Reducing the risks of nuclear war - the role of health professionals

@#In January, 2023, the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the hands of the Doomsday Clock forward to 90’s before midnight, reflecting the growing risk of nuclear war.1 In August, 2022, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned that the world is now in “a time of nuclear danger not seen since the height of the Cold War.2 The danger has been underlined by growing tensions between many nuclear armed states.1,3 As editors of health and medical journals worldwide, we call on health professionals to alert the public and our leaders to this major danger to public health and the essential life support systems of the planet—and urge action to prevent it.

Time to treat the climate and nature crisis as one indivisible Global Health Emergency

@#Over 200 health journals call on the United Nations, political leaders, and health professionals to recognise that climate change and biodiversity loss are one indivisible crisis and must be tackled together to preserve health and avoid catastrophe. This overall environmental crisis is now so severe as to be a global health emergency.

COVID-19 mortality among working-age Americans in 46 states, by industry and occupation

IntroductionA small body of epidemiological research suggests that working in an essential sector is a risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection or subsequent disease or mortality. However, there is limited evidence to date on the US, or on how the risks associated with essential work differ across demographic subgroups defined by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. MethodsUsing publicly available data from the National Center for Health Statistics on deaths occurring in the US in 2020, we calculated per-capita COVID-19 mortality by industry and occupation. We additionally calculated per-capita COVID-19 mortality by essential industry--essential or not--by age group, sex, and race/ethnicity. ResultsAmong non-military individuals and individuals with a known industry or occupation, there were 48,030 reported COVID-19 deaths, representing 25.1 COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 working-age individuals after age standardization. Per-capita age-standardized COVID-19 mortality was 1.96 times higher among essential workers than among workers in non-essential industries, representing an absolute difference of 14.9 per 100,000. Across industry, per-capita age-standardized COVID-19 mortality was highest in the following industries: accommodation and food services (45.4 per 100,000); transportation and warehousing (43.4); agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting (42.3); mining (39.6); and construction (38.7). DiscussionGiven that SARS-CoV-2 is an airborne virus, we call for collaborative efforts to ensure that workplace settings are properly ventilated and that workers have access to effective masks. We also urge for paid sick leave, which can help increase vaccine access and minimize disease transmission.

COVID-19 mortality and excess mortality among working-age Californians, by occupational sector: March 2020 through November 2021

BackgroundDuring the first year of the pandemic, essential workers faced higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 mortality than non-essential workers. It is unknown whether disparities in pandemic-related mortality across occupational sectors have continued to occur, amidst SARS-CoV-2 variants and vaccine availability. MethodsWe obtained data on all deaths occurring in the state of California from 2016 through 2021. We restricted our analysis to California residents who were working age (18-65 years at time of death) and died of natural causes. Occupational sector was classified into 9 essential sectors; non-essential; or not in the labor market. We calculated the number of COVID-19 deaths in total and per capita that occurred in each occupational sector. Separately, using autoregressive integrated moving average models, we estimated total, per-capita, and relative excess natural-cause mortality by week between March 1, 2020, and November 30, 2021, stratifying by occupational sector. We additionally stratified analyses of occupational risk into regions with high versus low vaccine uptake, categorizing high-uptake regions as counties where at least 50% of the population completed a vaccination series by August 1, 2021. FindingsFrom March 2020 through November 2021, essential work was associated with higher COVID-19 and excess mortality compared with non-essential work, with the highest per-capita COVID-19 mortality in agriculture (131.8 per 100,000), transportation/logistics (107.1), manufacturing (103.3), and facilities (101.1). Essential workers continued to face higher COVID-19 and excess mortality during the period of widely available vaccines (March through November 2021). Between July and November 2021, emergency workers experienced higher per-capita COVID-19 mortality (113.7) than workers from any other sector. Essential workers faced the highest COVID-19 mortality in counties with low vaccination rates, a difference that was more pronounced during the period of the Delta surge in Summer 2021. InterpretationEssential workers have continued to bear the brunt of high COVID-19 and excess mortality throughout the pandemic, particularly in the agriculture, emergency, manufacturing, facilities, and transportation/logistics sectors. This high death toll has continued during periods of vaccine availability and the delta surge. In an ongoing pandemic without widespread vaccine coverage and anticipated threats of new variants, the US must actively adopt policies to more adequately protect essential workers.

Estimation of COVID-19 cases prevented by vaccination in California

ImportanceDespite widespread vaccination against COVID-19 in the United States, there are limited empirical data quantifying the public health impact in the population. ObjectiveTo estimate the number of cases of COVID-19 averted due to COVID-19 vaccination Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThe California Department of Public Health (CDPH) provided person-level data on COVID-19 cases and COVID-19 vaccine administration. To estimate the number of COVID-19 cases that would have occurred in the vaccine era in absence of vaccination, we applied a statistical model that estimated the relationship of COVID-19 cases in the pre-vaccine era between the unvaccinated age group (<12 years) and vaccine-eligible groups ([≥]12 years) to COVID-19 case data after the start of vaccination. The primary study outcome was the difference between predicted number of COVID-19 cases in absence of vaccination and observed COVID-19 cases with vaccination. As a sensitivity analysis, we developed a second independent model that estimated the number of vaccine-averted COVID-19 cases by applying published data on vaccine effectiveness to data on COVID-19 vaccine administration and estimated risk of COVID-19 over time. InterventionCOVID-19 vaccination Main Outcomes and MeasuresCOVID-19 cases ResultsThere were 4,585,248 confirmed COVID-19 cases in California from January 1, 2020 to October 16, 2021, during which 27,164,680 vaccine-eligible individuals [≥]12 years were reported to have received at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine in the vaccine era (79.5% of the eligible population). We estimated that 1,523,500 [95% prediction interval (976,800-2,230,800)] COVID-19 cases were averted and there was a 34% [95% prediction interval (25-43)] reduction in cases due to vaccination in the primary model. Approximately 66% of total cases averted occurred after the delta variant became the dominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 circulating in California. Our alternative model identified comparable findings. Conclusions and RelevanceThis study provides robust evidence on the public health impact of COVID-19 vaccination in the United States and further supports the urgency for continued vaccination. Key PointsO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSHow many COVID-19 cases have been prevented by COVID-19 vaccination in California? FindingsIn this empirical analysis of California using data from the Department of Public Health, we estimated that COVID-19 vaccination has prevented over 1.5 million COVID-19 cases from the introduction of vaccination through October 16, 2021. MeaningThese findings support that COVID-19 vaccination had a large public health impact in California in terms of averted cases of COVID-19 and can be generalized across the United States.

A descriptive analysis of 2020 California Occupational Safety and Health Administration COVID-19-related complaints

COVID-19 mortality disproportionately affected specific occupations and industries. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) protects the health and safety of workers by setting and enforcing standards for working conditions. Workers may file OSHA complaints about unsafe conditions. Complaints may indicate poor workplace safety during the pandemic. We evaluated COVID-19-related complaints filed with California (Cal)/OSHA between January 1, 2020 and December 14, 2020 across seven industries. To assess whether workers in occupations with high COVID-19-related mortality were also most likely to file Cal/OSHA complaints, we compared industry-specific per-capita COVID-19 confirmed deaths from the California Department of Public Health with COVID-19-related complaints. Although 7,820 COVID-19-related complaints were deemed valid by Cal/OSHA, only 627 onsite inspections occurred and 32 citations were issued. Agricultural workers had the highest per-capita COVID-19 death rates (402 per 100,000 workers) but were least represented among workplace complaints (44 per 100,000 workers). Health Care workers had the highest complaint rates (81 per 100,000 workers) but the second lowest COVID-19 death rate (81 per 100,000 workers). Industries with the highest inspection rates also had high COVID-19 mortality. Our findings suggest complaints are not proportional to COVID-19 risk. Instead, higher complaint rates may reflect worker groups with greater empowerment, resources, or capacity to advocate for better protections. This capacity to advocate for safe workplaces may account for relatively low mortality rates in potentially high-risk occupations. Future research should examine factors determining worker complaints and complaint systems to promote participation of those with the greatest need of protection.

Contributions of occupation characteristics and educational attainment to racial/ethnic inequities in COVID-19 mortality

BackgroundRacial/ethnic inequities in COVID-19 mortality are hypothesized to be driven by education and occupation, but limited empirical evidence has assessed these mechanisms. ObjectiveTo quantify the extent to which educational attainment and occupation explain racial/ethnic inequities in COVID-19 mortality. DesignObservational cohort. SettingCalifornia. ParticipantsCalifornians aged 18-65 years. MeasurementsWe linked all COVID-19-confirmed deaths in California through February 12, 2021 (N=14,783), to population estimates within strata defined by race/ethnicity, sex, age, USA nativity, region of residence, education, and occupation. We characterized occupations using measures related to COVID-19 exposure including essential sector, telework-ability, and wages. Using sex-stratified regressions, we predicted COVID-19 mortality by race/ethnicity if all races/ethnicities had the same education and occupation distribution as White people and if all people held the safest educational/occupational positions. ResultsCOVID-19 mortality per 100,000 ranged from 15 for White and Asian females to 139 for Latinx males. Accounting for differences in age, nativity, and region, if all races/ethnicities had the education and occupation distribution of Whites, COVID-19 mortality would be reduced for Latinx males (-22%) and females (-23%), and Black males (-1%) and females (-8%), but increased for Asian males (+22%) and females (+23%). Additionally, if all individuals had the COVID-19 mortality associated with the safest educational and occupational position (Bachelors degree, non-essential, telework, highest wage quintile), there would have been 57% fewer COVID-19 deaths. ConclusionEducational and occupational disadvantage are important risk factors for COVID-19 mortality across all racial/ethnic groups, especially Latinx individuals. Eliminating avoidable excess risk associated with low-education, essential, on-site, and low-wage jobs may reduce COVID-19 mortality and inequities, but is unlikely to be sufficient to achieve equity.

Geographically-targeted COVID-19 vaccination is more equitable than age-based thresholds alone

COVID-19 mortality increases dramatically with age and is also substantially higher among Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) populations in the United States. These two facts introduce tradeoffs because BIPOC populations are younger than white populations. In analyses of California and Minnesota--demographically divergent states--we show that COVID vaccination schedules based solely on age benefit the older white populations at the expense of younger BIPOC populations with higher risk of death from COVID-19. We find that strategies that prioritize high-risk geographic areas for vaccination at all ages better target mortality risk than age-based strategies alone, although they do not always perform as well as direct prioritization of high-risk racial/ethnic groups. One-sentence summaryAge-based COVID-19 vaccination prioritizes white people above higher-risk others; geographic prioritization improves equity.

Comparison of COVID-19 vaccine prioritization strategies in the United States

A key public health question during any disease outbreak when limited vaccine is available is who should be prioritized for early vaccination. Most vaccine prioritization analyses only consider variation in risk of infection and death by a single risk factor, such as age. We provide a more granular approach with stratification by demographics, risk factors, and location. We use this approach to compare the impact of different COVID-19 vaccine prioritization strategies on COVID-19 cases, deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) over the first 6 months of vaccine rollout, using California as a case example. We estimate the proportion of cases, deaths and DALYs averted relative to no vaccination for strategies prioritizing vaccination by a single risk factor and by multiple risk factors (e.g. age, location). We find that age-based targeting averts the most deaths (62% for 5 million individuals vaccinated) and DALYs (38%) of strategies targeting by a single risk factor and targeting essential workers averts the least deaths (31%) and DALYs (24%) over the first 6 months of rollout. However, targeting by two or more risk factors simultaneously averts up to 40% more DALYs. Our findings highlight the potential value of multiple-risk-factor targeting of vaccination against COVID-19 and other infectious diseases.

Excess mortality associated with the COVID-19 pandemic among Californians 18-65 years of age, by occupational sector and occupation: March through October 2020

BackgroundThough SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks have been documented in occupational settings and though there is speculation that essential workers face heightened risks for COVID-19, occupational differences in excess mortality have, to date, not been examined. Such information could point to opportunities for intervention, such as workplace modifications and prioritization of vaccine distribution. Methods and findingsUsing death records from the California Department of Public Health, we estimated excess mortality among Californians 18-65 years of age by occupational sector and occupation, with additional stratification of the sector analysis by race/ethnicity. During the COVID-19 pandemic, working age adults experienced a 22% increase in mortality compared to historical periods. Relative excess mortality was highest in food/agriculture workers (39% increase), transportation/logistics workers (28% increase), facilities (27%) and manufacturing workers (23% increase). Latino Californians experienced a 36% increase in mortality, with a 59% increase among Latino food/agriculture workers. Black Californians experienced a 28% increase in mortality, with a 36% increase for Black retail workers. Asian Californians experienced an 18% increase, with a 40% increase among Asian healthcare workers. Excess mortality among White working-age Californians increased by 6%, with a 16% increase among White food/agriculture workers. ConclusionsCertain occupational sectors have been associated with high excess mortality during the pandemic, particularly among racial and ethnic groups also disproportionately affected by COVID-19. In-person essential work is a likely venue of transmission of coronavirus infection and must be addressed through strict enforcement of health orders in workplace settings and protection of in-person workers. Vaccine distribution prioritizing in-person essential workers will be important for reducing excess COVID mortality.

Excess deaths among Latino people in California during the COVID-19 pandemic

BackgroundLatino people in the US are experiencing higher excess deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic than any other racial/ethnic group, but it is unclear which subgroups within this diverse population are most affected. Such information is necessary to target policies that prevent further excess mortality and reduce inequities. MethodsUsing death certificate data for January 1, 2016 through February 29, 2020 and time-series models, we estimated the expected weekly deaths among Latino people in California from March 1 through October 3, 2020. We quantified excess mortality as observed minus expected deaths and risk ratios (RR) as the ratio of observed to expected deaths. We considered subgroups defined by age, sex, place of birth, education, occupation, and combinations of these factors. FindingsDuring the first seven months of the pandemic, Latino deaths in California exceeded expected deaths by 10,316, a 31% increase. Excess death rates were greatest for individuals born in Mexico (RR 1.44; 95% PI, 1.41, 1.48) or Central America (RR 1.49; 95% PI, 1.37, 1.64), with less than a high school degree (RR 1.41; 95% PI, 1.35, 1.46), or in food-and-agriculture (RR 1.60; 95% PI, 1.48, 1.74) or manufacturing occupations (RR 1.59; 95% PI, 1.50, 1.69). Immigrant disadvantages in excess death were magnified among working-age Latinos in essential occupations. InterpretationThe pandemic has disproportionately impacted mortality among Latino immigrants and Latinos in unprotected essential jobs; Interventions to reduce these disparities should include early vaccination, workplace safety enforcement, and expanded access to medical care. FundingNational Institute on Aging; UCSF RESEARCH IN CONTEXTO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSSeveral articles have suggested all-cause excess mortality estimates are superior to official COVID-19 counts for assessing the impact of the pandemic on marginalized populations that lack access to testing and healthcare. We searched PubMed, Google scholar, and the medRxiv preprint database through December 22, 2020 for studies of ("excess mortality" or "excess death") AND ("COVID-19" or "coronavirus") set in the United States and we identified two empirical studies with estimates of excess mortality among Latinos during the pandemic. The study set in California (from our research team) found per capita excess mortality was highest among Black and Latino people. The national study found percent excess mortality was significantly higher among Latino people than any other racial/ethnic group. Neither study further disaggregated the diverse Latino population or provided subgroup estimates to clarify why excess pandemic mortality is so high in this population. In the U.S., official COVID-19 statistics are rarely disaggregated by place of birth, education, or occupation which has resulted in a lack of evidence of how these factors have impacted mortality during the pandemic. No study to date of excess mortality in the U.S. has provided estimates for immigrant or occupational subgroups. Added value of this studyOur population-based observational study of all-cause mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic provides the first estimates of within-group heterogeneity among the Latino population in California - one of the populations hardest hit by COVID-19 in the U.S. We provide the first subgroup estimates by place of birth and occupational sector, in addition to combined estimates by foreign-birth and participation in an essential job and education. In doing so, we reveal that Latino immigrants in essential occupations have the highest risk of excess death during the pandemic among working-age Latinos. We highlight the heightened risk of excess mortality associated with food/agriculture and manufacturing occupational sectors, essential sectors in which workers may lack COVID-19 protections. Implications of all the available evidenceOur study revealed stark disparities in excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic among Latinos, pointing to the particularly high vulnerability of Latino immigrants and Latinos in essential jobs. These findings may offer insight into the disproportionate COVID-19 mortality experienced by immigrants or similarly marginalized groups in other contexts. Interventions to reduce these disparities should include policies enforcing occupational safety, especially for immigrant workers, early vaccination, and expanded access to medical care.

Routine asymptomatic testing strategies for airline travel during the COVID-19 pandemic: a simulation analysis

BackgroundAirline travel has been significantly reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic due to concern for individual risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and population-level transmission risk from importation. Routine viral testing strategies for COVID-19 may facilitate safe airline travel through reduction of individual and/or population-level risk, although the effectiveness and optimal design of these "test-and-travel" strategies remain unclear. MethodsWe developed a microsimulation of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a cohort of airline travelers to evaluate the effectiveness of various testing strategies to reduce individual risk of infection and population-level risk of transmission. We evaluated five testing strategies in asymptomatic passengers: i) anterior nasal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) within 3 days of departure; ii) PCR within 3 days of departure and PCR 5 days after arrival; iii) rapid antigen test on the day of travel (assuming 90% of the sensitivity of PCR during active infection); iv) rapid antigen test on the day of travel and PCR 5 days after arrival; and v) PCR within 3 days of arrival alone. The travel period was defined as three days prior to the day of travel and two weeks following the day of travel, and we assumed passengers followed guidance on mask wearing during this period. The primary study outcome was cumulative number of infectious days in the cohort over the travel period (population-level transmission risk); the secondary outcome was the proportion of infectious persons detected on the day of travel (individual-level risk of infection). Sensitivity analyses were conducted. FindingsAssuming a community SARS-CoV-2 incidence of 50 daily infections, we estimated that in a cohort of 100,000 airline travelers followed over the travel period, there would be a total of 2,796 (95% UI: 2,031, 4,336) infectious days with 229 (95% UI: 170, 336) actively infectious passengers on the day of travel. The pre-travel PCR test (within 3 days prior to departure) reduced the number of infectious days by 35% (95% UI: 27, 42) and identified 88% (95% UI: 76, 94) of the actively infectious travelers on the day of flight; the addition of PCR 5 days after arrival reduced the number of infectious days by 79% (95% UI: 71, 84). The rapid antigen test on the day of travel reduced the number of infectious days by 32% (95% UI: 25, 39) and identified 87% (95% UI: 81, 92) of the actively infectious travelers; the addition of PCR 5 days after arrival reduced the number of infectious days by 70% (95% UI: 65, 75). The post-travel PCR test alone (within 3 days of landing) reduced the number of infectious days by 42% (95% UI: 31, 51). The ratio of true positives to false positives varied with the incidence of infection. The overall study conclusions were robust in sensitivity analysis. InterpretationRoutine asymptomatic testing for COVID-19 prior to travel can be an effective strategy to reduce individual risk of COVID-19 infection during travel, although post-travel testing with abbreviated quarantine is likely needed to reduce population-level transmission due to importation of infection when traveling from a high to low incidence setting.