confirm that observed waning of protection is not attributable to epidemiologic bias and support ongoing efforts to administer additional vaccine doses to mitigate burden of COVID-19.

Prevention of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) by mRNA-Based Vaccines Within the General Population of California.

BACKGROUND: Estimates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness under real-world conditions, and understanding of barriers to uptake, are necessary to inform vaccine rollout. METHODS: We enrolled cases (testing positive) and controls (testing negative) from among the population whose SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic test results from 24 February to 29 April 2021 were reported to the California Department of Public Health. Participants were matched on age, sex, and geographic region. We assessed participants' self-reported history of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine receipt (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273). Participants were considered fully vaccinated 2 weeks after second dose receipt. Among unvaccinated participants, we assessed willingness to receive vaccination. We measured vaccine effectiveness (VE) via the matched odds ratio of prior vaccination, comparing cases with controls. RESULTS: We enrolled 1023 eligible participants aged ≥18 years. Among 525 cases, 71 (13.5%) received BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273; 20 (3.8%) were fully vaccinated with either product. Among 498 controls, 185 (37.1%) received BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273; 86 (16.3%) were fully vaccinated with either product. Two weeks after second dose receipt, VE was 87.0% (95% confidence interval: 68.6-94.6%) and 86.2% (68.4-93.9%) for BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively. Fully vaccinated participants receiving either product experienced 91.3% (79.3-96.3%) and 68.3% (27.9-85.7%) VE against symptomatic and asymptomatic infection, respectively. Among unvaccinated participants, 42.4% (159/375) residing in rural regions and 23.8% (67/281) residing in urban regions reported hesitancy to receive COVID-19 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Authorized mRNA-based vaccines are effective at reducing documented SARS-CoV-2 infections within the general population of California. Vaccine hesitancy presents a barrier to reaching coverage levels needed for herd immunity.

Predictors of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection Following High-Risk Exposure.

BACKGROUND: Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are recommended for COVID-19 prevention. However, the effectiveness of NPIs in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission remains poorly quantified. METHODS: We conducted a test-negative design case-control study enrolling cases (testing positive for SARS-CoV-2) and controls (testing negative) with molecular SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test results reported to California Department of Public Health between 24 February-12 November, 2021. We used conditional logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of case status among participants who reported contact with an individual known or suspected to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 ("high-risk exposure") ≤14 days before testing. RESULTS: 751 of 1448 cases (52%) and 255 of 1443 controls (18%) reported high-risk exposures ≤14 days before testing. Adjusted odds of case status were 3.02-fold (95% confidence interval: 1.75-5.22) higher when high-risk exposures occurred with household members (vs. other contacts), 2.10-fold (1.05-4.21) higher when exposures occurred indoors (vs. outdoors only), and 2.15-fold (1.27-3.67) higher when exposures lasted ≥3 hours (vs. shorter durations) among unvaccinated and partially-vaccinated individuals; excess risk associated with such exposures was mitigated among fully-vaccinated individuals. Cases were less likely than controls to report mask usage during high-risk exposures (aOR = 0.50 [0.29-0.85]). The adjusted odds of case status was lower for fully-vaccinated (aOR = 0.25 [0.15-0.43]) participants compared to unvaccinated participants. Benefits of mask usage were greatest among unvaccinated and partially-vaccinated participants, and in interactions involving non-household contacts or interactions occurring without physical contact. CONCLUSIONS: NPIs reduced the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection following high-risk exposure. Vaccine effectiveness was substantial for partially and fully vaccinated persons.

Asynchronous Remote Assessment for Cognitive Impairment: Reliability Verification of the Neurotrack Cognitive Battery.

BACKGROUND: As evidenced by the further reduction in access to testing during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an urgent, growing need for remote cognitive assessment for individuals with cognitive impairment. The Neurotrack Cognitive Battery (NCB), our response to this need, was evaluated for its temporal reliability and stability as part of ongoing validation testing. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the temporal reliability of the NCB tests (5 total) across a 1-week period and to determine the temporal stability of these measures across 3 consecutive administrations in a single day. METHODS: For test-retest reliability, a range of 29-66 cognitively healthy participants (ages 18-68 years) completed each cognitive assessment twice, 1 week apart. In a separate study, temporal stability was assessed using data collected from 31 different cognitively healthy participants at 3 consecutive timepoints in a single day. RESULTS: Correlations for the assessments were between 0.72 and 0.83, exceeding the standard acceptable threshold of 0.70 for temporal reliability. Intraclass correlations ranged from 0.60 to 0.84, indicating moderate to good temporal stability. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the NCB as a brief, easy-to-administer, and reliable assessment for remote cognitive testing. Additional validation research is underway to determine the full magnitude of the clinical utility of the NCB.

Effectiveness of Face Mask or Respirator Use in Indoor Public Settings for Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 Infection - California, February-December 2021.

The use of face masks or respirators (N95/KN95) is recommended to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1). Well-fitting face masks and respirators effectively filter virus-sized particles in laboratory conditions (2,3), though few studies have assessed their real-world effectiveness in preventing acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 infection (4). A test-negative design case-control study enrolled randomly selected California residents who had received a test result for SARS-CoV-2 during February 18-December 1, 2021. Face mask or respirator use was assessed among 652 case-participants (residents who had received positive test results for SARS-CoV-2) and 1,176 matched control-participants (residents who had received negative test results for SARS-CoV-2) who self-reported being in indoor public settings during the 2 weeks preceding testing and who reported no known contact with anyone with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection during this time. Always using a face mask or respirator in indoor public settings was associated with lower adjusted odds of a positive test result compared with never wearing a face mask or respirator in these settings (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.24-0.82). Among 534 participants who specified the type of face covering they typically used, wearing N95/KN95 respirators (aOR = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.05-0.64) or surgical masks (aOR = 0.34; 95% CI = 0.13-0.90) was associated with significantly lower adjusted odds of a positive test result compared with not wearing any face mask or respirator. These findings reinforce that in addition to being up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations, consistently wearing a face mask or respirator in indoor public settings reduces the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection. Using a respirator offers the highest level of personal protection against acquiring infection, although it is most important to wear a mask or respirator that is comfortable and can be used consistently.

Influenza and SARS-CoV-2 Co-infections in California, USA, September 2020-April 2021.

During September 1, 2020-April 30, 2021, the California Department of Public Health, Richmond, California, USA, received 255 positive influenza molecular test results that matched with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 molecular test results; 58 (23%) persons were co-infected. Influenza activity was minimal in California, and co-infections were sporadic.

Racial/Ethnic Disparities In COVID-19 Exposure Risk, Testing, And Cases At The Subcounty Level In California.

With a population of forty million and substantial geographic variation in sociodemographics and health services, California is an important setting in which to study disparities. Its population (37.5 percent White, 39.1 percent Latino, 5.3 percent Black, and 14.4 percent Asian) experienced 59,258 COVID-19 deaths through April 14, 2021-the most of any state. We analyzed California's racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 exposure risks, testing rates, test positivity, and case rates through October 2020, combining data from 15.4 million SARS-CoV-2 tests with subcounty exposure risk estimates from the American Community Survey. We defined "high-exposure-risk" households as those with one or more essential workers and fewer rooms than inhabitants. Latino people in California are 8.1 times more likely to live in high-exposure-risk households than White people (23.6 percent versus 2.9 percent), are overrepresented in cumulative cases (3,784 versus 1,112 per 100,000 people), and are underrepresented in cumulative testing (35,635 versus 48,930 per 100,000 people). These risks and outcomes were worse for Latino people than for members of other racial/ethnic minority groups. Subcounty disparity analyses can inform targeting of interventions and resources, including community-based testing and vaccine access measures. Tracking COVID-19 disparities and developing equity-focused public health programming that mitigates the effects of systemic racism can help improve health outcomes among California's populations of color.

Text Messaging Real-Time COVID-19 Clinical Guidance to Hospital Employees.

BACKGROUND: During the initial days of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, hospital-wide practices rapidly evolved, and hospital employees became a critical population for receiving consistent and timely communication about these changes. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to rapidly implement enterprise text messaging as a crisis communication intervention to deliver key COVID-related safety and practice information directly to hospital employees. METHODS: Utilizing a secure text-messaging platform already routinely used in direct patient care, we sent 140-character messages containing targeted pandemic-related updates to on-duty hospital employees three times per week for 13 weeks. This innovation was evaluated through the analysis of aggregate "read" receipts from each message. Effectiveness was assessed by rates of occupational exposures to COVID-19 and by two cross-sectional attitudinal surveys administered to all text-message recipients. RESULTS: On average, each enterprise text message was sent to 1,997 on-duty employees. Analysis of "read" receipts revealed that on average, 60% of messages were consistently read within 24 hours of delivery, 34% were read in 2 hours, and 16% were read in 10 minutes. Readership peaked and fell in the first week of messaging but remained consistent throughout the remainder of the intervention. A survey administered after 2 weeks revealed that 163 (79%) users found enterprise texts "valuable," 152 (73%) users would recommend these texts to their colleagues, and 114 (55%) users preferred texts to email. A second survey at 9 weeks revealed that 109 (80%) users continued to find texts "valuable." Enterprise messaging, in conjunction with the system's larger communication strategy, was associated with a decrease in median daily occupational exposure events (nine events per day premessaging versus one event per day during messaging). CONCLUSION: Enterprise text messages sent to hospital-employee smartphones are an efficient and effective strategy for urgent communications. Hospitals may wish to leverage this technology during times of routine operations and crisis management.

Heterogeneity in COVID-19 patient volume, characteristics and outcomes across US Department of Veterans Affairs facilities: an observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Studies describe COVID-19 patient characteristics and outcomes across populations, but reports of variation across healthcare facilities are lacking. The objectives were to examine differences in COVID-19 patient volume and mortality across facilities, and understand whether facility variation in mortality was due primarily to differences in patient versus facility characteristics. DESIGN: Observational cohort study with multilevel mixed effects logistic regression modelling. SETTING: The Veterans Health Administration (VA) is the largest healthcare system in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with COVID-19. MAIN OUTCOME: All-cause mortality within 45 days after COVID-19 testing (March-May, follow-up through 16 July 2020). RESULTS: Among 13 510 patients with COVID-19, 3942 (29.2%) were admitted (2266/3942 (57.5%) ward; 1676/3942 (42.5%) intensive care unit (ICU)) and 679/3942 (17.2%) received mechanical ventilation. Marked heterogeneity was observed across facilities in median age (range: 34.3-83.9 years; facility mean: 64.7, SD 7.2 years); patient volume (range: 1-737 at 160 facilities; facility median: 48.5, IQR 14-105.5); hospital admissions (range: 1-286 at 133 facilities; facility median: 11, IQR 1-26.5); ICU caseload (range: 1-85 at 115 facilities; facility median: 4, IQR 0-12); and mechanical ventilation (range: 1-53 at 90 facilities; facility median: 1, IQR 0-5). Heterogeneity was also observed in facility mortality for all patients with COVID-19 (range: 0%-29.7%; facility median: 8.9%, IQR 2.4%-13.7%); inpatients (range: 0%-100%; facility median: 18.0%, IQR 5.6%-28.6%); ICU patients (range: 0%-100%; facility median: 28.6%, IQR 14.3%-50.0%); and mechanical ventilator patients (range: 0%-100%; facility median: 52.7%, IQR 33.3%-80.6%). The majority of variation in facility mortality was attributable to differences in patient characteristics (eg, age). CONCLUSIONS: Marked heterogeneity in COVID-19 patient volume, characteristics and mortality were observed across VA facilities nationwide. Differences in patient characteristics accounted for the majority of explained variation in mortality across sites. Variation in unadjusted COVID-19 mortality across facilities or nations should be considered with caution.

Association of Intensive Care Unit Patient Load and Demand With Mortality Rates in US Department of Veterans Affairs Hospitals During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Although strain on hospital capacity has been associated with increased mortality in nonpandemic settings, studies are needed to examine the association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) critical care capacity and mortality. Objective: To examine whether COVID-19 mortality was associated with COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) strain. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted among veterans with COVID-19, as confirmed by polymerase chain reaction or antigen testing in the laboratory from March through August 2020, cared for at any Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital with 10 or more patients with COVID-19 in the ICU. The follow-up period was through November 2020. Data were analyzed from March to November 2020. Exposures: Receiving treatment for COVID-19 in the ICU during a period of increased COVID-19 ICU load, with load defined as mean number of patients with COVID-19 in the ICU during the patient's hospital stay divided by the number of ICU beds at that facility, or increased COVID-19 ICU demand, with demand defined as mean number of patients with COVID-19 in the ICU during the patient's stay divided by the maximum number of patients with COVID-19 in the ICU. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality was recorded through 30 days after discharge from the hospital. Results: Among 8516 patients with COVID-19 admitted to 88 VA hospitals, 8014 (94.1%) were men and mean (SD) age was 67.9 (14.2) years. Mortality varied over time, with 218 of 954 patients (22.9%) dying in March, 399 of 1594 patients (25.0%) dying in April, 143 of 920 patients (15.5%) dying in May, 179 of 1314 patients (13.6%) dying in June, 297 of 2373 patients (12.5%) dying in July, and 174 of 1361 (12.8%) patients dying in August (P < .001). Patients with COVID-19 who were treated in the ICU during periods of increased COVID-19 ICU demand had increased risk of mortality compared with patients treated during periods of low COVID-19 ICU demand (ie, demand of ≤25%); the adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.81-1.22; P = .93) for patients treated when COVID-19 ICU demand was more than 25% to 50%, 1.19 (95% CI, 0.95-1.48; P = .13) when COVID-19 ICU demand was more than 50% to 75%, and 1.94 (95% CI, 1.46-2.59; P < .001) when COVID-19 ICU demand was more than 75% to 100%. No association between COVID-19 ICU demand and mortality was observed for patients with COVID-19 not in the ICU. The association between COVID-19 ICU load and mortality was not consistent over time (ie, early vs late in the pandemic). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that although facilities augmented ICU capacity during the pandemic, strains on critical care capacity were associated with increased COVID-19 ICU mortality. Tracking COVID-19 ICU demand may be useful to hospital administrators and health officials as they coordinate COVID-19 admissions across hospitals to optimize outcomes for patients with this illness.

Identification and Monitoring of International Travelers During the Initial Phase of an Outbreak of COVID-19 - California, February 3-March 17, 2020.

The threat of introduction of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) into the United States with the potential for community transmission prompted U.S. federal officials in February 2020 to screen travelers from China, and later Iran, and collect and transmit their demographic and contact information to states for follow-up. During February 5-March 17, 2020, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) received and transmitted contact information for 11,574 international travelers to 51 of 61 local health jurisdictions at a cost of 1,694 hours of CDPH personnel time. If resources permitted, local health jurisdictions contacted travelers, interviewed them, and oversaw 14 days of quarantine, self-monitoring, or both, based on CDC risk assessment criteria for COVID-19. Challenges encountered during follow-up included errors in the recording of contact information and variation in the availability of resources in local health jurisdictions to address the substantial workload. Among COVID-19 patients reported to CDPH, three matched persons previously reported as travelers to CDPH. Despite intensive effort, the traveler screening system did not effectively prevent introduction of COVID-19 into California. Effectiveness of COVID-19 screening and monitoring in travelers to California was limited by incomplete traveler information received by federal officials and transmitted to states, the number of travelers needing follow-up, and the potential for presymptomatic and asymptomatic transmission. More efficient methods of collecting and transmitting passenger data, including electronic provision of flight manifests by airlines to federal officials and flexible text-messaging tools, would help local health jurisdictions reach out to all at-risk travelers quickly, thereby facilitating timely testing, case identification, and contact investigations. State and local health departments should weigh the resources needed to implement incoming traveler monitoring against community mitigation activities, understanding that the priorities of each might shift during the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 Among Workers in Meat and Poultry Processing Facilities - 19 States, April 2020.

Congregate work and residential locations are at increased risk for infectious disease transmission including respiratory illness outbreaks. SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is primarily spread person to person through respiratory droplets. Nationwide, the meat and poultry processing industry, an essential component of the U.S. food infrastructure, employs approximately 500,000 persons, many of whom work in proximity to other workers (1). Because of reports of initial cases of COVID-19, in some meat processing facilities, states were asked to provide aggregated data concerning the number of meat and poultry processing facilities affected by COVID-19 and the number of workers with COVID-19 in these facilities, including COVID-19-related deaths. Qualitative data gathered by CDC during on-site and remote assessments were analyzed and summarized. During April 9-27, aggregate data on COVID-19 cases among 115 meat or poultry processing facilities in 19 states were reported to CDC. Among these facilities, COVID-19 was diagnosed in 4,913 (approximately 3%) workers, and 20 COVID-19-related deaths were reported. Facility barriers to effective prevention and control of COVID-19 included difficulty distancing workers at least 6 feet (2 meters) from one another (2) and in implementing COVID-19-specific disinfection guidelines.* Among workers, socioeconomic challenges might contribute to working while feeling ill, particularly if there are management practices such as bonuses that incentivize attendance. Methods to decrease transmission within the facility include worker symptom screening programs, policies to discourage working while experiencing symptoms compatible with COVID-19, and social distancing by workers. Source control measures (e.g., the use of cloth face covers) as well as increased disinfection of high-touch surfaces are also important means of preventing SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Mitigation efforts to reduce transmission in the community should also be considered. Many of these measures might also reduce asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission (3). Implementation of these public health strategies will help protect workers from COVID-19 in this industry and assist in preserving the critical meat and poultry production infrastructure (4).