Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 35
Filter
2.
Wellcome Open Res ; 2023.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2203714

ABSTRACT

There are important differences in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and death depending on occupation. Infections in healthcare workers have received the most attention, and there are clearly increased risks for intensive care unit workers who are caring for COVID-19 patients. However, a number of other occupations may also be at an increased risk, particularly those which involve social care or contact with the public. A large number of data sets are available with the potential to assess occupational risks of COVID-19 incidence, severity, or mortality. We are reviewing these data sets as part of the Partnership for Research in Occupational, Transport, Environmental COVID Transmission (PROTECT) initiative, which is part of the National COVID-19 Core Studies. In this report, we review the data sets available (including the key variables on occupation and potential confounders) for examining occupational differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 incidence, severity and mortality. We also discuss the possible types of analyses of these data sets and the definitions of (occupational) exposure and outcomes. We conclude that none of these data sets are ideal, and all have various strengths and weaknesses. For example, mortality data suffer from problems of coding of COVID-19 deaths, and the deaths (in England and Wales) that have been referred to the coroner are unavailable. On the other hand, testing data is heavily biased in some periods (particularly the first wave) because some occupations (e.g. healthcare workers) were tested more often than the general population. Random population surveys are, in principle, ideal for estimating population prevalence and incidence, but are also affected by non-response. Thus, any analysis of the risks in a particular occupation or sector (e.g. transport), will require a careful analysis and triangulation of findings across the various available data sets.

4.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(19)2022 Sep 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2043744

ABSTRACT

This review aimed to provide an overview of the literature assessing the extent of COVID-19 transmission in the food processing sector along with the risk factors associated with COVID-19 infection/mortality rates in this setting, and the preventive measures used to reduce transmission. An electronic search was conducted using scientific databases, including Web of Science, OVID, PubMed and MedRxiv. The search strategy identified 26 papers that met the inclusion criteria. Six of these studies were based in the UK and the country with the most papers was the USA, with a total of nine papers. Findings showed some evidence of a high transmission level of SARS-CoV-2 within some areas of the food production sector. Risk factors associated with the spread included ethnicity, poor ventilation, lack of social distancing and lack of sick pay. The preventative measures included/recommended were social distancing, testing, adequate ventilation, cleaning regimes and access to PPE. Additional research focusing on the food production sector could show the potential variations in transmission and risk between each sub-sector. Future research focusing on the application of various preventative measures and their efficacy by sub-sector would be beneficial, while further qualitative research could help provide in-depth information regarding knowledge gaps.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Ventilation
5.
Nat Med ; 28(4): 838-843, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2036843

ABSTRACT

There is considerable interest in the waning of effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and vaccine effectiveness (VE) of booster doses. Using linked national Brazilian databases, we undertook a test-negative design study involving almost 14 million people (~16 million tests) to estimate VE of CoronaVac over time and VE of BNT162b2 booster vaccination against RT-PCR-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes (hospitalization or death). Compared with unvaccinated individuals, CoronaVac VE at 14-30 d after the second dose was 55.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 54.3-55.7) against confirmed infection and 82.1% (95% CI: 81.4-82.8) against severe outcomes. VE decreased to 34.7% (95% CI: 33.1-36.2) against infection and 72.5% (95% CI: 70.9-74.0) against severe outcomes over 180 d after the second dose. A BNT162b2 booster, 6 months after the second dose of CoronaVac, improved VE against infection to 92.7% (95% CI: 91.0-94.0) and VE against severe outcomes to 97.3% (95% CI: 96.1-98.1) 14-30 d after the booster. Compared with younger age groups, individuals 80 years of age or older had lower protection after the second dose but similar protection after the booster. Our findings support a BNT162b2 booster vaccine dose after two doses of CoronaVac, particularly for the elderly.


Subject(s)
BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19 , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Brazil/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccine Efficacy
6.
Occupational and Environmental Medicine ; 2022.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-2020248

ABSTRACT

BackgroundMonitoring differences in COVID-19 vaccination uptake in different groups is crucial to help inform the policy response to the pandemic. A key data gap is the absence of data on uptake by occupation. This study investigates differences in vaccination rates by occupation in England, using nationwide population-level data.MethodsWe calculated the proportion of people who had received three COVID-19 vaccinations (assessed on 28 February 2022) by detailed occupational categories in adults aged 18–64 and estimated adjusted ORs to examine whether these differences were driven by occupation or other factors, such as education. We also examined whether vaccination rates differed by ability to work from home.ResultsOur study population included 15 456 651 adults aged 18–64 years. Vaccination rates differed markedly by occupation, being higher in health professionals (84.7%) and teaching and other educational professionals (83.6%) and lowest in people working in elementary trades and related occupations (57.6%). We found substantial differences in vaccination rates looking at finer occupational groups. Adjusting for other factors likely to be linked to occupation and vaccination, such as education, did not substantially alter the results. Vaccination rates were associated with ability to work from home, the rate being higher in occupations which can be done from home. Many occupations with low vaccination rates also involved contact with the public or with vulnerable peopleConclusionsIncreasing vaccination coverage in occupations with low vaccination rates is crucial to help protecting the public and control infection. Efforts should be made to increase vaccination rates in occupations that cannot be done from home and involve contact with the public.

7.
Nat Commun ; 13(1): 4756, 2022 08 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1991595

ABSTRACT

Although severe COVID-19 in children is rare, they may develop multisystem inflammatory syndrome, long-COVID and downstream effects of COVID-19, including social isolation and disruption of education. Data on the effectiveness of the CoronaVac vaccine is scarce during the Omicron period. In Brazil, children between 6 to 11 years are eligible to receive the CoronaVac vaccine. We conducted a test-negative design to estimate vaccine effectiveness using 197,958 tests from January 21, 2022, to April 15, 2022, during the Omicron dominant period in Brazil among children aged 6 to 11 years. The estimated vaccine effectiveness for symptomatic infection was 39.8% (95% CI 33.7-45.4) at ≥14 days post-second dose. For hospital admission vaccine effectiveness was 59.2% (95% CI 11.3-84.5) at ≥14 days. Two doses of CoronaVac in children during the Omicron period showed low levels of protection against symptomatic infection, and modest levels against severe illness.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Brazil/epidemiology , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Case-Control Studies , Child , Humans , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome , Vaccine Efficacy
8.
PLoS One ; 17(8): e0264667, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1987121

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To assess total antibody levels against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome CoronaVirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) spike protein up to 12 months after Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) infection in non-vaccinated individuals and the possible predictors of antibody persistence. METHODS: This is the first part of a prospective multi-centre cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: The study included SARS-CoV-2 real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) positive and negative participants in South-Eastern Norway from February to December 2020. Possible predictors of SARS-CoV-2 total antibody persistence was assessed. The SARS-CoV-2 total antibody levels against spike protein were measured three to five months after PCR in 391 PCR-positive and 703 PCR-negative participants; 212 PCR-positive participants were included in follow-up measurements at 10 to 12 months. The participants completed a questionnaire including information about symptoms, comorbidities, allergies, body mass index (BMI), and hospitalisation. PRIMARY OUTCOME: The SARS-CoV-2 total antibody levels against spike protein three to five and 10 to 12 months after PCR positive tests. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 total antibodies against spike protein were present in 366 (94%) non-vaccinated PCR-positive participants after three to five months, compared with nine (1%) PCR-negative participants. After 10 to 12 months, antibodies were present in 204 (96%) non-vaccinated PCR-positive participants. Of the PCR-positive participants, 369 (94%) were not hospitalised. The mean age of the PCR-positive participants was 48 years (SD 15, range 20-85) and 50% of them were male. BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 was positively associated with decreased antibody levels (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.42). Participants with higher age and self-reported initial fever with chills or sweating were less likely to have decreased antibody levels (age: OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.99; fever: OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.75). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that the level of SARS-CoV-2 total antibodies against spike protein persists for the vast majority of non-vaccinated PCR-positive persons at least 10 to 12 months after mild COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antibodies, Viral , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Norway , Prospective Studies , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus , Young Adult
9.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 22(6): 791-801, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1984271

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines have proven highly effective among individuals without a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, but their effectiveness in preventing symptomatic infection and severe outcomes among individuals with previous infection is less clear. We aimed to estimate the effectiveness of four COVID-19 vaccines against symptomatic infection, hospitalisation, and death for individuals with laboratory-confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Using national COVID-19 notification, hospitalisation, and vaccination datasets from Brazil, we did a test-negative, case-control study to assess the effectiveness of four vaccines (CoronaVac [Sinovac], ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 [AstraZeneca], Ad26.COV2.S [Janssen], and BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNtech]) for individuals with laboratory-confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. We matched cases with RT-PCR positive, symptomatic COVID-19 with up to ten controls with negative RT-PCR tests who presented with symptomatic illnesses, restricting both groups to tests done at least 90 days after an initial infection. We used multivariable conditional logistic regression to compare the odds of test positivity and the odds of hospitalisation or death due to COVID-19, according to vaccination status and time since first or second dose of vaccines. FINDINGS: Between Feb 24, 2020, and Nov 11, 2021, we identified 213 457 individuals who had a subsequent, symptomatic illness with RT-PCR testing done at least 90 days after their initial SARS-CoV-2 infection and after the vaccination programme started. Among these, 30 910 (14·5%) had a positive RT-PCR test consistent with reinfection, and we matched 22 566 of these cases with 145 055 negative RT-PCR tests from 68 426 individuals as controls. Among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection 14 or more days from vaccine series completion was 39·4% (95% CI 36·1-42·6) for CoronaVac, 56·0% (51·4-60·2) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 44·0% (31·5-54·2) for Ad26.COV2.S, and 64·8% (54·9-72·4) for BNT162b2. For the two-dose vaccine series (CoronaVac, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and BNT162b2), effectiveness against symptomatic infection was significantly greater after the second dose than after the first dose. Effectiveness against hospitalisation or death 14 or more days from vaccine series completion was 81·3% (75·3-85·8) for CoronaVac, 89·9% (83·5-93·8) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 57·7% (-2·6 to 82·5) for Ad26.COV2.S, and 89·7% (54·3-97·7) for BNT162b2. INTERPRETATION: All four vaccines conferred additional protection against symptomatic infections and severe outcomes among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The provision of a full vaccine series to individuals after recovery from COVID-19 might reduce morbidity and mortality. FUNDING: Brazilian National Research Council, Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, JBS, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, and Generalitat de Catalunya.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Ad26COVS1 , BNT162 Vaccine , Brazil/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Case-Control Studies , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 22(11): 1577-1586, 2022 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1977931

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Little is known about vaccine effectiveness over time among adolescents, especially against the SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) variant. This study assessed the associations between time since two-dose vaccination with BNT162b2 and the occurrence of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 among adolescents in Brazil and Scotland. METHODS: We did test-negative, case-control studies in adolescents aged 12-17 years with COVID-19-related symptoms in Brazil and Scotland. We linked records of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and antigen tests to national vaccination and clinical records. We excluded tests from individuals who did not have symptoms, were vaccinated before the start of the national vaccination programme, received vaccines other than BNT162b2 or a SARS-CoV-2 booster dose of any kind, or had an interval between their first and second dose of fewer than 21 days. Additionally, we excluded negative SARS-CoV-2 tests recorded within 14 days of a previous negative test, negative tests recorded within 7 days after a positive test, any test done within 90 days after a positive test, and tests with missing sex and location information. Cases (SARS-CoV-2 test-positive adolescents) and controls (test-negative adolescents) were drawn from a sample of individuals in whom tests were collected within 10 days of symptom onset. We estimated the adjusted odds ratio and vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 for both countries and against severe COVID-19 (hospitalisation or death) for Brazil across fortnightly periods. FINDINGS: We analysed 503 776 tests from 2 948 538 adolescents in Brazil between Sept 2, 2021, and April 19, 2022, and 127 168 tests from 404 673 adolescents in Scotland between Aug 6, 2021, and April 19, 2022. Vaccine effectiveness peaked at 14-27 days after the second dose in both countries during both waves, and was significantly lower against symptomatic infection during the omicron-dominant period in Brazil (64·7% [95% CI 63·0-66·3]) and in Scotland (82·6% [80·6-84·5]), than it was in the delta-dominant period (80·7% [95% CI 77·8-83·3] in Brazil and 92·8% [85·7-96·4] in Scotland). Vaccine efficacy started to decline from 27 days after the second dose for both countries, reducing to 5·9% (95% CI 2·2-9·4) in Brazil and 50·6% (42·7-57·4) in Scotland at 98 days or more during the omicron-dominant period. In Brazil, protection against severe disease remained above 80% from 28 days after the second dose and was 82·7% (95% CI 68·8-90·4) at 98 days or more after receiving the second dose. INTERPRETATION: We found waning vaccine protection of BNT162b2 against symptomatic COVID-19 infection among adolescents in Brazil and Scotland from 27 days after the second dose. However, protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes remained high at 98 days or more after the second dose in the omicron-dominant period. Booster doses for adolescents need to be considered. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Scottish Government, Health Data Research UK BREATHE Hub, Fiocruz, Fazer o Bem Faz Bem programme, Brazilian National Research Council, and Wellcome Trust. TRANSLATION: For the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Adolescent , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Brazil/epidemiology , Case-Control Studies , BNT162 Vaccine , Vaccine Efficacy , SARS-CoV-2
11.
Nat Commun ; 13(1): 4154, 2022 07 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1937434

ABSTRACT

To date, no information has been published on the effectiveness of inactivated whole-virus COVID-19 vaccines plus heterologous booster against symptomatic infection and severe outcomes (hospitalization or death) during the dominance of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant period. We evaluated the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of CoronaVac plus BNT162b2 booster during the period of dominance of the Omicron variant in Brazil (January to April 2022). Using a test-negative design, we analysed data for 2,471,576 individuals tested during the Omicron variant's dominant period using a nationally linked database from Brazil. Compared to unvaccinated, vaccinees maintained protection against severe outcomes, with an estimated VE of 84.1% (95% CI:83.2-84.9) at more than 120 days after BNT162b2 booster. Furthermore, while we detected a high level of protection against severe outcomes for individuals up to 79 years old, waning was observed for individuals aged ≥80 years, with VE decreasing from 81.3% (95% CI:77.9-84.2) at 31-60 days to 72.9% (95% CI:70.6-75.1) at 120 days or more after the booster dose. However, no significant protection against symptomatic infection was observed at this time period. In conclusion, except for individuals aged ≥80 years, CoronaVac plus a BNT162b2 booster dose offered high and durable protection against severe outcomes due to Omicron.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , BNT162 Vaccine , Brazil/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
12.
J Epidemiol Community Health ; 2022 Jul 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1932784

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Concern remains about how occupational SARS-CoV-2 risk has evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to ascertain occupations with the greatest risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and explore how relative differences varied over the pandemic. METHODS: Analysis of cohort data from the UK Office of National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey from April 2020 to November 2021. This survey is designed to be representative of the UK population and uses regular PCR testing. Cox and multilevel logistic regression were used to compare SARS-CoV-2 infection between occupational/sector groups, overall and by four time periods with interactions, adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, region, household size, urban/rural neighbourhood and current health conditions. RESULTS: Based on 3 910 311 observations (visits) from 312 304 working age adults, elevated risks of infection can be seen overall for social care (HR 1.14; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.24), education (HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.39), bus and coach drivers (1.43; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.97) and police and protective services (HR 1.45; 95% CI 1.29 to 1.62) when compared with non-essential workers. By time period, relative differences were more pronounced early in the pandemic. For healthcare elevated odds in the early waves switched to a reduction in the later stages. Education saw raises after the initial lockdown and this has persisted. Adjustment for covariates made very little difference to effect estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated risks among healthcare workers have diminished over time but education workers have had persistently higher risks. Long-term mitigation measures in certain workplaces may be warranted.

13.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(11)2022 05 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1911308

ABSTRACT

Workplace-related outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continue to occur globally. The manufacturing sector presents a particular concern for outbreaks, and a better understanding of transmission risks are needed. Between 9 March and 24 April 2021, the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) Outbreak Investigation to Understand Transmission (COVID-OUT) study undertook a comprehensive investigation of a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak at an automotive manufacturing site in England. The site had a total of 266 workers, and 51 SARS-CoV-2 infections. Overall, ventilation, humidity, and temperature at the site were assessed to be appropriate for the number of workers and the work being conducted. The company had implemented a number of infection control procedures, including provision of face coverings, spacing in the work, and welfare areas to allow for social distancing. However, observations of worker practices identified lapses in social distancing, although all were wearing face coverings. A total of 38 workers, including four confirmed cases, participated in the COVID-OUT study. The majority of participants received COVID-19 prevention training, though 42.9% also reported that their work required close physical contact with co-workers. Additionally, 73.7% and 34.2% had concerns regarding reductions in future income and future unemployment, respectively, due to self-isolation. This investigation adds to the growing body of evidence of SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks from the manufacturing sector. Despite a layered COVID-19 control strategy at this site, cases clustered in areas of high occupancy and close worker proximity.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Workplace
14.
Scand J Work Environ Health ; 48(8): 611-620, 2022 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1911974

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand whether the proportionate mortality of COVID-19 for various occupational groups has varied over the pandemic. METHODS: We used the Office for National Statistics (ONS) mortality data for England and Wales. The deaths (20-64 years) were classified as either COVID-19-related using ICD-10 codes (U07.1, U07.2), or from other causes. Occupational data recorded at the time of death was coded using the SOC10 coding system into 13 groups. Three time periods (TP) were used: (i) January 2020 to September 2020; (ii) October 2020-May 2021; and (iii) June 2021-October 2021. We analyzed the data with logistic regression and compared odds of death by COVID-19 to other causes, adjusting for age, sex, deprivation, region, urban/rural and population density. RESULTS: Healthcare professionals and associates had a higher proportionate odds of COVID-19 death in TP1 compared to non-essential workers but were not observed to have increased odds thereafter. Medical support staff had increased odds of death from COVID-19 during both TP1 and TP2, but this had reduced by TP3. This latter pattern was also seen for social care, food retail and distribution, and bus and coach drivers. Taxi and cab drivers were the only group that had higher odds of death from COVID-19 compared to other causes throughout the whole period under study [TP1: odds ratio (OR) 2.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.99-2.93; TP2: OR 3.15, 95% CI 2.63-3.78; TP3: OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.26-2.29]. CONCLUSION: Differences in the odds of death from COVID-19 between occupational groups has declined over the course of the pandemic, although some occupations have remained relatively high throughout.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Wales/epidemiology , Pandemics , Logistic Models , Occupations
16.
Ann Work Expo Health ; 2022 Jun 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1890869

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Food processing facilities represent critical infrastructure that have stayed open during much of the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the burden of COVID-19 in this sector is thus important to help reduce the potential for workplace infection in future outbreaks. METHODS: We undertook a workplace survey in the UK food and drink processing sector and collected information on workplace size, characteristics (e.g. temperature, ventilation), and experience with COVID-19 (e.g. numbers of positive cases). For each site, we calculated COVID-19 case rates per month per 1000 workers. We performed an ecological analysis using negative binomial regression to assess the association between COVID-19 rates and workplace and local risk factors. RESULTS: Respondents from 33 companies including 66 individual sites completed the survey. COVID-19 cases were reported from the start of the pandemic up to June 2021. Respondents represented a range of industry subgroups, including grain milling/storage (n = 16), manufacture of malt (n = 14), manufacture of prepared meals (n = 12), manufacture of beverages (n = 8), distilling (n = 5), manufacture of baked goods (n = 5), and other (n = 6), with a total of 15 563 workers across all sites. Average monthly case rates per 1000 workers ranged from 0.9 in distilling to 6.1 in grain milling/storage. Incidence rate ratios were partially attenuated after adjusting for several local and workplace factors, though risks for one subgroup (grain milling/storage) remained elevated. Certain local and workplace characteristics were related to higher infection rates, such as higher deprivation (5 km only), a lower proportion of remote workers, lower proportion of workers in close proximity, and higher numbers of workers overall. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests some heterogeneity in the rates of COVID-19 across sectors of the UK food and drink processing industry. Infection rates were associated with deprivation, the proportions of remote workers and workers in close proximity, and the number of workers.

17.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ; 19(11):6400, 2022.
Article in English | MDPI | ID: covidwho-1857646

ABSTRACT

Workplace-related outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continue to occur globally. The manufacturing sector presents a particular concern for outbreaks, and a better understanding of transmission risks are needed. Between 9 March and 24 April 2021, the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) Outbreak Investigation to Understand Transmission (COVID-OUT) study undertook a comprehensive investigation of a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak at an automotive manufacturing site in England. The site had a total of 266 workers, and 51 SARS-CoV-2 infections. Overall, ventilation, humidity, and temperature at the site were assessed to be appropriate for the number of workers and the work being conducted. The company had implemented a number of infection control procedures, including provision of face coverings, spacing in the work, and welfare areas to allow for social distancing. However, observations of worker practices identified lapses in social distancing, although all were wearing face coverings. A total of 38 workers, including four confirmed cases, participated in the COVID-OUT study. The majority of participants received COVID-19 prevention training, though 42.9% also reported that their work required close physical contact with co-workers. Additionally, 73.7% and 34.2% had concerns regarding reductions in future income and future unemployment, respectively, due to self-isolation. This investigation adds to the growing body of evidence of SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks from the manufacturing sector. Despite a layered COVID-19 control strategy at this site, cases clustered in areas of high occupancy and close worker proximity.

18.
J Epidemiol Community Health ; 76(7): 660-666, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1807486

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Exposure to SARS-CoV-2, subsequent development of COVID-19 and death from COVID-19 may vary by occupation, and the risks may be higher for those categorised as 'essential workers'. METHODS: We estimated excess mortality by occupational group and sex separately for each month in 2020 and for the entire 12 months overall. RESULTS: Mortality for all adults of working age was similar to the annual average over the previous 5 years. Monthly excess mortality peaked in April, when the number of deaths was 54.2% higher than expected and was lowest in December when deaths were 30.0% lower than expected.Essential workers had consistently higher excess mortality than other groups throughout 2020. There were also large differences in excess mortality between the categories of essential workers, with healthcare workers having the highest excess mortality and social care and education workers having the lowest. Excess mortality also varied widely between men and women, even within the same occupational group. Generally, excess mortality was higher in men. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, excess mortality was consistently higher for essential workers throughout 2020, particularly for healthcare workers. Further research is needed to examine excess mortality by occupational group, while controlling for important confounders such as ethnicity and socioeconomic status. For non-essential workers, the lockdowns, encouragement to work from home and to maintain social distancing are likely to have prevented a number of deaths from COVID-19 and from other causes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Child, Preschool , Communicable Disease Control , England/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Mortality , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Wales/epidemiology
19.
BMC Med ; 20(1): 146, 2022 04 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1775323

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: More doses of CoronaVac have been administered worldwide than any other COVID-19 vaccine. However, the effectiveness of COVID-19 inactivated vaccines in pregnant women is still unknown. We estimated the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of CoronaVac against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 in pregnant women in Brazil. METHODS: We conducted a test-negative design study in all pregnant women aged 18-49 years with COVID-19-related symptoms in Brazil from March 15, 2021, to October 03, 2021, linking records of negative and positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests to national vaccination records. We also linked records of test-positive cases with notifications of severe, hospitalised or fatal COVID-19. Using logistic regression, we estimated the adjusted odds ratio and VE against symptomatic COVID-19 and against severe COVID-19 by comparing vaccine status in test-negative subjects to test-positive symptomatic cases and severe cases. RESULTS: Of the 19,838 tested pregnant women, 7424 (37.4%) tested positive for COVID-19 and 588 (7.9%) had severe disease. Only 83% of pregnant women who received the first dose of CoronaVac completed the vaccination scheme. A single dose of the CoronaVac vaccine was not effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19. The effectiveness of two doses of CoronaVac was 41% (95% CI 27.1-52.2) against symptomatic COVID-19 and 85% (95% CI 59.5-94.8) against severe COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: A complete regimen of CoronaVac in pregnant women was effective in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 and highly effective against severe illness in a setting that combined high disease burden and marked COVID-19-related maternal deaths.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human , Adolescent , Adult , Brazil/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Case-Control Studies , Female , Humans , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Middle Aged , Pregnancy , Pregnant Women , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
20.
Occup Environ Med ; 79(7): 433-441, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1596312

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To estimate occupational differences in COVID-19 mortality and test whether these are confounded by factors such as regional differences, ethnicity and education or due to non-workplace factors, such as deprivation or prepandemic health. METHODS: Using a cohort study of over 14 million people aged 40-64 years living in England, we analysed occupational differences in death involving COVID-19, assessed between 24 January 2020 and 28 December 2020.We estimated age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs) per 100 000 person-years at risk stratified by sex and occupation. We estimated the effect of occupation on COVID-19 mortality using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for confounding factors. We further adjusted for non-workplace factors and interpreted the residual effects of occupation as being due to workplace exposures to SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: In men, the ASMRs were highest among those working as taxi and cab drivers or chauffeurs at 119.7 deaths per 100 000 (95% CI 98.0 to 141.4), followed by other elementary occupations at 106.5 (84.5 to 132.4) and care workers and home carers at 99.2 (74.5 to 129.4). Adjusting for confounding factors strongly attenuated the HRs for many occupations, but many remained at elevated risk. Adjusting for living conditions reduced further the HRs, and many occupations were no longer at excess risk. For most occupations, confounding factors and mediators other than workplace exposure to SARS-CoV-2 explained 70%-80% of the excess age-adjusted occupational differences. CONCLUSIONS: Working conditions play a role in COVID-19 mortality, particularly in occupations involving contact with patients or the public. However, there is also a substantial contribution from non-workplace factors.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Cohort Studies , Humans , Male , Occupations , SARS-CoV-2 , Semantic Web
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL