Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(20): 759-764, 2021 May 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1237006

ABSTRACT

Approximately 60 million persons in the United States live in rural counties, representing almost one fifth (19.3%) of the population.* In September 2020, COVID-19 incidence (cases per 100,000 population) in rural counties surpassed that in urban counties (1). Rural communities often have a higher proportion of residents who lack health insurance, live with comorbidities or disabilities, are aged ≥65 years, and have limited access to health care facilities with intensive care capabilities, which places these residents at increased risk for COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality (2,3). To better understand COVID-19 vaccination disparities across the urban-rural continuum, CDC analyzed county-level vaccine administration data among adults aged ≥18 years who received their first dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, or a single dose of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine (Johnson & Johnson) during December 14, 2020-April 10, 2021 in 50 U.S. jurisdictions (49 states and the District of Columbia [DC]). Adult COVID-19 vaccination coverage was lower in rural counties (38.9%) than in urban counties (45.7%) overall and among adults aged 18-64 years (29.1% rural, 37.7% urban), those aged ≥65 years (67.6% rural, 76.1% urban), women (41.7% rural, 48.4% urban), and men (35.3% rural, 41.9% urban). Vaccination coverage varied among jurisdictions: 36 jurisdictions had higher coverage in urban counties, five had higher coverage in rural counties, and five had similar coverage (i.e., within 1%) in urban and rural counties; in four jurisdictions with no rural counties, the urban-rural comparison could not be assessed. A larger proportion of persons in the most rural counties (14.6%) traveled for vaccination to nonadjacent counties (i.e., farther from their county of residence) compared with persons in the most urban counties (10.3%). As availability of COVID-19 vaccines expands, public health practitioners should continue collaborating with health care providers, pharmacies, employers, faith leaders, and other community partners to identify and address barriers to COVID-19 vaccination in rural areas (2).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Healthcare Disparities/statistics & numerical data , Rural Population/statistics & numerical data , Urban Population/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination Coverage/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
2.
Am J Public Health ; 111(6): 1164-1167, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1186642

ABSTRACT

Objectives. To examine SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) epidemiology and risk factors among Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) staff in the United States.Methods. We calculated the SARS-CoV-2 case rate among 37 640 BOP staff from March 12 to June 17, 2020, using payroll and COVID-19-specific data. We compared occupational factors among staff with and without known SARS-CoV-2 using multiple logistic regression, controlling for demographic characteristics. We calculated relative risk among staff in stand-alone institutions versus complexes (> 1 institution).Results. SARS-CoV-2 was reported by 665 staff across 59.8% of institutions, a case rate of 1766.6 per 100 000. Working in dorm-style housing and in detention centers were strong risk factors, whereas cell-based housing was protective; these effects were erased in complexes. Occupational category was not associated with SARS-CoV-2.Conclusions. SARS-CoV-2 infection was more likely among staff working in institutions where physical distancing and limiting exposure to a consistent set of staff and inmates are challenging.Public Health Implications. Mitigation strategies-including augmented staff testing, entry and exit testing among inmates, limiting staff interactions across complexes, and increasing physical distancing by reducing occupancy in dorm-style housing-may prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections among correctional staff.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Infection Control/organization & administration , Occupational Health/standards , Prisons , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adult , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Middle Aged , Risk Factors , Social Isolation , United States/epidemiology
3.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(12): 431-436, 2021 Mar 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1151032

ABSTRACT

The U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program began in December 2020, and ensuring equitable COVID-19 vaccine access remains a national priority.* COVID-19 has disproportionately affected racial/ethnic minority groups and those who are economically and socially disadvantaged (1,2). Thus, achieving not just vaccine equality (i.e., similar allocation of vaccine supply proportional to its population across jurisdictions) but equity (i.e., preferential access and administra-tion to those who have been most affected by COVID-19 disease) is an important goal. The CDC social vulnerability index (SVI) uses 15 indicators grouped into four themes that comprise an overall SVI measure, resulting in 20 metrics, each of which has national and state-specific county rankings. The 20 metric-specific rankings were each divided into lowest to highest tertiles to categorize counties as low, moderate, or high social vulnerability counties. These tertiles were combined with vaccine administration data for 49,264,338 U.S. residents in 49 states and the District of Columbia (DC) who received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose during December 14, 2020-March 1, 2021. Nationally, for the overall SVI measure, vaccination coverage was higher (15.8%) in low social vulnerability counties than in high social vulnerability counties (13.9%), with the largest coverage disparity in the socioeconomic status theme (2.5 percentage points higher coverage in low than in high vulnerability counties). Wide state variations in equity across SVI metrics were found. Whereas in the majority of states, vaccination coverage was higher in low vulnerability counties, some states had equitable coverage at the county level. CDC, state, and local jurisdictions should continue to monitor vaccination coverage by SVI metrics to focus public health interventions to achieve equitable coverage with COVID-19 vaccine.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Healthcare Disparities/statistics & numerical data , Residence Characteristics/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination Coverage/statistics & numerical data , Vulnerable Populations , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Immunization Programs , Program Evaluation , Socioeconomic Factors , United States/epidemiology
4.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(11): 389-395, 2021 Mar 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1140829

ABSTRACT

In December 2020, two COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) received Emergency Use Authorization from the Food and Drug Administration.*,† Both vaccines require 2 doses for a completed series. The recommended interval between doses is 21 days for Pfizer-BioNTech and 28 days for Moderna; however, up to 42 days between doses is permissible when a delay is unavoidable.§ Two analyses of COVID-19 vaccine administration data were conducted among persons who initiated the vaccination series during December 14, 2020-February 14, 2021, and whose doses were reported to CDC through February 20, 2021. The first analysis was conducted to determine whether persons who received a first dose and had sufficient time to receive the second dose (i.e., as of February 14, 2021, >25 days from receipt of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine or >32 days from receipt of Moderna vaccine had elapsed) had received the second dose. A second analysis was conducted among persons who received a second COVID-19 dose by February 14, 2021, to determine whether the dose was received during the recommended dosing interval, which in this study was defined as 17-25 days (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 24-32 days (Moderna) after the first dose. Analyses were stratified by jurisdiction and by demographic characteristics. In the first analysis, among 12,496,258 persons who received the first vaccine dose and for whom sufficient time had elapsed to receive the second dose, 88.0% had completed the series, 8.6% had not received the second dose but remained within the allowable interval (≤42 days since the first dose), and 3.4% had missed the second dose (outside the allowable interval, >42 days since the first dose). The percentage of persons who missed the second dose varied by jurisdiction (range = 0.0%-9.1%) and among demographic groups was highest among non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) persons (5.1%) and persons aged 16-44 years (4.0%). In the second analysis, among 14,205,768 persons who received a second dose, 95.6% received the dose within the recommended interval, although percentages varied by jurisdiction (range = 79.0%-99.9%). Public health officials should identify and address possible barriers to completing the COVID-19 vaccination series to ensure equitable coverage across communities and maximum health benefits for recipients. Strategies to ensure series completion could include scheduling second-dose appointments at the first-dose administration and sending reminders for second-dose visits.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunization Schedule , Vaccination Coverage/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Health Services Accessibility , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Time Factors , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
5.
Am J Prev Med ; 61(1): 120-123, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1101079

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: People living in correctional facilities are at high risk for contracting COVID-19. To characterize the burden of COVID-19 in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, inmate testing, case, and mortality rates are calculated and compared with those of the U.S. METHODS: Federal Bureau of Prisons data were derived from its inmate management system and a Federal Bureau of Prisons COVID-19-specific database. U.S. data were derived from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Census. Data were aggregated from February to September 2020 and accessed in September and November 2020. Testing rates were calculated for both the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Case and infection fatality rates were calculated overall and by institution and compared with those of the U.S. An age- and sex-standardized mortality ratio was calculated. RESULTS: The Federal Bureau of Prisons tested more than half of its inmates (50.3%); its crude case and mortality rates were 11,710.1 and 77.4 per 100,000, respectively. Compared with the U.S., the case ratio was 4.7, and the standardized mortality ratio was 2.6. The infection fatality rate for both the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. was 0.7%. Among institutions that tested ≥85% of inmates, the combined infection fatality rate was 0.8% and ranged from 0.0% to 3.0%. CONCLUSIONS: The Federal Bureau of Prisons COVID-19 case rates and standard mortality ratio were approximately 5 and 2.5 times those in U.S. adults, respectively, consistent with those of prisons nationwide. High testing rates and standardized death reporting could result in a more accurate infection fatality rate in the Federal Bureau of Prisons than in the U.S. Testing and other mitigation strategies, including reducing the population, have likely prevented further transmission and mortality in the Federal Bureau of Prisons.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Prisons , Adult , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology
6.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(5): 174-177, 2021 Feb 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1063530

ABSTRACT

In December 2020, two COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) were authorized for emergency use in the United States for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).* Because of limited initial vaccine supply, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) prioritized vaccination of health care personnel† and residents and staff members of long-term care facilities (LTCF) during the first phase of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program (1). Both vaccines require 2 doses to complete the series. Data on vaccines administered during December 14, 2020-January 14, 2021, and reported to CDC by January 26, 2021, were analyzed to describe demographic characteristics, including sex, age, and race/ethnicity, of persons who received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine (i.e., initiated vaccination). During this period, 12,928,749 persons in the United States in 64 jurisdictions and five federal entities§ initiated COVID-19 vaccination. Data on sex were reported for 97.0%, age for 99.9%, and race/ethnicity for 51.9% of vaccine recipients. Among persons who received the first vaccine dose and had reported demographic data, 63.0% were women, 55.0% were aged ≥50 years, and 60.4% were non-Hispanic White (White). More complete reporting of race and ethnicity data at the provider and jurisdictional levels is critical to ensure rapid detection of and response to potential disparities in COVID-19 vaccination. As the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program expands, public health officials should ensure that vaccine is administered efficiently and equitably within each successive vaccination priority category, especially among those at highest risk for infection and severe adverse health outcomes, many of whom are non-Hispanic Black (Black), non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN), and Hispanic persons (2,3).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunization Programs , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Program Evaluation , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
7.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(33): 1139-1143, 2020 Aug 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-724591

ABSTRACT

Preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in correctional and detention facilities* can be challenging because of population-dense housing, varied access to hygiene facilities and supplies, and limited space for isolation and quarantine (1). Incarcerated and detained populations have a high prevalence of chronic diseases, increasing their risk for severe COVID-19-associated illness and making early detection critical (2,3). Correctional and detention facilities are not closed systems; SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, can be transmitted to and from the surrounding community through staff member and visitor movements as well as entry, transfer, and release of incarcerated and detained persons (1). To better understand SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in these settings, CDC requested data from 15 jurisdictions describing results of mass testing events among incarcerated and detained persons and cases identified through earlier symptom-based testing. Six jurisdictions reported SARS-CoV-2 prevalence of 0%-86.8% (median = 29.3%) from mass testing events in 16 adult facilities. Before mass testing, 15 of the 16 facilities had identified at least one COVID-19 case among incarcerated or detained persons using symptom-based testing, and mass testing increased the total number of known cases from 642 to 8,239. Case surveillance from symptom-based testing has likely underestimated SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in correctional and detention facilities. Broad-based testing can provide a more accurate assessment of prevalence and generate data to help control transmission (4).


Subject(s)
Clinical Laboratory Techniques/statistics & numerical data , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Mass Screening , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Prisons , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Housing/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Prevalence , United States/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL