Voluntary Medical Male Circumcisions for HIV Prevention - 13 Countries in Eastern and Southern Africa, 2017-2021.

In 2007, voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) was endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS after it was found to be associated with approximately a 60% reduction in the risk for female-to-male transmission of HIV (1). As a result of this endorsement, the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), through partnerships with U.S. government agencies, including CDC, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the U.S. Agency for International Development, started supporting VMMCs performed in prioritized countries in southern and eastern Africa. During 2010-2016, CDC supported 5,880,372 VMMCs in 12 countries (2,3). During 2017-2021, CDC supported 8,497,297 VMMCs performed in 13 countries. In 2020, the number of VMMCs performed declined 31.8% compared with the number in 2019, primarily because of COVID-19-related disruptions to VMMC service delivery. PEPFAR 2017-2021 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting data were used to provide an update and describe CDC's contribution to the scale-up of the VMMC program, which is important to meeting the 2025 Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) target of 90% of males aged 15-59 years having access to VMMC services in prioritized countries to help end the AIDS epidemic by 2030 (4).

Required and Voluntary Occupational Use of Hazard Controls for COVID-19 Prevention in Non-Health Care Workplaces - United States, June 2020.

Certain hazard controls, including physical barriers, cloth face masks, and other personal protective equipment (PPE), are recommended to reduce coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) transmission in the workplace (1). Evaluation of occupational hazard control use for COVID-19 prevention can identify inadequately protected workers and opportunities to improve use. CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health used data from the June 2020 SummerStyles survey to characterize required and voluntary use of COVID-19-related occupational hazard controls among U.S. non-health care workers. A survey-weighted regression model was used to estimate the association between employer provision of hazard controls and voluntary use, and stratum-specific adjusted risk differences (aRDs) among workers reporting household incomes <250% and ≥250% of national poverty thresholds were estimated to assess effect modification by income. Approximately one half (45.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 41.0%-50.3%) of non-health care workers reported use of hazard controls in the workplace, 55.5% (95% CI = 48.8%-62.2%) of whom reported employer requirements to use them. After adjustment for occupational group and proximity to others at work, voluntary use was approximately double, or 22.3 absolute percentage points higher, among workers who were provided hazard controls than among those who were not. This effect was more apparent among lower-income (aRD = 31.0%) than among higher-income workers (aRD = 16.3%). Employers can help protect workers from COVID-19 by requiring and encouraging use of occupational hazard controls and providing hazard controls to employees (1).

Social and behavioral consequences of mask policies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mandatory and voluntary mask policies may have yet unknown social and behavioral consequences related to the effectiveness of the measure, stigmatization, and perceived fairness. Serial cross-sectional data (April 14 to May 26, 2020) from nearly 7,000 German participants demonstrate that implementing a mandatory policy increased actual compliance despite moderate acceptance; mask wearing correlated positively with other protective behaviors. A preregistered experiment (n = 925) further indicates that a voluntary policy would likely lead to insufficient compliance, would be perceived as less fair, and could intensify stigmatization. A mandatory policy appears to be an effective, fair, and socially responsible solution to curb transmissions of airborne viruses.

Individual quarantine versus active monitoring of contacts for the mitigation of COVID-19: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Voluntary individual quarantine and voluntary active monitoring of contacts are core disease control strategies for emerging infectious diseases such as COVID-19. Given the impact of quarantine on resources and individual liberty, it is vital to assess under what conditions individual quarantine can more effectively control COVID-19 than active monitoring. As an epidemic grows, it is also important to consider when these interventions are no longer feasible and broader mitigation measures must be implemented. METHODS: To estimate the comparative efficacy of individual quarantine and active monitoring of contacts to control severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), we fit a stochastic branching model to reported parameters for the dynamics of the disease. Specifically, we fit a model to the incubation period distribution (mean 5·2 days) and to two estimates of the serial interval distribution: a shorter one with a mean serial interval of 4·8 days and a longer one with a mean of 7·5 days. To assess variable resource settings, we considered two feasibility settings: a high-feasibility setting with 90% of contacts traced, a half-day average delay in tracing and symptom recognition, and 90% effective isolation; and a low-feasibility setting with 50% of contacts traced, a 2-day average delay, and 50% effective isolation. FINDINGS: Model fitting by sequential Monte Carlo resulted in a mean time of infectiousness onset before symptom onset of 0·77 days (95% CI -1·98 to 0·29) for the shorter serial interval, and for the longer serial interval it resulted in a mean time of infectiousness onset after symptom onset of 0·51 days (95% CI -0·77 to 1·50). Individual quarantine in high-feasibility settings, where at least 75% of infected contacts are individually quarantined, contains an outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 with a short serial interval (4·8 days) 84% of the time. However, in settings where the outbreak continues to grow (eg, low-feasibility settings), so too will the burden of the number of contacts traced for active monitoring or quarantine, particularly uninfected contacts (who never develop symptoms). When resources are prioritised for scalable interventions such as physical distancing, we show active monitoring or individual quarantine of high-risk contacts can contribute synergistically to mitigation efforts. Even under the shorter serial interval, if physical distancing reduces the reproductive number to 1·25, active monitoring of 50% of contacts can result in overall outbreak control (ie, effective reproductive number <1). INTERPRETATION: Our model highlights the urgent need for more data on the serial interval and the extent of presymptomatic transmission to make data-driven policy decisions regarding the cost-benefit comparisons of individual quarantine versus active monitoring of contacts. To the extent that these interventions can be implemented, they can help mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2. FUNDING: National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health.