BACKGROUND: While the occupational risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection for healthcare personnel in the United States has been relatively well characterized, less information is available on the occupational risk for workers employed in other settings. Even fewer studies have attempted to compare risks across occupations and industries. Using differential proportionate distribution as an approximation, we evaluated excess risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by occupation and industry among non-healthcare workers in six states. METHODS: We analyzed data on occupation and industry of employment from a six-state callback survey of adult non-healthcare workers with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and population-based reference data on employment patterns, adjusted for the effect of telework, from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. We estimated the differential proportionate distribution of SARS-CoV-2 infection by occupation and industry using the proportionate morbidity ratio (PMR). RESULTS: Among a sample of 1111 workers with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, significantly higher-than-expected proportions of workers were employed in service occupations (PMR 1.3, 99% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-1.5) and in the transportation and utilities (PMR 1.4, 99% CI 1.1-1.8) and leisure and hospitality industries (PMR 1.5, 99% CI 1.2-1.9). CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of significant differences in the proportionate distribution of SARS-CoV-2 infection by occupation and industry among respondents in a multistate, population-based survey, highlighting the excess risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection borne by some worker populations, particularly those whose jobs require frequent or prolonged close contact with other people.

Objectives. To explore previous COVID-19 diagnosis and COVID-19 vaccination status among US essential worker groups. Methods. We analyzed the US Census Household Pulse Survey (May 26-July 5, 2021), a nationally representative sample of adults aged 18 years and older. We compared currently employed essential workers working outside the home with those working at home using adjusted prevalence ratios. We calculated proportion vaccinated and intention to be vaccinated, stratifying by essential worker and demographic groups for those who worked or volunteered outside the home since January 1, 2021. Results. The proportion of workers with previous COVID-19 diagnosis was highest among first responders (24.9%) working outside the home compared with workers who did not (13.3%). Workers in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting had the lowest vaccination rates (67.5%) compared with all workers (77.8%). Those without health insurance were much less likely to be vaccinated across all worker groups. Conclusions. This study underscores the importance of improving surveillance to monitor COVID-19 and other infectious diseases among workers and identify and implement tailored risk mitigation strategies, including vaccination campaigns, for workplaces. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(11):1599-1610. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307010).

BACKGROUND: Surveillance systems lack detailed occupational exposure information from workers with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health partnered with six states to collect information from adults diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection (either COVID-19 or asymptomatic infection) who worked in person (outside the home) in non-healthcare settings during the two weeks prior to illness onset. METHODS: The survey captured demographic, medical, occupational characteristics, and work- and non-work-related risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Reported close contact with a person known or suspected to have COVID-19 was categorized by setting as: exposure at work, exposure outside of work only, or no known exposure/didn't know if they had exposures. Frequencies and percentages of exposure types are compared by respondent characteristics and risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Of 1,111 qualified respondents, 19.4% reported exposure at work, 23.4% reported exposure outside of work only, and 57.2% reported no known exposure/didn't know if they had exposures. Workers in protective service occupations (48.8%) and public administration industries (35.6%) reported exposure at work most often. Over a third (33.7%) of respondents who experienced close contact with ≥10 coworkers per day and 28.8% of respondents who experienced close contact with ≥10 customers/clients per day reported exposures at work. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 at work was common among respondents. Examining differences in exposures among different groups of workers can help identify populations with the greatest need for prevention interventions. The benefits of recording employment characteristics as standard demographic information will remain relevant as new and reemerging public health issues occur.

BACKGROUND: The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) produced an advisory list identifying essential critical infrastructure workers (ECIW) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) response. The CISA advisory list is the most common national definition of ECIW but has not been mapped to United States (U.S.) Census industry codes (CICs) to readily identify these worker populations in public health data sources. METHODS: We identified essential critical infrastructure industry designations corresponding to v4.0 of the CISA advisory list for all six-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and cross-walked NAICS codes to CICs. CICs were grouped as essential, non-essential, or mixed essential/non-essential according to component NAICS industries. We also obtained national estimated population sizes for NAICS and Census industries and cross-tabulated Census industry and occupation codes to identify industry-occupation pairs. RESULTS: We produced and made publicly available spreadsheets containing essential industry designations corresponding to v4.0 of the CISA advisory list for NAICS and Census industry titles and codes and population estimates by six-digit NAICS industry, Census industry, and Census industry-occupation pair. The CISA advisory list is highly inclusive and contains most industries and U.S. workers; 71.0% of Census industries comprising 80.6% of workers and 80.7% of NAICS industries comprising 87.1% of workers were designated as essential. CONCLUSIONS: We identified workers in essential critical infrastructure industries as defined by CISA using standardized industry codes. These classifications may support public health interventions and analyses related to the COVID-19 pandemic and future public health crises.

BACKGROUND: Health care personnel (HCP) have experienced significant SARS-CoV-2 risk, but exposure settings among HCP COVID-19 cases are poorly characterized. METHODS: We assessed exposure settings among HCP COVID-19 cases in the United States from March 2020 to March 2021 with reported exposures (n = 83,775) using national COVID-19 surveillance data. Exposure setting and reported community incidence temporal trends were described using breakpoint estimation. Among cases identified before initiation of COVID-19 vaccination programs (n = 65,650), we used separate multivariable regression models to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) for associations of community incidence with health care and household and/or community exposures. RESULTS: Health care exposures were the most reported (52.0%), followed by household (30.8%) and community exposures (25.6%). Health care exposures and community COVID-19 incidence showed similar temporal trends. In adjusted analyses, HCP cases were more likely to report health care exposures (aPR = 1.31; 95% CI:1.26-1.36) and less likely to report household and/or community exposures (aPR = 0.73; 95% CI:0.70-0.76) under the highest vs lowest community incidence levels. DISCUSSION: These findings highlight HCP exposure setting temporal trends and workplace exposure hazards under high community incidence. Findings also underscore the need for robust collection of work-related data in infectious disease surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Many reported HCP cases experienced occupational COVID-19 exposures, particularly during periods of higher community COVID-19 incidence.

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).

Objectives. To assess and control a potential outbreak of HIV among people who inject drugs in Western North Carolina.Methods. Disease intervention specialists offered testing for hepatitis B and hepatitis C, harm reduction materials, and linkage to care to 7 linked people recently diagnosed with HIV who also injected drugs. Contacts were offered the same services and HIV testing. HIV genotype analysis was used to characterize HIV spread. We assessed testing and care outcomes by using state surveillance information.Results. Disease intervention specialists contacted 6 of 7 linked group members and received information on 177 contacts; among 96 prioritized contacts, 42 of 96 (44%) were exposed to or diagnosed with hepatitis C, 4 of 96 (4%) had hepatitis B, and 14 of 96 (15%) had HIV (2 newly diagnosed during the investigation). HIV genotype analysis suggested recent transmission to linked group members and 1 contact. Eleven of 14 with HIV were virally suppressed following the outbreak response.Conclusions. North Carolina identified and rapidly responded to an HIV outbreak among people reporting injecting drugs. Effective HIV care, the availability of syringe exchange services, and the rapid response likely contributed to controlling this outbreak. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print January 16, 2020: e1-e7. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2019.305490).