Changes in retirement plans in the English older population during the COVID-19 pandemic: The roles of health factors and financial insecurity.

Over the course of 2020 and 2021, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted lives globally. In the UK, unemployment rate continued to increase during and post-lockdown periods, and job security and financial wellbeing deteriorated. It is important to understand whether individual decisions related to retirement plans have changed systematically as a result of the pandemic, especially among older adults who experienced greater rates of pandemic unemployment. Using the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, this article examines changes in retirement plans of older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic and estimates the impact of health and financial circumstances on these changes. In June/July 2020, 5% of 2095 participants reported planning earlier retirement, while 9% reported planning later retirement. We found that poor self-rated health and financial insecurity were associated with intentions to postpone retirement. Additional risk of later retirement associated with poor health was detected among those experiencing financial insecurity. In November/December 2020, 7% of 1845 participants reported planning earlier retirement, while 12% reported planning later retirement. We found that poor health was predictive of a lower relative risk of later retirement, while depressive symptomology and financial insecurity predicted a higher relative risk of later retirement. The findings imply a contextual role of health factors in, and a persistent influence of financial insecurity on, retirement planning in the older population.

Home working and social and mental wellbeing at different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: Evidence from 7 longitudinal population surveys.

BACKGROUND: Home working has increased since the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic's onset with concerns that it may have adverse health implications. We assessed the association between home working and social and mental wellbeing among the employed population aged 16 to 66 through harmonised analyses of 7 UK longitudinal studies. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We estimated associations between home working and measures of psychological distress, low life satisfaction, poor self-rated health, low social contact, and loneliness across 3 different stages of the pandemic (T1 = April to June 2020 -first lockdown, T2 = July to October 2020 -eased restrictions, T3 = November 2020 to March 2021 -second lockdown) using modified Poisson regression and meta-analyses to pool results across studies. We successively adjusted the model for sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age, sex), job characteristics (e.g., sector of activity, pre-pandemic home working propensities), and pre-pandemic health. Among respectively 10,367, 11,585, and 12,179 participants at T1, T2, and T3, we found higher rates of home working at T1 and T3 compared with T2, reflecting lockdown periods. Home working was not associated with psychological distress at T1 (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.79 to 1.08) or T2 (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.11), but a detrimental association was found with psychological distress at T3 (RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.30). Study limitations include the fact that pre-pandemic home working propensities were derived from external sources, no information was collected on home working dosage and possible reverse association between change in wellbeing and home working likelihood. CONCLUSIONS: No clear evidence of an association between home working and mental wellbeing was found, apart from greater risk of psychological distress during the second lockdown, but differences across subgroups (e.g., by sex or level of education) may exist. Longer term shifts to home working might not have adverse impacts on population wellbeing in the absence of pandemic restrictions but further monitoring of health inequalities is required.

Antibody levels following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: associations with post-vaccination infection and risk factors in two UK longitudinal studies.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody levels can be used to assess humoral immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination, and may predict risk of future infection. Higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 anti-Spike antibodies are known to be associated with increased protection against future SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, variation in antibody levels and risk factors for lower antibody levels following each round of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have not been explored across a wide range of socio-demographic, SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination, and health factors within population-based cohorts. Methods: Samples were collected from 9361 individuals from TwinsUK and ALSPAC UK population-based longitudinal studies and tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Cross-sectional sampling was undertaken jointly in April-May 2021 (TwinsUK, N=4256; ALSPAC, N=4622), and in TwinsUK only in November 2021-January 2022 (N=3575). Variation in antibody levels after first, second, and third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination with health, socio-demographic, SARS-CoV-2 infection, and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination variables were analysed. Using multivariable logistic regression models, we tested associations between antibody levels following vaccination and: (1) SARS-CoV-2 infection following vaccination(s); (2) health, socio-demographic, SARS-CoV-2 infection, and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination variables. Results: Within TwinsUK, single-vaccinated individuals with the lowest 20% of anti-Spike antibody levels at initial testing had threefold greater odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection over the next 6-9 months (OR = 2.9, 95% CI: 1.4, 6.0), compared to the top 20%. In TwinsUK and ALSPAC, individuals identified as at increased risk of COVID-19 complication through the UK 'Shielded Patient List' had consistently greater odds (two- to fourfold) of having antibody levels in the lowest 10%. Third vaccination increased absolute antibody levels for almost all individuals, and reduced relative disparities compared with earlier vaccinations. Conclusions: These findings quantify the association between antibody level and risk of subsequent infection, and support a policy of triple vaccination for the generation of protective antibodies. Funding: Antibody testing was funded by UK Health Security Agency. The National Core Studies program is funded by COVID-19 Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing - National Core Study (LHW-NCS) HMT/UKRI/MRC ([MC_PC_20030] and [MC_PC_20059]). Related funding was also provided by the NIHR 606 (CONVALESCENCE grant [COV-LT-0009]). TwinsUK is funded by the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, Versus Arthritis, European Union Horizon 2020, Chronic Disease Research Foundation (CDRF), Zoe Ltd and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network (CRN) and Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King's College London. The UK Medical Research Council and Wellcome (Grant ref: [217065/Z/19/Z]) and the University of Bristol provide core support for ALSPAC.

Vaccination against the virus that causes COVID-19 triggers the body to produce antibodies that help fight future infections. But some people generate more antibodies after vaccination than others. People with lower levels of antibodies are more likely to get COVID-19 in the future. Identifying people with low antibody levels after COVID-19 vaccination is important. It could help decide who receives priority for future vaccination. Previous studies show that people with certain health conditions produce fewer antibodies after one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. For example, people with weakened immune systems. Now that third booster doses are available, it is vital to determine if they increase antibody levels for those most at risk of severe COVID-19. Cheetham et al. show that a third booster dose of a COVID-19 vaccine boosts antibodies to high levels in 90% of individuals, including those at increased risk. In the experiments, Cheetham et al. measured antibodies against the virus that causes COVID-19 in 9,361 individuals participating in two large long-term health studies in the United Kingdom. The experiments found that UK individuals advised to shield from the virus because they were at increased risk of complications had lower levels of antibodies after one or two vaccine doses than individuals without such risk factors. This difference was also seen after a third booster dose, but overall antibody levels had large increases. People who received the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine as their first dose also had lower antibody levels after one or two doses than those who received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine first. Positively, this difference in antibody levels was no longer seen after a third booster dose. Individuals with lower antibody levels after their first dose were also more likely to have a case of COVID-19 in the following months. Antibody levels were high in most individuals after the third dose. The results may help governments and public health officials identify individuals who may need extra protection after the first two vaccine doses. They also support current policies promoting booster doses of the vaccine and may support prioritizing booster doses for those at the highest risk from COVID-19 in future vaccination campaigns.

Association between Social Integration, Social Exclusion, and Vaccination Behavior among Internal Migrants in China: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Cross-sectional studies about the association between social integration, social exclusion, and vaccination behavior among internal migrants in China are lacking. In this study, we aimed to explore the association between the influenza vaccination behavior and social integration as well as social exclusion in China based on a cross-sectional study. We included 12,467 participants aged 15 years old or above from the 2017 Migrant Population Dynamic Monitoring Survey (MDMS). We used univariate analysis and logistic regression models to access the association between social integration, exclusion status, and influenza vaccination rates. Results suggested that the association between social integration and the vaccination rate was significantly positive. Moving between different districts impact on people's mental health and their health performance. Significant association between influenza vaccination behavior and education attainment, income status, health record, and awareness of basic public health services program was reported. Therefore, in order to reduce the incidence of influenza disease and increase the vaccination rate, policymakers and the public should promote social integration for internal migrants. Meanwhile, our finding also implies possible strategies to promote COVID-19 vaccination.

COVID-19 pandemic in BRICS countries and its association with socio-economic and demographic characteristics, health vulnerability, resources, and policy response.

BACKGROUND: Little attention has been paid to the comparison of COVID-19 pandemic responses and related factors in BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) countries. We aimed at evaluating the association of daily new COVID-19 cases with socio-economic and demographic factors, health vulnerability, resources, and policy response in BRICS countries. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using data on the COVID-19 pandemic and other indicators of BRICS countries from February 26, 2020 to April 30, 2021. We compared COVID-19 epidemic in BRICS countries and analyzed related factors by log-linear Generalized Additive Model (GAM) models. RESULTS: In BRICS countries, India had the highest totally of confirmed cases with 18.76 million, followed by Brazil (14.45 million), Russia (4.81 million), and South Africa (1.58 million), while China (0.10 million) had the lowest figure. South Africa had the lowest rate of administered vaccine doses (0.18 million) among BRICS countries as of April 30, 2021. In the GAM model, a 1 unit increase in population density and policy stringency index was associated with a 5.17% and 1.95% growth in daily new COVID-19 cases (P < 0.001), respectively. Exposure-response curves for the effects of policy stringency index on daily new cases showed that there was a rapid surge in number of daily new COVID-19 cases when the index ranged from 0 to 45. The number of infections climbed slowly when the index ranged from 46 to 80, and decreased when the index was above 80 (P < 0.001). In addition, daily new COVID-19 cases (all P < 0.001) were also correlated with life expectancy at birth (-1.61%), extreme poverty (8.95%), human development index (-0.05%), GDP per capita (-0.18%), diabetes prevalence (0.66%), proportion of population aged 60 and above (2.23%), hospital beds per thousand people (-0.08%), proportion of people with access to improved drinking water (-7.40%), prevalence of open defecation (0.69%), and annual tourist/visitor arrivals (0.003%), after controlling other confounders. Different lag structures showed similar results in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Strong policy response is crucial to control the pandemic, such as effective containment and case management. Our findings also highlighted the importance of reducing socio-economic inequalities and strengthening the resilience of health systems to better respond to public health emergencies globally.