Last data update: Sep 23, 2024. (Total: 47723 publications since 2009)
Records 1-4 (of 4 Records) |
Query Trace: Hodis JD [original query] |
---|
COVID-19-associated school closures and related efforts to sustain education and subsidized meal programs, United States, February 18–June 30, 2020 (preprint)
Zviedrite N , Hodis JD , Jahan F , Gao H , Uzicanin A . medRxiv 2021 2021.03.05.21252848 Pre-emptive school closures are frontline community mitigation measures recommended by CDC for implementation during severe pandemics. This study describes the spatiotemporal patterns of publicly announced school closures implemented in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and assesses how public K-12 districts adjusted their methods of education delivery and provision of subsidized meals. During February 18–June 30, 2020, we used daily systematic media searches to identify publicly announced coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–related school closures lasting ≥1 day in the United States (US). We also collected statewide school closure policies from state government websites. Data on distance learning and subsidized meal programs were collected from a stratified sample of 600 school districts. The first COVID-19–associated school closure occurred on February 27, 2020 in Washington state. By March 30, 2020, all but one US public school districts were closed, representing the first-ever nearly synchronous nationwide closure of public K-12 schools in the US. Approximately 100,000 public schools were closed for ≥8 weeks because of COVID-19, affecting >50 million K-12 students. Of 600 districts sampled, the vast majority offered distance learning (91.0%) and continued provision of subsidized meal programs (78.8%) during the closures. Despite the sudden and prolonged nature of COVID-19–associated school closures, schools demonstrated flexibility by implementing distance learning and alternate methods to continue subsidized meal programs.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was supported by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://www.cdc.gov/). Several co-authors are or were employees (NZ HG AU) or contractors (FJ) of the US CDC at the time of the study. During the study period, JH was a fellow appointed through the Research Participation Program at the US CDC administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an interagency agreement between the US Department of Energy and the US CDC.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The project underwent ethical review at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was determined not to involve human subjects; it was therefore not subject to institutional review board review requirements.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. Data are available from Google (www.google.com), Google News (news.google.com), and the National Center for Education Statistics (nces.ed.gov). The search and linking strategy used for these data sources is detailed within the paper. |
Notes from the field: Comparison of COVID-19 mortality rates among adults aged 65 years who were unvaccinated and those who received a bivalent booster dose within the preceding 6 months - 20 U.S. Jurisdictions, September 18, 2022-April 1, 2023
Johnson AG , Linde L , Payne AB , Ali AR , Aden V , Armstrong B , Armstrong B , Auche S , Bayoumi NS , Bennett S , Boulton R , Chang C , Collingwood A , Cueto K , Davidson SL , Du Y , Fleischauer A , Force V , Frank D , Hamilton R , Harame K , Harrington P , Hicks L , Hodis JD , Hoskins M , Jones A , Kanishka F , Kaur R , Kirkendall S , Khan SI , Klioueva A , Link-Gelles R , Lyons S , Mansfield J , Markelz A , Masarik J 3rd , Mendoza E , Morris K , Omoike E , Paritala S , Patel K , Pike M , Pompa XP , Praetorius K , Rammouni N , Razzaghi H , Riggs A , Shi M , Sigalo N , Stanislawski E , Tilakaratne BP , Turner KA , Wiedeman C , Silk BJ , Scobie HM . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023 72 (24) 667-669 Updated (bivalent) COVID-19 vaccines were first recommended by CDC on September 1, 2022.* An analysis of case and death rates by vaccination status shortly after authorization of bivalent COVID-19 vaccines showed that receipt of a bivalent booster dose provided additional protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and associated death (1). In this follow-up report on the durability of bivalent booster protection against death among adults aged ≥65 years, mortality rate ratios (RRs) were estimated among unvaccinated persons and those who received a bivalent booster dose by time since vaccination during three periods of Omicron lineage predominance (BA.5 [September 18–November 5, 2022], BQ.1/BQ.1.1 [November 6, 2022–January 21, 2023], and XBB.1.5 [January 22–April 1, 2023]).† | | During September 18, 2022–April 1, 2023, weekly counts of COVID-19–associated deaths§ among unvaccinated persons and those who received a bivalent booster dose¶ were reported from 20 U.S. jurisdictions** that routinely link case surveillance data to immunization registries and vital registration databases (1). Vaccinated persons who did not receive a bivalent COVID-19 booster dose were excluded. Rate denominators were calculated from vaccine administration data and 2019 U.S. intercensal population estimates,†† with numbers of unvaccinated persons estimated by subtracting numbers of vaccinated persons from the 2019 intercensal population estimates, as previously described§§ (1). Average weekly mortality rates were estimated based on date of specimen collection¶¶ during each variant period by vaccination status and time since bivalent booster dose receipt. RRs were calculated by dividing rates among unvaccinated persons by rates among bivalent booster dose recipients; after detrending the underlying linear changes in weekly rates, 95% CIs were estimated from the remaining variation in rates observed*** (1). SAS (version 9.4; SAS Institute) and R (version 4.1.2; R Foundation) software were used to conduct all analyses. This activity was reviewed by CDC and was conducted consistent with applicable federal law and CDC policy.††† |
COVID-19 incidence and mortality among unvaccinated and vaccinated persons aged 12 years by receipt of bivalent booster doses and time since vaccination - 24 U.S. jurisdictions, October 3, 2021-December 24, 2022
Johnson AG , Linde L , Ali AR , DeSantis A , Shi M , Adam C , Armstrong B , Armstrong B , Asbell M , Auche S , Bayoumi NS , Bingay B , Chasse M , Christofferson S , Cima M , Cueto K , Cunningham S , Delgadillo J , Dorabawila V , Drenzek C , Dupervil B , Durant T , Fleischauer A , Hamilton R , Harrington P , Hicks L , Hodis JD , Hoefer D , Horrocks S , Hoskins M , Husain S , Ingram LA , Jara A , Jones A , Kanishka FNU , Kaur R , Khan SI , Kirkendall S , Lauro P , Lyons S , Mansfield J , Markelz A , Masarik J 3rd , McCormick D , Mendoza E , Morris KJ , Omoike E , Patel K , Pike MA , Pilishvili T , Praetorius K , Reed IG , Severson RL , Sigalo N , Stanislawski E , Stich S , Tilakaratne BP , Turner KA , Wiedeman C , Zaldivar A , Silk BJ , Scobie HM . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023 72 (6) 145-152 On September 1, 2022, CDC recommended an updated (bivalent) COVID-19 vaccine booster to help restore waning protection conferred by previous vaccination and broaden protection against emerging variants for persons aged ≥12 years (subsequently extended to persons aged ≥6 months).* To assess the impact of original (monovalent) COVID-19 vaccines and bivalent boosters, case and mortality rate ratios (RRs) were estimated comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated persons aged ≥12 years by overall receipt of and by time since booster vaccination (monovalent or bivalent) during Delta variant and Omicron sublineage (BA.1, BA.2, early BA.4/BA.5, and late BA.4/BA.5) predominance.(†) During the late BA.4/BA.5 period, unvaccinated persons had higher COVID-19 mortality and infection rates than persons receiving bivalent doses (mortality RR = 14.1 and infection RR = 2.8) and to a lesser extent persons vaccinated with only monovalent doses (mortality RR = 5.4 and infection RR = 2.5). Among older adults, mortality rates among unvaccinated persons were significantly higher than among those who had received a bivalent booster (65-79 years; RR = 23.7 and ≥80 years; 10.3) or a monovalent booster (65-79 years; 8.3 and ≥80 years; 4.2). In a second analysis stratified by time since booster vaccination, there was a progressive decline from the Delta period (RR = 50.7) to the early BA.4/BA.5 period (7.4) in relative COVID-19 mortality rates among unvaccinated persons compared with persons receiving who had received a monovalent booster within 2 weeks-2 months. During the early BA.4/BA.5 period, declines in relative mortality rates were observed at 6-8 (RR = 4.6), 9-11 (4.5), and ≥12 (2.5) months after receiving a monovalent booster. In contrast, bivalent boosters received during the preceding 2 weeks-2 months improved protection against death (RR = 15.2) during the late BA.4/BA.5 period. In both analyses, when compared with unvaccinated persons, persons who had received bivalent boosters were provided additional protection against death over monovalent doses or monovalent boosters. Restored protection was highest in older adults. All persons should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccination, including receipt of a bivalent booster by eligible persons, to reduce the risk for severe COVID-19. |
COVID-19-associated school closures and related efforts to sustain education and subsidized meal programs, United States, February 18-June 30, 2020.
Zviedrite N , Hodis JD , Jahan F , Gao H , Uzicanin A . PLoS One 2021 16 (9) e0248925 Pre-emptive school closures are frontline community mitigation measures recommended by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for implementation during severe pandemics. This study describes the spatiotemporal patterns of publicly announced school closures implemented in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and assesses how public K-12 districts adjusted their methods of education delivery and provision of subsidized meals. During February 18-June 30, 2020, we used daily systematic media searches to identify publicly announced COVID-19-related school closures lasting ≥1 day in the United States (US). We also collected statewide school closure policies from state government websites. Data on distance learning and subsidized meal programs were collected from a stratified sample of 600 school districts. The first COVID-19-associated school closure occurred on February 27, 2020 in Washington state. By March 30, 2020, all but one US public school districts were closed, representing the first-ever nearly synchronous nationwide closure of public K-12 schools in the US. Approximately 100,000 public schools were closed for ≥8 weeks because of COVID-19, affecting >50 million K-12 students. Of 600 districts sampled, the vast majority offered distance learning (91.0%) and continued provision of subsidized meal programs (78.8%) during the closures. Despite the sudden and prolonged nature of COVID-19-associated school closures, schools demonstrated flexibility by implementing distance learning and alternate methods to continue subsidized meal programs. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:Sep 23, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure