OBJECTIVE: To investigate COVID-19 disparities between Hispanic/Latino persons (H/L) and non-H/L persons in an agricultural community by examining behavioral and demographic differences. METHODS: In September 2020, we conducted Community Assessments for Public Health Emergency Response in Wenatchee and East Wenatchee, Washington, to evaluate differences between H/L and non-H/L populations in COVID-19 risk beliefs, prevention practices, household needs, and vaccine acceptability. We produced weighted sample frequencies. RESULTS: More households from predominately H/L census blocks (H/L-CBHs) versus households from predominately non-H/L census blocks (non-H/L-CBHs) worked in essential services (79% versus 57%), could not telework (70% versus 46%), and reported more COVID-19 cases (19% versus 4%). More H/L-CBHs versus non-H/L-CBHs practiced prevention strategies: avoiding gatherings (81% versus 61%), avoiding visiting friends/family (73% versus 36%), and less restaurant dining (indoor 24% versus 39%). More H/L-CBHs versus non-H/L-CBHs needed housing (16% versus 4%) and food assistance (19% versus 6%). COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in H/L-CBHs and non-H/L-CBHs was 42% versus 46%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite practicing prevention measures with greater frequency, H/L-CBHs had more COVID-19 cases. H/L-CBHs worked in conditions with a higher likelihood of exposure. H/L-CBHs had increased housing and food assistance needs due to the pandemic. COVID-19 vaccine acceptability was similarly low (<50%) between groups.

The large COVID-19 outbreaks in prisons in the Washington (USA) State Department of Corrections (WADOC) system during 2020 highlighted the need for a new public health approach to prevent and control COVID-19 transmission in the system's 12 facilities. WADOC and the Washington State Department of Health (WADOH) responded by strengthening partnerships through dedicated corrections-focused public health staff, improving cross-agency outbreak response coordination, implementing and developing corrections-specific public health guidance, and establishing collaborative data systems. The preexisting partnerships and trust between WADOC and WADOH, strengthened during the COVID-19 response, laid the foundation for a collaborative response during late 2021 to the largest tuberculosis outbreak in Washington State in the past 20 years. We describe challenges of a multiagency collaboration during 2 outbreak responses, as well as approaches to address those challenges, and share lessons learned for future communicable disease outbreak responses in correctional settings.

Introduction: Case investigation and contact tracing are important tools to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2, particularly when implemented efficiently. Our objective was to evaluate participation in and timeliness of COVID-19 contact tracing and whether these measures changed over time. Methods: We retrospectively assessed COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing surveillance data from the Washington State centralized program for August 1-31, 2020 and October 1-31, 2020. We combined SARS-CoV-2 testing reports with contact tracing data to compare completeness, reporting of contacts, and program timeliness. Results: For August and October respectively, 4,600 (of 12,521) and 2,166 (of 16,269) individuals with COVID-19 were referred to the state program for case investigation. Investigators called 100% of referred individuals; 65% (August) and 76% (October) were interviewed. Of individuals interviewed, 33% reported contacts in August and 45% in October, with only mild variation by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and urbanicity. In August, 992 individuals with COVID-19 reported a total of 2,584 contacts (mean, 2.6), and in October, 739 individuals reported 2,218 contacts (mean, 3.0). Among contacts, 86% and 78% participated in interviews for August and October. The median time elapsed from specimen collection to contact interview was 4 days in August and 3 days in October, and from symptom onset to contact interview was 7 days in August and 6 days in October. Conclusions: While contact tracing improved with time, the proportion of individuals disclosing contacts remained below 50% and differed minimally by demographic characteristics. The longest time interval occurred between symptom onset and test result notification. Improving elicitation of contacts and timeliness of contact tracing may further decrease SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

IMPORTANCE: Contact tracing is a multistep process to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Gaps in the process result in missed opportunities to prevent COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To quantify proportions of cases and their contacts reached by public health authorities and the amount of time needed to reach them and to compare the risk of a positive COVID-19 test result between contacts and the general public during 4-week assessment periods. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study took place at 13 health departments and 1 Indian Health Service Unit in 11 states and 1 tribal nation. Participants included all individuals with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and their named contacts. Local COVID-19 surveillance data were used to determine the numbers of persons reported to have laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who were interviewed and named contacts between June and October 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: For contacts, the numbers who were identified, notified of their exposure, and agreed to monitoring were calculated. The median time from index case specimen collection to contact notification was calculated, as were numbers of named contacts subsequently notified of their exposure and monitored. The prevalence of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among named and tested contacts was compared with that jurisdiction's general population during the same 4 weeks. RESULTS: The total number of cases reported was 74 185. Of these, 43 931 (59%) were interviewed, and 24 705 (33%) named any contacts. Among the 74 839 named contacts, 53 314 (71%) were notified of their exposure, and 34 345 (46%) agreed to monitoring. A mean of 0.7 contacts were reached by telephone by public health authorities, and only 0.5 contacts per case were monitored. In general, health departments reporting large case counts during the assessment (≥5000) conducted smaller proportions of case interviews and contact notifications. In 9 locations, the median time from specimen collection to contact notification was 6 days or less. In 6 of 8 locations with population comparison data, positive test prevalence was higher among named contacts than the general population. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cross-sectional study of US local COVID-19 surveillance data, testing named contacts was a high-yield activity for case finding. However, this assessment suggests that contact tracing had suboptimal impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmission, largely because 2 of 3 cases were either not reached for interview or named no contacts when interviewed. These findings are relevant to decisions regarding the allocation of public health resources among the various prevention strategies and for the prioritization of case investigations and contact tracing efforts.

Okanogan County, Washington, experienced increased community transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, during summer 2020 (1). Multiple COVID-19 outbreaks occurred in agricultural settings, including a large outbreak among employees of a fruit grower during May-August. Because of this outbreak, Okanogan County Public Health and the Washington State Department of Health initiated one-time, on-site screening testing (2) of all orchard and warehouse employees in August 2020 and assessed risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Among 3,708 known orchard employees, a valid SARS-CoV-2 test result or information on COVID-19-like symptoms in the absence of a test was available for 3,013 (81%). Cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection during approximately 3 months among tested orchard employees was 6%. Cumulative incidence was 12% in employees residing in the community, compared with 4% in employees residing in farmworker housing (p<0.001); point prevalence during the single screening testing event was 1% in both groups. Among 1,247 known warehouse employees, a valid result was available for 726 (58%). Cumulative incidence over approximately 3 months among tested warehouse employees was 23%, with substantial variation across job roles. Positive test results were received by 28% of employees who worked packing and sorting fruit, 24% of those in other roles in the packing and sorting area, 10% of forklift operators, 7% of employees in other warehouse roles, and 6% of office employees. Point prevalence among all warehouse workers was 1% at the screening testing event. Collaboration among employers, community groups, and public health authorities can reveal risk factors and help decrease farmworkers' risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community and the workplace. Creation of a COVID-19 assessment and control plan by agricultural employers, with particular focus on indoor workers whose jobs limit physical distancing, could reduce workplace transmission.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate participation in COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing in central Washington State between June 15 and July 12, 2020. METHODS: In this retrospective observational evaluation we combined SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and antigen test reports from the Washington Disease Reporting System with community case investigation and contact tracing data for 3 health districts (comprising 5 counties) in central Washington State. All 3 health districts have large Hispanic communities disproportionately affected by COVID-19. RESULTS: Investigators attempted to call all referred individuals with COVID-19 (n = 4,987); 71% were interviewed. Of those asked about close contacts (n = 3,572), 68% reported having no close contacts, with similar proportions across ethnicity, sex, and age group. The 968 individuals with COVID-19 who named specific contacts (27% of those asked) reported a total of 2,293 contacts (mean of 2.4 contacts per individual with COVID-19); 85% of listed contacts participated in an interview. CONCLUSIONS: Most individuals with COVID-19 reported having no close contacts. Increasing community engagement and public messaging, as well as understanding and addressing barriers to participation, are crucial for CICT to contribute meaningfully to controlling the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Influenza infection after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) can result in severe complications. The effectiveness of the annual vaccine depends on age, immune competence, and the antigenic potential of the 3 strains included. We hypothesized that a second vaccine dose, the standard of care for vaccine-naive children, might improve post hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) immune responses. Patients >60 days post-HCT were randomized to receive either 1 (n = 33) or 2 (n = 32) influenza vaccine doses separated by 1 month. The primary endpoint was whether 2 vaccinations induced superior immunity; however, we found no difference. Secondary endpoints were to identify variables associated with responses. Both hemagglutination inhibition (HI; P < .005) and ELISpot responses (P = .03) were greater for patients vaccinated ≥1 year posttransplantation. Umbilical cord blood (UCB) recipients showed less IFN-gamma responses (P < .001). Interestingly, there was a positive correlation between the total number of CD19(+) cells before vaccination and seroconversion (P = .01) and an inverse correlation for IFN-gamma responses (P = .05). Variables not associated with vaccine responses included prevaccine CD4(+) cell counts (total, naive, or memory), steroid usage at vaccination, age, or conditioning intensity. Time from transplantation to vaccination and absolute CD19(+) cell counts were the strongest predictors of vaccine responses. Methods to improve influenza vaccine responses after allo-HCT are needed.

The purpose of the present study was to re-examine diagnostic data from a state-wide autism prevalence study (n = 489) conducted in the 1980s to investigate the impact of broader diagnostic criteria on autism spectrum disorder (ASD) case status. Sixty-four (59 %) of the 108 originally "Diagnosed Not Autistic" met the current ASD case definition. The average IQ estimate in the newly identified group (IQ = 35.58; SD = 23.01) was significantly lower than in the original group (IQ = 56.19 SD = 21.21; t = 5.75; p < .0001). Today's diagnostic criteria applied to participants ascertained in the 1980s identified more cases of autism with intellectual disability. The current analysis puts this historic work into context and highlights differences in ascertainment between epidemiological studies performed decades ago and those of today.