Marginalization, Vulnerability and Economic Dynamics in COVID-19

Abstract COVID-19, caused by the coronavirus family SARS-CoV-2 and declared a pandemic in March 2020, continues to spread. Its enormous and unprecedented impact on our society has evidenced the huge social inequity of our modern society, in which the most vulnerable individuals have been pushed into even worse socioeconomic situations, struggling to survive. As the pandemic continues, we witness the huge suffering of the most marginalized populations around the globe, even in developed, high-income latitudes, such as North America and Europe. That is even worse in low-income regions, such as Brazil, where the public healthcare infrastructure had already been struggling before the pandemic. Cities with even more evident social inequity have been impacted the most, leaving the most socioeconomically disadvantaged ones, such as slum residents and black people, continuously inflating the statistics of COVID-19 sufferers. Poverty, marginalization, and inequity have been well-known risk factors for morbidity and mortality from other diseases. However, COVID-19 has deepened our society's wound. It is up to us to heal it up. If we really care for the others and want to survive as a species, we must fight social inequity.

Main social vulnerability indicators in the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran.

Background: Social factors play the main role in the vulnerability of exposed countries to disasters. The COVID-19 pandemic as a disaster is not an exception to this fact. This study aimed to determine the main social vulnerability indicators in the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran. Methods: This study was conducted during the period of 2021-2022 in three phases, including a systematic review, a virtual panel expert, and the Analytical Hierarchy Process. First, the draft of social vulnerability indicators in COVID-19 was extracted through a systematic review. Then, the extracted indicators were finalized and prioritized by the expert panel and the AHP, respectively. Results: Initially, the literature review found five domains and 38 indicators of social vulnerability in COVID-19. The outcome of the expert panel increased the related domains to six but decreased the indicators to 31. The three prioritized social vulnerability indicators that were determined by the AHP were population density, accessibility to healthcare facilities, and relevant services and vulnerable groups. Conclusion: Measuring social vulnerability with the identified indicators is valuable for addressing high COVID-19 incidence among socially vulnerable hotspot areas. Regarding the result of this study, further research should be conducted to validate the identified indicators.

Social Vulnerability and Location of Death in Heart Failure in the United States.

Majority of patients with heart failure (HF) die in either nursing homes or inpatient facilities. Social vulnerability captures multiple domains of socioeconomic position and has been linked with higher HF mortality. We sought to investigate the trends in location of death in patients with HF and its association with social vulnerability. We utilized the multiple cause of death files from the United States (1999-2021) to identify decedents with HF as the underlying cause of death and linked them with county-level social vulnerability index (SVI) available from CDC/ATSDR database. Approximately 1.7 million HF deaths were examined across 3003 United States counties. Most patients (63%) died in a nursing home or inpatient facility, followed by home (28%), and only 4% died in hospice. Death at home had a positive correlation with higher SVI with Pearson's r = 0.26 (P < 0.001) as well as deaths in an inpatient facility r = 0.33 (P < 0.001). Death in a nursing home correlated negatively with SVI with r = -0.46 (P < 0.001). There was no association between hospice utilization and SVI. Locations of death were varied by geographic residence. More patients died at home during the COVID-19 pandemic (OR 1.39, P < 0.001). Social vulnerability was associated with location of death in patients with HF in the US. These associations varied by geographic location. Future studies should focus on social determinants of health and end-of-life care in HF.

Place Still Matters: Social Vulnerabilities, Place-Level Disadvantage, and Food Insecurity during COVID-19.

COVID-19 variants continue to create public health danger impacting mortality and morbidity across the United States. The spillover effects of COVID-19 on the economy and social institutions pose a significant threat to broader wellbeing, including the food security of millions across the country. We aim to explore whether the context of place matters above and beyond individual and social vulnerabilities for food insecurity. To do so, we employ a multi-level framework using data from a survey of over 10,000 U.S. adults from March 2020 with American Community Survey (ACS) and John Hopkins COVID Dashboard county-level data. We find nearly two in five respondents were food insecure by March of 2020 with disparities across race, nativity, the presence of children in the home, unemployment, and age. Furthermore, we note that individuals living in more disadvantaged communities were more likely to report food insecurity above and beyond individual and social vulnerabilities. Overall, food insecurity is driven by complex, multi-level dynamics that remain a pressing public health concern for the current-but also future-public health crisis.

Measuring Historic and Longitudinal Social Vulnerability in Disaster-Prone Communities: A Modification to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index (CDC-SVI).

OBJECTIVE: Researchers have developed numerous indices to identify vulnerable sub-populations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) is the most common and highly serviceable, but it has some temporal limitations considering that some variables used in calculating the CDC-SVI were not available before 1980. Changes in societal composition over time can impact social vulnerability. This study defines an alternate, but similar, index that could serve as a surrogate for the CDC-SVI without the temporal limitations. METHODS: An inventory analysis of the historical census data (1960-2018) was used to develop a Modified SVI that allows for historic analyses. To consider the chronic effect of social vulnerabilities, a longitudinal SVI was introduced to elucidate how a community's multidimensional experiences exacerbate vulnerability to disaster events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. We use Harris County, Texas, in this case study to examine how the Modified SVI performs against the original CDC-SVI. RESULTS: This Modified SVI was used to generate historical maps, find temporal patterns, and inform a longitudinal SVI measure. The results showed a good agreement among the developed indices and the CDC-SVI. We also observed satisfactory performance in identifying the areas that are most vulnerable to the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The Modified SVI overcomes temporal limitations associated with the CDC-SVI, and the longitudinal SVI captures a community's multidimensional experiences that exacerbate a community's vulnerability to disaster events over time.

Minority Health Social Vulnerability Index and COVID-19 vaccination coverage - The United States, December 14, 2020-January 31, 2022.

INTRODUCTION: In 2021, HHS Office of Minority Health and CDC developed a composite measure of social vulnerability called the Minority Health Social Vulnerability Index (MHSVI) to assess the needs of communities most vulnerable to COVID-19. The MHSVI extends the CDC Social Vulnerability Index with two new themes on healthcare access and medical vulnerability. This analysis examines COVID-19 vaccination coverage by social vulnerability using the MHSVI. METHODS: County-level COVID-19 vaccine administration data among persons aged ≥18 years reported to CDC from 12/14/20 to 01/31/22 were analyzed. U.S. counties from 50 states and DC were categorized into tertiles of vulnerability (low, moderate, and high) for the composite MHSVI measure and each of the 34 indicators. Vaccination coverage (≥1 dose, primary series completion, and receipt of a booster dose) was calculated by tertiles for the composite MHSVI measure and each indicator. RESULTS: Counties with lower per capita income, higher proportion of individuals with no high school diploma, living below poverty, ≥65 years of age, with a disability, and in mobile homes had lower vaccination uptake. However, counties with larger proportions of racial/ethnic minorities and individuals speaking English less than "very well" had higher coverage. Counties with fewer primary care physicians and greater medical vulnerabilities had lower ≥ 1 dose vaccination coverage. Furthermore, counties of high vulnerability had lower primary series completion and receipt of a booster dose. There were no clear patterns in COVID-19 vaccination coverage by tertiles for the composite measure. CONCLUSION: Results from the new components in the MHSVI identify needs to prioritize persons in counties with greater medical vulnerabilities and limited access to health care, who are at greater risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes. Findings suggest that using a composite measure to characterize social vulnerability might mask disparities in COVID-19 vaccination uptake that would have otherwise been observed using specific indicators.

Vulnerabilities highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic from a bioethics perspective / Vulnerabilidades evidenciadas pela pandemia de covid-19 na perspectiva da bioética / Aumento de las vulnerabilidades en la pandemia del covid-19 desde la perspectiva de la bioética

Resumo Por meio de revisão integrativa da literatura, este artigo teve o objetivo de identificar vulnerabilidades da população brasileira evidenciadas durante a pandemia da covid-19. Realizou-se busca nas bases de dados SciELO, LILACS e PubMed no período de fevereiro a março de 2021, sendo selecionados sete artigos, que foram organizados conforme as informações a seguir: título, autor, abordagem dos estudos, objetivos e principais resultados. Foram encontradas as seguintes vulnerabilidades: negação de direitos, falta de poder socioeconômico e violência contra crianças e idosos. Estas foram sistematizadas nas categorias "vulnerabilidade por falta de poder" e "vulnerabilidade por momentos do desenvolvimento humano". Constatou-se que essas fragilidades são historicamente marcadas na população brasileira e têm sido acentuadas neste período de pandemia, o que ressalta a necessidade de intervenção ativa na perspectiva da bioética.

Abstract This integrative literature review sought to identify the vulnerabilities faced by the Brazil population and which were highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Bibliographic search conducted on the SciELO, LILACS and PubMed databases from February to March 2021 identified seven articles, which were organized by title, author(s), methodology, objectives, and main findings. The analysis found the following vulnerabilities: denial of rights, lack of socioeconomic power, and violence against children and the aged. These were systemized into the categories "vulnerability by lack of power" and "vulnerability by human development cycle." Such vulnerabilities are historically marked in Brazil and have increased during the pandemic, thus highlighting the need for a bioethics-based active intervention.

Resumen Desde una revisión integradora de la literatura, este artículo tuvo como objetivo identificar el aumento de las vulnerabilidades de la población brasileña durante la pandemia del covid-19. Se realizó una búsqueda en las bases de datos SciELO, LILACS y PubMed, entre febrero y marzo de 2021, que dio como resultado siete artículos, que fueron organizados por: título, autor, enfoque del estudio, objetivos y principales resultados. Se encontraron las siguientes vulnerabilidades: Negación de derechos, falta de poder socioeconómico y violencia contra niños y adultos mayores. Estos datos se sistematizaron en las categorías de "vulnerabilidad por falta de poder" y "vulnerabilidad por momentos del desarrollo humano". Se constató que estas debilidades ya estaban históricamente marcadas en la población brasileña y se acentuaron aún más en este período de la pandemia, lo que muestra la necesidad de una intervención activa desde la perspectiva de la bioética.

Relationships Between Social Vulnerability and Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination Coverage and Vaccine Effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination coverage remains lower in communities with higher social vulnerability. Factors such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exposure risk and access to healthcare are often correlated with social vulnerability and may therefore contribute to a relationship between vulnerability and observed vaccine effectiveness (VE). Understanding whether these factors impact VE could contribute to our understanding of real-world VE. METHODS: We used electronic health record data from 7 health systems to assess vaccination coverage among patients with medically attended COVID-19-like illness. We then used a test-negative design to assess VE for 2- and 3-dose messenger RNA (mRNA) adult (≥18 years) vaccine recipients across Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) quartiles. SVI rankings were determined by geocoding patient addresses to census tracts; rankings were grouped into quartiles for analysis. RESULTS: In July 2021, primary series vaccination coverage was higher in the least vulnerable quartile than in the most vulnerable quartile (56% vs 36%, respectively). In February 2022, booster dose coverage among persons who had completed a primary series was higher in the least vulnerable quartile than in the most vulnerable quartile (43% vs 30%). VE among 2-dose and 3-dose recipients during the Delta and Omicron BA.1 periods of predominance was similar across SVI quartiles. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccination coverage varied substantially by SVI. Differences in VE estimates by SVI were minimal across groups after adjusting for baseline patient factors. However, lower vaccination coverage among more socially vulnerable groups means that the burden of illness is still disproportionately borne by the most socially vulnerable populations.

The Fear of COVID-19 Mediates the Relationships between Psychological Vulnerability, Social Support and Psychological Distress.

BACKGROUND: Along with its physical effects, COVID-19 pandemic has brought along a rise in mental health issues in the general population. This study aims to examine the predictive effects of psychological vulnerability and social support on the psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the mediating role of the fear of COVID-19 in these relationships. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This is a correlational study. The sample includes 783 (F=515, M=268) Turkish adults aged between 18 and 67 years (x̄=28.76; SD= ±12.21). RESULTS: Psychological vulnerability positively predicted both fear of COVID-19 and psychological distress. Social support positively predicted fear of COVID-19 but negatively predicted psychological distress. Moreover, fear of COVID-19 played a complementary mediating role in the relation between psychological vulnerability and psychological distress, and a competitive mediating role in the relation between social support and psychological distress. CONCLUSION: These results provide important evidence about psychosocial risk factors and their interactions with fear of COVID-19 in predicting mental health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.

[Social vulnerability, survival, and hospital lethality by COVID-19 in patients aged 50 years and over: retrospective cohort of cases in Brazil in 2020 and 2021]. / Vulnerabilidade social, sobrevida e letalidade hospitalar pela COVID-19 em pacientes com 50 anos ou mais: coorte retrospectiva de casos no Brasil em 2020 e 2021.

The outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection is not only associated with age and comorbidities but is also aggravated by social vulnerability. This study aims to analyze - according to social vulnerability - survival and hospital lethality by COVID-19 in the first 100 days from symptoms to death in individuals aged 50 years or older hospitalized in Brazil. This is a retrospective cohort from Epidemiological Week 11 of 2020 to week 33 of 2021. The Influenza Epidemiological Surveillance Information System (SIVEP-Gripe) provided clinical and epidemiological data. The Geographic Index of the Socioeconomic Context for Health and Social Studies (GeoSES) measured social vulnerability. The Kaplan-Meier curve and the adjusted proportional risk model by Cox were used for survival, with hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Among the 410,504 cases, overall lethality was of 42.2% in general and 51.4% in the most vulnerable. We found a higher lethality according to worse socioeconomic status in all categories by age group; the double is registered for 50-59 years. The adjusted Cox model showed a 32% increase in risk of death (HR = 1.32; 95%CI: 1.24-1.42). Moreover, men, older adults, black or indigenous adults, with multiple comorbidities, and subjected to invasive ventilation, have a higher risk of death after hospitalization. Intersectoral policy measures need to be targeted to alleviate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic aggravated by social vulnerability.

O desfecho da infecção pelo SARS-CoV-2 não se associa apenas à idade e a comorbidades, mas também agrava-se por vulnerabilidade social. Este estudo tem como objetivo analisar, segundo vulnerabilidade social, a sobrevida e a letalidade hospitalar por COVID-19 para os primeiros 100 dias entre sintomas até o óbito em indivíduos de 50 anos ou mais hospitalizados no Brasil. Trata-se de uma coorte retrospectiva das Semanas Epidemiológicas 11, de 2020, a 33, de 2021. O Sistema de Informação de Vigilância Epidemiológica da Gripe (SIVEP-Gripe) forneceu dados clínico-epidemiológicos. O Índice Socioeconômico do Contexto Geográfico para Estudos em Saúde (GeoSES) mensurou vulnerabilidade social. Para sobrevida, utilizou-se a curva de Kaplan-Meier e o modelo ajustado de riscos proporcionais de Cox, com hazard ratio (HR) e intervalos de 95% de confiança (IC95%). Dentre os 410.504 casos, a letalidade geral foi de 42,2%, sendo 51,4% os indivíduos mais vulneráveis. Por faixa etária, registra-se a presença de maior letalidade para os piores status socioeconômicos em todas as categorias; para 50-59 anos, registra-se o dobro. O modelo ajustado de Cox mostrou aumento de 32% de risco para óbito (HR = 1,32; IC95%: 1,24-1,42). Ademais, homens, idosos, pretos ou indígenas, com múltiplas comorbidades e submetidos à ventilação invasiva apresentam maior risco de óbito após hospitalização. É necessário que medidas políticas intersetoriais sejam direcionadas para mitigar os efeitos da pandemia de COVID-19 agravados pela vulnerabilidade social.

El pronóstico de la infección por SARS-CoV-2 no sólo está asociado a la edad y a las comorbilidades, sino que también empeora por la vulnerabilidad social. El presente estudio tiene como objetivo analizar, según la vulnerabilidad social, la supervivencia y la letalidad hospitalaria por COVID-19 durante los primeros 100 días entre los síntomas hasta la muerte en individuos de 50 años o más hospitalizados en Brasil. Se trata de una cohorte retrospectiva desde la Semana Epidemiológica 11 de 2020 hasta la 33 de 2021. El Sistema de Información de Vigilancia Epidemiológica de la Gripe (SIVEP-Gripe) proporcionó datos clínico-epidemiológicos. El Índice Socioeconómico del Contexto Geográfico para los Estudios de Salud (GeoSES) midió la vulnerabilidad social. Para la supervivencia se utilizó la curva de Kaplan-Meier y el modelo ajustado de riesgos proporcionales de Cox, con cociente de riesgos (hazard ratio - HR) e intervalos del 95% de confianza (IC95%). Entre los 410.504 casos la letalidad global fue del 42,2%; el 51,4% en los más vulnerables. Por grupos de edad, se registra la presencia de una mayor letalidad a medida que empeora el estatus socioeconómico en todas las categorías; para 50-59 años es el doble. El modelo de Cox ajustado mostró un aumento del 32% en el riesgo de muerte (HR = 1,32; IC95%: 1,24-1,42). Además, los hombres de edad avanzada, de raza negra o indígena, con múltiples comorbilidades y sometidos a ventilación invasiva tienen un mayor riesgo de muerte tras la hospitalización. Es necesario que las medidas políticas intersectoriales se dirijan a mitigar los efectos de la pandemia de COVID-19 agravada por la vulnerabilidad social.

Amplified effect of social vulnerability on health inequality regarding COVID-19 mortality in the USA: the mediating role of vaccination allocation.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination reduces the overall burden of COVID-19, while its allocation procedure may introduce additional health inequality, since populations characterized with certain social vulnerabilities have received less vaccination and been affected more by COVID-19. We used structural equation modeling to quantitatively evaluate the extent to which vaccination disparity would amplify health inequality, where it functioned as a mediator in the effect pathways from social vulnerabilities to COVID-19 mortality. METHODS: We used USA nationwide county (n = 3112, 99% of the total) level data during 2021 in an ecological study design. Theme-specific rankings of social vulnerability index published by CDC (latest data of 2018, including socioeconomic status, household composition & disability, minority status & language, and housing type & transportation) were the exposure variables. Vaccination coverage rate (VCR) during 2021 published by CDC was the mediator variable, while COVID-19 case fatality rate (CFR) during 2021 published by John Hopkinson University, the outcome variable. RESULTS: Greater vulnerabilities in socioeconomic status, household composition & disability, and minority status & language were inversely associated with VCR, together explaining 11.3% of the variance of VCR. Greater vulnerabilities in socioeconomic status and household composition & disability were positively associated with CFR, while VCR was inversely associated with CFR, together explaining 10.4% of the variance of CFR. Our mediation analysis, based on the mid-year data (30th June 2021), found that 37.6% (mediation/total effect, 0.0014/0.0037), 10% (0.0003/0.0030) and 100% (0.0005/0.0005) of the effects in the pathways involving socioeconomic status, household composition & disability and minority status & language, respectively, were mediated by VCR. As a whole, the mediation effect significantly counted for 30.6% of COVID-19 CFR disparity. Such a mediation effect was seen throughout 2021, with proportions ranging from 12 to 32%. CONCLUSIONS: Allocation of COVID-19 vaccination in the USA during 2021 led to additional inequality with respect to COVID-19 mortality. Viable public health interventions should be taken to guarantee an equitable deployment of healthcare recourses across different population groups.

Differences in access to virtual and in-person primary care by race/ethnicity and community social vulnerability among adults diagnosed with COVID-19 in a large, multi-state health system.

BACKGROUND: Research exploring telehealth expansion during the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that groups disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 also experience worse access to telehealth. However, this research has been cross-sectional or short in duration; geographically limited; has not accounted for pre-existing access disparities; and has not examined COVID-19 patients. We examined virtual primary care use by race/ethnicity and community social vulnerability among adults diagnosed with COVID-19 in a large, multi-state health system. We also assessed use of in-person primary care to understand whether disparities in virtual access may have been offset by improved in-person access. METHODS: Using a cohort design, electronic health records, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index, we compared changes in virtual and in-person primary care use by race/ethnicity and community social vulnerability in the year before and after COVID-19 diagnosis. Our study population included 11,326 adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between March and July 2020. We estimated logistic regression models to examine likelihood of primary care use. In all regression models we computed robust standard errors; in adjusted models we controlled for demographic and health characteristics of patients. RESULTS: In a patient population of primarily Hispanic/Latino and non-Hispanic White individuals, and in which over half lived in socially vulnerable areas, likelihood of virtual primary care use increased from the year before to the year after COVID-19 diagnosis (3.6 to 10.3%); while in-person use remained stable (21.0 to 20.7%). In unadjusted and adjusted regression models, compared with White patients, Hispanic/Latino and other race/ethnicity patients were significantly less likely to use virtual care before and after COVID-19 diagnosis; Hispanic/Latino, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and other race/ethnicity patients, and patients living in socially vulnerable areas were also significantly less likely to use in-person care during these time periods. CONCLUSIONS: Newly expanded virtual primary care has not equitably benefited individuals from racialized groups diagnosed with COVID-19, and virtual access disparities have not been offset by improved in-person access. Health systems should employ evidence-based strategies to equitably provide care, including representative provider networks; targeted, empowering outreach; co-developed culturally and linguistically appropriate tools and technologies; and provision of enabling resources and services.

Associations of 4 Geographic Social Vulnerability Indices With US COVID-19 Incidence and Mortality.

Objectives. To examine and compare how 4 indices of population-level social disadvantage-the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), the COVID-19 Community Vulnerability Index (CCVI), and the Minority Health-Social Vulnerability Index (MH-SVI)-are associated with COVID-19 outcomes. Methods. Spatial autoregressive models adjusted for population density, urbanicity, and state fixed effects were used to estimate associations of county-level SVI, MH-SVI, CCVI, and ADI values with COVID-19 incidence and mortality. Results. All 4 disadvantage indices had similar positive associations with COVID-19 incidence. Each index was also significantly associated with COVID-19 mortality, but the ADI had a stronger association than the CCVI, MH-SVI, and SVI. Conclusions. Despite differences in component measures and weighting, all 4 of the indices we assessed demonstrated associations between greater disadvantage and COVID-19 incidence and mortality. Public Health Implications. Our findings suggest that each of the 4 disadvantage indices can be used to assist public health leaders in targeting ongoing first-dose and booster or third-dose vaccines as well as new vaccines or other resources to regions most vulnerable to negative COVID-19 outcomes, weighing potential tradeoffs in their political and practical acceptability. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(11):1584-1588. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307018).

Notes From the Field: Dispensing of Oral Antiviral Drugs for Treatment of COVID-19 by Zip Code-Level Social Vulnerability - United States, December 23, 2021-August 28, 2022.

Equitable access to COVID-19 therapeutics is a critical aspect of the distribution program led by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).* Two oral antiviral products, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid)† and molnupiravir (Lagevrio),§ received emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2021, to reduce the risk for COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death for those patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who are at higher risk for severe illness (1,2). HHS has been distributing these medications at no cost to recipients since their authorization. Data collected from provider sites during December 23, 2021-May 21, 2022, indicated substantial disparities in the population-adjusted dispensing rates in high social vulnerability (high-vulnerability) zip codes compared with those in medium- and low-vulnerability zip codes (3). Specifically, dispensing rates for the 4-week period during April 24-May 21, 2022, were 122 per 100,000 residents (19% of overall population-adjusted dispensing rates) in high-vulnerability zip codes compared with 247 (42%) in medium-vulnerability and 274 (39%) in low-vulnerability zip codes. This report provides an updated analysis of dispensing rates by zip code-level social vulnerability and highlights important intervention strategies.

Social Vulnerability and COVID-19 Vaccine in Spain.

Different analyses show that the design of vaccination policies should especially protect the most vulnerable social groups, since the level of acceptance is determined by the population's knowledge, attitude and concerns about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. The objective of this work will be to detect the most socially vulnerable groups with respect to COVID-19 and to analyze the factors that influence predisposition to vaccination. This is a cross-sectional study using data from the Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas (CIS) on the Effects and Consequences of Coronavirus (Study 3346 of December 2021). Sociodemographic variables (sex, age, employment status, studies and subjective class identification) were extracted, as well as the answers to the questions indicating the attitude towards vaccination, corresponding to questions 7,8,10 and 11 of the study. The most vulnerable group was lower class women (self-perceived), under 45 years of age with lower educational level, unemployed or performing unpaid work in the home. Most of them are not predisposed to vaccinate only because of the obligation to do so, mainly due to lack of belief in the power and efficacy of vaccines, as well as fear of health risks/collateral side effects. The lower vaccine uptake in this vulnerable population group may be due to a lack of awareness and lower trust in the authorities, as well as the benefits of the vaccine, which could be related to a lack of policy targeting the most socially vulnerable populations.

Quantifying inequities in COVID-19 vaccine distribution over time by social vulnerability, race and ethnicity, and location: A population-level analysis in St. Louis and Kansas City, Missouri.

BACKGROUND: Equity in vaccination coverage is a cornerstone for a successful public health response to COVID-19. To deepen understanding of the extent to which vaccination coverage compares with initial strategies for equitable vaccination, we explore primary vaccine series and booster rollout over time and by race/ethnicity, social vulnerability, and geography. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We analyzed data from the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services on all COVID-19 vaccinations administered across 7 counties in the St. Louis region and 4 counties in the Kansas City region. We compared rates of receiving the primary COVID-19 vaccine series and boosters relative to time, race/ethnicity, zip-code-level Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), vaccine location type, and COVID-19 disease burden. We adapted a well-established tool for measuring inequity-the Lorenz curve-to quantify inequities in COVID-19 vaccination relative to these key metrics. Between 15 December 2020 and 15 February 2022, 1,763,036 individuals completed the primary series and 872,324 received a booster. During early phases of the primary series rollout, Black and Hispanic individuals from high SVI zip codes were vaccinated at less than half the rate of White individuals from low SVI zip codes, but rates increased over time until they were higher than rates in White individuals after June 2021; Asian individuals maintained high levels of vaccination throughout. Increasing vaccination rates in Black and Hispanic communities corresponded with periods when more vaccinations were offered at small community-based sites such as pharmacies rather than larger health systems and mass vaccination sites. Using Lorenz curves, zip codes in the quartile with the lowest rates of primary series completion accounted for 19.3%, 18.1%, 10.8%, and 8.8% of vaccinations while representing 25% of the total population, cases, deaths, or population-level SVI, respectively. When tracking Gini coefficients, these disparities were greatest earlier during rollout, but improvements were slow and modest and vaccine disparities remained across all metrics even after 1 year. Patterns of disparities for boosters were similar but often of much greater magnitude during rollout in fall 2021. Study limitations include inherent limitations in the vaccine registry dataset such as missing and misclassified race/ethnicity and zip code variables and potential changes in zip code population sizes since census enumeration. CONCLUSIONS: Inequities in the initial COVID-19 vaccination and booster rollout in 2 large US metropolitan areas were apparent across racial/ethnic communities, across levels of social vulnerability, over time, and across types of vaccination administration sites. Disparities in receipt of the primary vaccine series attenuated over time during a period in which sites of vaccination administration diversified, but were recapitulated during booster rollout. These findings highlight how public health strategies from the outset must directly target these deeply embedded structural and systemic determinants of disparities and track equity metrics over time to avoid perpetuating inequities in healthcare access.

Understanding the Associations among Social Vulnerabilities, Indigenous Peoples, and COVID-19 Cases within Canadian Health Regions.

Indigenous Peoples are at an increased risk for infectious disease, including COVID-19, due to the historically embedded deleterious social determinants of health. Furthermore, structural limitations in Canadian federal government data contribute to the lack of comparative rates of COVID-19 between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. To make visible Indigenous Peoples' experiences in the public health discourse in the midst of COVID-19, this paper aims to answer the following interrelated research questions: (1) What are the associations of key social determinants of health and COVID-19 cases among Canadian health regions? and (2) How do these relationships relate to Indigenous communities? As both proximal and distal social determinants of health conjointly contribute to COVID-19 impacts on Indigenous health, this study used a unique dataset assembled from multiple sources to examine the associations among key social determinants of health characteristics and health with a focus on Indigenous Peoples. We highlight key social vulnerabilities that stem from systemic racism and that place Indigenous populations at increased risk for COVID-19. Many Indigenous health issues are rooted in the historical impacts of colonization, and partially invisible due to systemic federal underfunding in Indigenous communities. The Canadian government must invest in collecting accurate, reliable, and disaggregated data on COVID-19 case counts for Indigenous Peoples, as well as in improving Indigenous community infrastructure and services.