81
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Racial and Ethnic Disparities Among COVID-19 Cases in Workplace Outbreaks by Industry Sector — Utah, March 6–June 5, 2020

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          On August 17, 2020, this report was posted online as an MMWR Early Release. Improved understanding of the overall distribution of workplace coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreaks by industry sector could help direct targeted public health action; however, this has not been described. The Utah Department of Health (UDOH) analyzed COVID-19 surveillance data to describe workplace outbreaks by industry sectors. In this report, workplaces refer to non–health care, noncongregate–living, and noneducational settings. As of June 5, 2020, UDOH reported 277 COVID-19 outbreaks, 210 (76%) of which occurred in workplaces. Approximately 12% (1,389 of 11,448) of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Utah were associated with workplace outbreaks. The 210 workplace outbreaks occurred in 15 of 20 industry sectors;* nearly one half of all workplace outbreaks occurred in three sectors: Manufacturing (43; 20%), Construction (32; 15%) and Wholesale Trade (29; 14%); 58% (806 of 1,389) of workplace outbreak-associated cases occurred in these three sectors. Although 24% of Utah’s workforce in all 15 affected sectors identified as Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic) or a race other than non-Hispanic white (nonwhite † ) ( 1 ), 73% (970 of 1,335) of workplace outbreak-associated COVID-19 cases were in persons who identified as Hispanic or nonwhite. Systemic social inequities have resulted in the overrepresentation of Hispanic and nonwhite workers in frontline occupations where exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, might be higher ( 2 ); extra vigilance in these sectors is needed to ensure prevention and mitigation strategies are applied equitably and effectively to workers of racial and ethnic groups disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Health departments can adapt workplace guidance to each industry sector affected by COVID-19 to account for different production processes and working conditions. Data on workplace COVID-19 outbreaks occurring during March 6–June 5, 2020, were collected from UDOH’s COVID-19 case surveillance system. UDOH defined workplace outbreaks as the occurrence of two or more laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases occurring within the same 14-day period among coworkers in a common workplace (i.e., same facility). UDOH classifies outbreaks in congregate living facilities, educational institutions, and health care facilities as distinct outbreak types that are managed differently from general workplace outbreaks because of the special populations they serve and the setting-specific guidance they require. Thus, cases from these settings were not included in this analysis of workplace outbreaks. Case investigators collected facility addresses, business names, or both for all workplace outbreaks. Workplaces were classified according to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS; https://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/) into one of 20 industry sectors. NAICS codes for workplaces were obtained from Utah’s Division of Corporations and Commercial Code directory of registered businesses (https://secure.utah.gov/bes/). Because of small case numbers and similarities in sector processes and settings, the sectors for Professional, Scientific, and Technical services and Information were combined into a single category, as were the Finance and Insurance, Real Estate and Rental and Leasing, and Public Administration sectors. The distribution of workplace outbreaks and associated cases across sectors was described. Outbreak incidence (cases per 100,000 workers) was calculated using Utah sector workforce estimates reported in the 2019 Census Quarterly Workforce Indicators ( 1 ) for sector denominators; workforce estimates were not adjusted to remove workers affected by outbreaks in excluded settings (e.g., educational workers and health care workers). Descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests were used to summarize and compare demographics and outcomes (e.g., hospitalization) of persons with workplace outbreak-associated COVID-19 with persons of working age (≥15 years) with nonoutbreak–associated COVID-19 (i.e., cases not associated with an outbreak). To identify sectors in which COVID-19 racial and ethnic disparities might be unrecognized, the racial and ethnic composition of workplace outbreak-associated cases were compared with the overall racial and ethnic composition in each sector in Utah. All statistical analyses were done in R (version 3.6.1; The R Foundation) p-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. During March 6–June 5, 2020, UDOH reported 11,448 confirmed COVID-19 cases throughout Utah, including 1,389 (12%) associated with workplace outbreaks, 1,081 (9%) associated with outbreaks in other settings (i.e., congregate living, educational, health care), and 8,978 (78%) that were not associated with an outbreak. UDOH reported 210 workplace COVID-19 outbreaks (median cases per workplace outbreak = 4; range = 2–79) involving 15 industry sectors, most frequently in Manufacturing (43; 20%), Construction (32; 15%), and Wholesale Trade (29; 14%); these three sectors accounted for 58% (806 of 1,389) of workplace outbreak-associated cases (Table 1). The incidence among workplace outbreak-associated cases was highest in the Wholesale Trade (377 per 100,000 workers) and Manufacturing (339 per 100,000 workers) sectors. TABLE 1 Distribution of workplace outbreaks and workplace-associated COVID-19 cases, by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) industry sector, and demographic characteristics of persons with workplace-associated COVID-19 and their outcomes – Utah, March 6–June 5, 2020 NAICS industry sector code Industry sector Workers, outbreaks, and cases
no. (%) Workplace outbreak-associated incidence† Characteristic
no. (%) Workforce* Workplace outbreaks Workplace outbreak-associated cases Hispanic or nonwhite§ Admitted to hospital¶ Severe outcomes¶ Overall total — 1,305,130 (100) 210 (100) 1,389 (100) 106.4 970/1,335 (73) 85/1,382 (6) 40/1,155 (3) 31–33 Manufacturing 137,579 (11) 43 (20) 467 (34) 339.4 365/444 (82) 25/464 (5) 12/464 (3) 42 Wholesale Trade 53,045 (4) 29 (14) 200 (14) 377.0 145/190 (76) 8/197 (4) 3/197 (2) 23 Construction 113,610 (9) 32 (15) 139 (10) 122.3 97/135 (72) 11/139 (8) 7/139 (5) 44, 45 Retail Trade 169,559 (13) 28 (13) 116 (8) 68.4 78/113 (69) 5/116 (4) 1/116 (1) 56 Administrative, Support, and Waste Management 95,878 (7) 9 (4) 114 (8) 118.9 68/109 (62) 8/114 (7) 2/114 (2) 72 Accommodation and Food Services 128,983 (10) 25 (12) 100 (7) 77.5 78/97 (80) 7/100 (7) 7/100 (7) 48, 49 Transportation and Warehousing 64,360 (5) 10 (5) 97 (7) 150.7 71/94 (76) 9/97 (9) 6/97 (6) 71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 34,862 (3) 6 (3) 40 (3) 114.7 14/39 (36) 2/40 (5) 0/40 (0) 51, 54 Professional, Scientific, Technical, and Information** 151,275 (12) 9 (4) 47 (3) 31.1 20/46 (43) 5/47 (11) 2/47 (4) 52, 53, 92 Finance, Real Estate, and Public Administration** 147,220 (11) 6 (3) 24 (2) 16.3 10/24 (42) 1/23 (4) 0/23 (0) 81 Other Services (except Public Administration) 38,651 (3) 8 (4) 24 (2) 62.1 13/23 (57) 3/24 (13) 1/24 (4) 62 Health Care and Social Assistance†† 170,108 (13) 5 (2) 21 (2) 12.3 11/21 (52) 1/21 (5) 0/21 (0) Abbreviation: COVID 19 = coronavirus disease 2019. * Based on U.S. Census Quarterly Workforce Indicators, Utah 2019 (third quarter). https://qwiexplorer.ces.census.gov/static/explore.html#x=0&g=0. † Cases per 100,000 workers. Estimated as workplace outbreak-associated COVID-19 cases per 100,000 workers in industry sector; does not include cases among workers not part of a workplace outbreak. § Among cases with known race and ethnicity (n = 1,335); Hispanic includes Hispanic or Latino; nonwhite includes the following (all non-Hispanic): black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, two or more races, or other race groups. ¶ Among cases with known hospitalization (n = 1,382) or severity status (n = 1,155); severe outcome defined as intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, or death. ** Because of small case numbers, Information (NAICS code 51) and Professional, Scientific, and Technical services (NAICS code 54) sectors were combined into a single category; Finance and Insurance (NAICS code 52), Real Estate and Rental and Leasing (NAICS code 53), and Public Administration (NAICS code 92) sectors were also combined into a single category. †† The full name of this NAICS sector includes “Health Care”; however, because health care settings were not included in this analysis, they represent only social assistance businesses. Compared with persons aged ≥15 years with nonoutbreak–associated COVID-19 (median age = 38 years), persons with workplace outbreak-associated COVID-19 were older (median age = 41 years) (Mann-Whitney test, p = 0.01), more likely to identify as Hispanic (56.4% versus 39.8%; p <0.001), and more likely to be male (61.4% versus 50.6%; p <0.001) (Table 2). The proportion of patients hospitalized was significantly lower among persons with workplace outbreak-associated COVID-19 (6.1%) than among those with nonoutbreak–associated COVID-19 (7.6%) (p = 0.01). TABLE 2 Characteristics of nonoutbreak–associated cases and workplace outbreak-associated cases of COVID-19 among persons aged ≥15 years — Utah, March 6–June 5, 2020. Characteristic Case status
no. (%) P-value* Not outbreak–associated Workplace outbreak–associated (n = 8,297) (n = 1,389) Age group, yrs <0.001 15–24 1,718 (20.7) 192 (13.8) 25–44 3,489 (42.1) 658 (47.4) 45–64 2,360 (28.4) 493 (35.5) ≥65 730 (8.8) 46 (3.3) Race/Ethnicity <0.001 Hispanic or Latino 3,303 (39.8) 783 (56.4) White, non-Hispanic 2,972 (35.8) 365 (26.3) Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic 317 (3.8) 61 (4.4) Asian, non-Hispanic 194 (2.3) 42 (3.0) Black or African American, non-Hispanic 247 (3.0) 38 (2.7) American Indian or Alaska Native, non-Hispanic 309 (3.7) 13 (0.9) Other, non-Hispanic 237 (2.9) 33 (2.4) Missing 718 (8.7) 54 (3.9) Ethnicity <0.001 Non-Hispanic 4,279 (51.6) 552 (39.7) Hispanic 3,303 (39.8) 783 (56.4) Missing 715 (8.6) 54 (3.9) Sex <0.001 Female 4,088 (49.3) 536 (38.6) Male 4,199 (50.6) 853 (61.4) Missing 10 (0.1) 0 (0) Any chronic condition 0.24 Yes 2013 (24.3) 318 (22.9) No 1698 (20.5) 298 (21.5) Missing 4586 (55.3) 773 (55.7) Hospitalized 0.01 Yes 630 (7.6) 85 (6.1) No 7,136 (86.0) 1,297 (93.4) Missing 531(6.4) 7 (0.5) Severe outcome† 0.74 Yes 217 (2.6) 40 (2.9) No 5,618 (67.7) 1,115 (80.3) Missing 2,462 (29.7) 234 (16.8) ICU admission 0.94 Yes 195 (2.4) 36 (2.6) No 7,497 (90.4) 1,341 (96.5) Missing 605 (7.3) 12 (0.9) Mechanical ventilation 0.78 Yes 84 (1.0) 14 (1.0) No 7,111 (85.7) 1,339 (96.4) Missing 1,102 (13.3) 36 (2.6) Died 0.61 Yes 59 (0.7) 9 (0.6) No 5,947 (71.7) 1,153 (83.0) Missing 2,291 (27.6) 227 (16.3) Abbreviations: COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019; ICU = intensive care unit. * P-values based on chi-squared tests and excludes missing categories; level of significance = p<0.05. † Persons with COVID-19 were classified as having a severe outcome if they were admitted to an ICU, required mechanical ventilation, or died; they were classified as not having a severe outcome if they were not admitted to an ICU, did not require mechanical ventilation, and did not die. Among persons with workplace outbreak-associated COVID-19, information on race and ethnicity was available for 1,335 (96%); 783 (59%) workers with workplace outbreak-associated COVID-19 identified as Hispanic, 365 (27%) as non-Hispanic white, and 187 (19%) as nonwhite. In total, 970 (73%) of persons with workplace outbreak-associated COVID-19 identified as Hispanic or nonwhite, although these ethnic/racial groups represent <24% of Utah’s workforce in the 15 affected industry sectors ( 1 ). This disparity was observed across all 15 industry sectors with the largest in Wholesale Trade (percentage point difference between percentage of Hispanic or nonwhite workers among workplace outbreak-associated COVID-19 cases and the overall workforce = 58) and Manufacturing (percentage point difference = 53) sectors (Figure). FIGURE Percentage point difference* between the percentage of workers with workplace outbreak-associated COVID-19 who are Hispanic/Latino and nonwhite† and the percentage of Hispanic/Latino and nonwhite workers within the entire industry workforce, § by industry sector ¶ — Utah, March 6–June 5, 2020 Abbreviation: COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019. * Sectors are sorted on absolute disparity between the percentage of Hispanic/Latino and nonwhite workers among workplace outbreak cases and the percentage of Hispanic/Latino and nonwhite workers in the overall industry workforce, in descending order. † Nonwhite includes the following (all non-Hispanic): black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, two or more races, or other race groups. § Sector workforce demographics from U.S. Census Quarterly Workforce Indicators, Utah 2019 (third quarter); https://qwiexplorer.ces.census.gov/static/explore.html. ¶ Industry sectors are based on the North American Industry Classification System (https://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/). Because of small case numbers and similarities in sector processes and settings, Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services and Information sectors were combined into a single category, as were Finance and Insurance, Real Estate, Rental and Leasing, and Public Administration. The figure is a dumbbell plot showing the percentage point difference between the percentage of workers with outbreak-associated COVID-19 who are Hispanic/Latino and nonwhite and the percentage of Hispanic/Latino and nonwhite workers within the entire industry workforce, in Utah during March 6–June 5, 2020, by industry sector. Discussion During March 6–June 5, COVID-19 outbreaks were identified in nearly all assessed industry sectors in Utah, with approximately one half of workplace outbreak-associated cases occurring in three sectors: Manufacturing, Construction, and Wholesale Trade. Persons with workplace outbreak-associated COVID-19 were disproportionately Hispanic or nonwhite compared with overall racial/ethnic distributions in these industry sectors. Sector-specific COVID-19 guidance, which CDC has generated for many industries, § , ¶ , ** should be followed to account for different production processes, business operations, and working conditions faced by workers in these sectors. When available, efforts should be made to help employers operationalize sector-specific guidance; CDC and UDOH plain-language business guides can help employers manage and prevent workplace outbreaks and exposures. †† Avoiding introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into workplaces is critical to preventing outbreaks, making both community- and workplace-specific interventions important if SARS-CoV-2 transmission in workplace settings is to be prevented. Health departments and employers need to ensure mitigation strategies are provided using culturally and linguistically responsive materials and messages, which reach workers of racial and ethnic minority groups, especially those disproportionately affected by workplace COVID-19 outbreaks. The racial and ethnic disparities in workplace outbreak-associated COVID-19 cases found in Utah and identified in meat processing facility outbreaks in other states ( 3 ) demonstrate a disproportionate risk for COVID-19. These disparities might be driven, in part, by longstanding health and social inequities ( 2 ), resulting in the overrepresentation of Hispanic and nonwhite workers in frontline occupations (i.e., essential and direct-service) where risk for SARS-CoV-2 exposure might be higher than that associated with remote or nondirect–service work ( 4 ). In addition, Hispanic and nonwhite workers have less flexible work schedules and fewer telework options compared with white and non-Hispanic workers ( 5 ). Lack of job flexibility (i.e., ability to vary when to start and end work), lack of telework options, and unpaid or punitive sick leave policies might prevent workers from staying home and seeking care when ill, resulting in more workplace exposures, delayed treatment, and more severe COVID-19 outcomes ( 6 , 7 ). Whenever employers can provide flexible work schedules, nonpunitive paid sick leave, and telework options, they should offer this equitably to Hispanic and nonwhite workers. The findings in this report are subject to at least six limitations. First, this analysis is not representative of all workplace outbreaks in Utah. Outbreaks might not be detected or reported in smaller workplaces, and workers with self-limiting symptoms might not be tested. Outbreaks in nursing homes, detention centers, and education settings were not included in this analysis, and thus, the relative impact of COVID-19 in industry sectors represented by those workers were not assessed. Second, worker-to-worker transmission could not be confirmed; some workplace outbreak-associated cases will represent community and household transmission, or transmission between coworkers outside of work (e.g., commuting to work or social gatherings). Third, individual occupation data were unavailable, so assumptions about the types of affected workers (e.g., frontline workers) cannot be confirmed. Gathering detailed individual occupation data during case investigations might help inform more targeted risk-mitigation interventions within sectors by identifying types of work and workers at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Fourth, the stay-at-home directives in effect in Utah during the study period likely differentially affected workplace attendance in different sectors (e.g., more telework in information than in construction sectors); therefore, these findings might not be generalizable to states with different restriction levels and sector workforce distributions. Fifth, it is not known to what extent workers in these sectors were familiar with, able, and willing to follow guidance to prevent and reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Finally, workforce estimates used to calculate the outbreak incidence rates by sector could not be adjusted to account for workers in health care, educational, and congregate-living settings that were excluded from this analysis, resulting in underestimated rates; outbreak incidence rates for the Educational Services sector (NAICS code 61) and Health Care and Social Services sector (NAICS code 62) were likely most affected by this limitation. Understanding the distribution of workplace outbreaks across industry sectors can help health departments identify and target industries where additional guidance and intervention to mitigate SARS-CoV-2 transmission might be needed. Further, health departments should consider obtaining case occupation data to better understand workplace outbreaks to inform more targeted interventions. The overrepresentation of Hispanic and nonwhite workers in frontline occupations has resulted in disproportionate disease incidence among racial/ethnic minority groups. Care must be taken to ensure that prevention and mitigation strategies are applied equitably and effectively using culturally and linguistically responsive materials, media, and messages to workers of racial and ethnic minority groups disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Summary What is already known about this topic? COVID-19 outbreaks occur within various workplaces. What is added by this report? During March 6–June 5, 2020, workplace outbreaks occurred in 15 Utah industry sectors; 58% of workplace outbreak-associated COVID-19 cases were in three sectors: Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade, and Construction. Despite representing 24% of Utah workers in all affected sectors, Hispanic and nonwhite workers accounted for 73% of workplace outbreak-associated COVID-19 cases. What are the implications for public health practice? Sector-specific COVID-19 guidance should be followed. Mitigation strategies should be culturally and linguistically responsive to racial/ethnic minority workers disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Collection of detailed case occupation data is needed to understand types of work where exposure risk is highest.

          Related collections

          Most cited references4

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Disparities In Outcomes Among COVID-19 Patients In A Large Health Care System In California: Study examines disparities in access and outcomes for COVID-19 patients who are members of racial and ethnic minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.

          As the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic spreads throughout the United States, evidence is mounting that racial and ethnic minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups are bearing a disproportionate burden of illness and death. We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of COVID-19 patients at Sutter Health, a large integrated health system in northern California, to measure potential disparities. We used Sutter's integrated electronic health record to identify adults with suspected and confirmed COVID-19, and we used multivariable logistic regression to assess risk of hospitalization, adjusting for known risk factors, such as race/ethnicity, sex, age, health, and socioeconomic variables. We analyzed 1,052 confirmed cases of COVID-19 from the period January 1-April 8, 2020. Among our findings, we observed that compared with non-Hispanic white patients, non-Hispanic African American patients had 2.7 times the odds of hospitalization, after adjustment for age, sex, comorbidities, and income. We explore possible explanations for this, including societal factors that either result in barriers to timely access to care or create circumstances in which patients view delaying care as the most sensible option. Our study provides real-world evidence of racial and ethnic disparities in the presentation of COVID-19.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Update: COVID-19 Among Workers in Meat and Poultry Processing Facilities ― United States, April–May 2020

            On July 7, 2020, this report was posted online as an MMWR Early Release. Meat and poultry processing facilities face distinctive challenges in the control of infectious diseases, including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ( 1 ). COVID-19 outbreaks among meat and poultry processing facility workers can rapidly affect large numbers of persons. Assessment of COVID-19 cases among workers in 115 meat and poultry processing facilities through April 27, 2020, documented 4,913 cases and 20 deaths reported by 19 states ( 1 ). This report provides updated aggregate data from states regarding the number of meat and poultry processing facilities affected by COVID-19, the number and demographic characteristics of affected workers, and the number of COVID-19–associated deaths among workers, as well as descriptions of interventions and prevention efforts at these facilities. Aggregate data on confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths among workers identified and reported through May 31, 2020, were obtained from 239 affected facilities (those with a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 case in one or more workers) in 23 states.* COVID-19 was confirmed in 16,233 workers, including 86 COVID-19–related deaths. Among 14 states reporting the total number of workers in affected meat and poultry processing facilities (112,616), COVID-19 was diagnosed in 9.1% of workers. Among 9,919 (61%) cases in 21 states with reported race/ethnicity, 87% occurred among racial and ethnic minority workers. Commonly reported interventions and prevention efforts at facilities included implementing worker temperature or symptom screening and COVID-19 education, mandating face coverings, adding hand hygiene stations, and adding physical barriers between workers. Targeted workplace interventions and prevention efforts that are appropriately tailored to the groups most affected by COVID-19 are critical to reducing both COVID-19–associated occupational risk and health disparities among vulnerable populations. Implementation of these interventions and prevention efforts † across meat and poultry processing facilities nationally could help protect workers in this critical infrastructure industry. Distinctive factors that increase meat and poultry processing workers’ risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, include prolonged close workplace contact with coworkers (within 6 feet for ≥15 minutes) for long time periods (8–12 hour shifts), shared work spaces, shared transportation to and from the workplace, congregate housing, and frequent community contact with fellow workers. Many of these factors might also contribute to ongoing community transmission ( 1 ). To better understand the effect of COVID-19 on workers in these facilities nationwide, on June 6, 2020, CDC requested that state health departments report aggregate surveillance data through May 31, 2020, for workers in all meat and poultry processing facilities affected by COVID-19, including 1) the number and type of such facilities that had reported at least one confirmed COVID-19 case among workers, 2) the total number of workers in affected facilities, 3) the number of workers with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, and 4) the number of COVID-19–related worker deaths. States reported COVID-19 cases determined by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists confirmed case definition. § States were asked to report demographic characteristics and symptom status of workers with COVID-19. Testing strategies and methods for collecting symptom data varied by workplace. Proportional distributions for demographic characteristics and symptom status were calculated for cases among workers in 21 states after excluding missing and unknown values; data were missing for sex in 25% of reports, age in 24%, race/ethnicity in 39%, and symptom status in 37%. States also provided information (from direct observation or from management at affected facilities) regarding specified interventions and prevention efforts that were implemented. A random-effects logistic regression model was used to obtain an estimate of the pooled proportion of asymptomatic (SARS-CoV-2 detected but symptoms never develop) or presymptomatic (SARS-CoV-2 detected before symptom onset) infections at the time of testing among workers who had positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. Five states provided prevalence data from facility-wide testing of 5,572 workers in seven facilities. Modeling was conducted and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, with facilities treated as the random effect, using SAS software (version 9.4; SAS Institute). Twenty-eight (56%) of 50 states responded, including 23 (82%) that reported at least one confirmed COVID-19 case among meat and poultry processing workers. Overall, 239 facilities reported 16,233 COVID-19 cases and 86 COVID-19–related deaths among workers (Table 1). The median number of affected facilities per state was seven (interquartile range = 3–14). Among 14 states reporting the total number of workers in affected facilities, 9.1% of 112,616 workers received diagnoses of COVID-19. The percentage of workers with COVID-19 ranged from 3.1% to 24.5% per facility. TABLE 1 Laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases among workers in meat and poultry facilities — 23 states, April–May 2020* State Type of meat/poultry in affected facilities No. (%) Facilities affected Workers in affected facilities† Confirmed COVID-19 cases among workers COVID-19–related deaths§ Arizona Beef 1 1,750 162 (9.3) 0 (0) Colorado Beef, bison, lamb, poultry 7 7,711 422 (5.5) 9 (2.1) Georgia Poultry 14 16,500 509 (3.1) 1 (0.2) Idaho Beef 2 797 72 (9.0) 0 (0) Illinois Beef, pork, poultry 26 N/A 1,029 (―) 10 (1.0) Kansas Beef, pork, poultry 10 N/A 2,670 (―) 8 (0.3) Kentucky Pork, poultry 7 7,633 559 (7.3) 4 (0.7) Maine Poultry 1 411 50 (12.2) 1 (2.0) Maryland Poultry 2 2,036 208 (10.2) 5 (2.4) Massachusetts Poultry, other 33 N/A 263 (―) 0 (0) Missouri Beef, pork, poultry 9 8,469 745 (8.8) 2 (0.3) Nebraska Beef, pork, poultry 23 26,134 3,438 (13.2) 14 (0.4) New Mexico Beef, pork, poultry 2 550 24 (4.4) 0 (0) Pennsylvania Beef, pork, poultry, other 30 15,548 1,169 (7.5) 8 (0.7) Rhode Island Beef, pork, poultry, other 6 N/A 78 (―) 0 (0) South Carolina Beef, pork, poultry, other 16 N/A 97 (―) 0 (0) South Dakota Beef, pork, poultry 4 6,500 1,593 (24.5) 3 (0.2) Tennessee Pork, poultry, other 7 N/A 640 (―) 2 (0.3) Utah Beef, pork, poultry 4 N/A 67 (―) 1 (1.5) Virginia Pork, poultry, other 14 N/A 1,109 (―) 10 (0.9) Washington Beef, poultry 7 4,452 468 (10.5) 4 (0.9) Wisconsin Beef, pork, veal 14 14,125 860 (6.1) 4 (0.5) Wyoming Beef 0 N/A 1 (―) 0 (0) Total¶ Beef, bison, lamb, pork, poultry, veal, other 239 112,616 16,233 86 Combined total** ― 264 ― 17,358 91 Abbreviations: COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019; N/A = not available. * Data reported through May 31, 2020. Five states that responded to the data request did not report any laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases among workers in the animal slaughtering and processing industry; 22 states with animal slaughtering and processing facilities did not respond to the data request. The 13 states that contributed to both an earlier assessment and this update provided any updates to previously reported data, in addition to reporting new cases and facilities, through May 31, 2020. † Among 14 of 23 states reporting the number of workers in affected workplaces, 9.1% of workers received diagnoses of COVID-19. § Percentage of deaths among cases. ¶ Data on workers with COVID-19 from 23 states that submitted data to this report. ** Combining data on workers with COVID-19 (1,125), COVID-19–related deaths (five), and COVID-19–affected facilities (25) through April 27 from six states that contributed to an earlier assessment of COVID-19 among meat and poultry processing workers that did not submit updated data to this report (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6918e3.htm?s_cid=mm6918e3_w). Twenty-one states provided information on demographic characteristics and symptom status of workers with COVID-19. Among the 12,100 (75%) and 12,365 (76%) patients with information on sex and age, 7,288 (60%) cases occurred among males, and 5,741 (46%) were aged 40–59 years, respectively (Figure). Among the 9,919 (61%) cases with race/ethnicity reported, 5,584 (56%) were in Hispanics, 1,842 (19%) in non-Hispanic blacks (blacks), 1,332 (13%) in non-Hispanic whites (whites), and 1,161 (12%) in Asians. Symptom status was reported for 10,284 (63%) cases; among these, 9,072 (88%) workers were symptomatic, and 1,212 (12%) were asymptomatic or presymptomatic. FIGURE Characteristics * , † of reported laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases among workers in meat and poultry processing facilities — 21 states, April–May 2020 § Abbreviation: COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019. * The analytic dataset excludes cases reported by states that were missing information on sex (4,133), age (3,868), race/ethnicity (6,314), and symptom status (5,949). White, black, and Asian workers were non-Hispanic; Hispanic workers could be of any race. † Testing strategies and methods for collecting symptom data varied by workplace. Symptom status was available for a single timepoint, at the time of testing or at the time of interview. § Data reported through May 31, 2020. The figure is a bar chart showing characteristics of reported laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases among workers in meat and poultry processing facilities, by sex, age group, race/ethnicity, and symptom status, in 21 states during April–May 2020. Among 239 facilities reporting cases, information on interventions and prevention efforts was available for 111 (46%) facilities from 14 states. Overall, 89 (80%) facilities reported screening workers on entry, 86 (77%) required all workers to wear face coverings, 72 (65%) increased the availability of hand hygiene stations, 70 (63%) educated workers on community spread, and 69 (62%) installed physical barriers between workers (Table 2). Forty-one (37%) of 111 facilities offered testing for SARS-CoV-2 to workers; 24 (22%) reported closing temporarily as an intervention measure. TABLE 2 Interventions and prevention efforts implemented by facilities in response to COVID-19 among workers in 111 meat and poultry processing facilities* —14 states, April–May 2020 † Intervention/Prevention effort COVID-19–affected facilities, no. (%§) Implemented intervention Did not implement intervention Intervention status unknown Worker screening on entry 89 (80) 5 (5) 17 (15) Required universal face covering 86 (77) 5 (5) 20 (18) Added hand hygiene stations 72 (65) 8 (7) 31 (28) Educated employees on community spread 70 (63) 13 (12) 28 (25) Installed physical barriers between workers 69 (62) 17 (15) 25 (23) Staggered shifts 57 (51) 17 (15) 37 (33) Offered SARS-CoV-2 testing to employees¶ 41 (37) 35 (32) 35 (32) Removed financial incentives (e.g., attendance bonuses) 33 (30) 20 (18) 58 (52) Closed facility temporarily 24 (22) 69 (62) 18 (16) Reduced rate of animal processing 23 (21) 14 (12) 74 (67) Decreased crowding of transportation to worksite 17 (15) 10 (9) 84 (76) Abbreviation: COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019. * Affected facilities defined as those having one or more laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases among workers. † Based on data collected through May 31, 2020. § Because of rounding, row percentages might not equal 100%. ¶ Testing strategies varied by facility. Among seven facilities that implemented facility-wide testing, the crude prevalence of asymptomatic or presymptomatic infections among 5,572 workers who had positive SARS-CoV-2 test results was 14.4%. The pooled prevalence estimated from the model for the proportion of asymptomatic or presymptomatic infections among workers in meat and poultry processing facilities was 11.2% (95% CI = 0.9%–23.1%). Discussion The animal slaughtering and processing industry employs an estimated 525,000 workers in approximately 3,500 facilities nationwide ( 2 , 3 ). Combining data on workers with COVID-19 and COVID-19–related deaths identified and reported through May 31 from 23 states (16,233 cases; 86 deaths) with data from an earlier assessment through April 27 (1,125 cases; five deaths) ( 1 ) that included data from six states that did not contribute updated data to this report, ¶ at least 17,358 cases and 91 COVID-19–related deaths have occurred among U.S. meat and poultry processing workers. The effects of COVID-19 on racial and ethnic minority groups are not yet fully understood; however, current data indicate a disproportionate burden of illness and death among these populations ( 4 , 5 ). Among animal slaughtering and processing workers from the 21 states included in this report whose race/ethnicity were known, approximately 39% were white, 30% were Hispanic, 25% were black, and 6% were Asian.** However, among 9,919 workers with COVID-19 with race/ethnicity reported, approximately 56% were Hispanic, 19% were black, 13% were white, and 12% were Asian, suggesting that Hispanic and Asian workers might be disproportionately affected by COVID-19 in this workplace setting. Ongoing efforts to reduce incidence and better understand the effects of COVID-19 on the health of racial and ethnic minorities are important to ensure that workplace-specific prevention strategies and intervention messages are tailored to those groups most affected by COVID-19. The proportion of asymptomatic or presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections identified in investigations of COVID-19 outbreaks in other high-density settings has ranged from 19% to 88% ( 6 , 7 ). Among cases in workers with known symptom status in this report, 12% of patients were asymptomatic or presymptomatic; however, not all facilities performed facility-wide testing, during which these infections are more likely to be identified. Consequently, many asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections in the overall workforce might have gone unrecognized, and the approximations for disease prevalence in this report might underestimate SARS-CoV-2 infections. Recently derived estimates of the total proportion of asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections from data on COVID-19 investigations among cruise ship passengers and evacuees from Wuhan, China, ranged from 17.9% to 30.8%, respectively ( 8 , 9 ). The estimated proportion of asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections among meat and poultry processing workers (11.2%) is lower than are previously reported estimates and should be reevaluated as more comprehensive facility-wide testing data are reported. In coordination with state and local health agencies, many meat and poultry processing facilities have implemented interventions to reduce transmission or prevent ongoing exposure within the workplace, including offering testing to workers. †† Expanding interventions across these facilities nationwide might help protect workers in this industry. Recognizing the interaction of workplace and community, many facilities have also educated workers about strategies for reducing transmission of COVID-19 outside the workplace. §§ The findings in this report are subject to at least seven limitations. First, only 28 of 50 states responded; 23 states with COVID-19 cases among meat and poultry processing facility workers submitted data for this report. In addition, only facilities with at least one laboratory-confirmed case of COVID-19 among workers were included. Thus, these results might not be representative of all U.S. meat and poultry processing facilities and workers. Second, delays in identifying workplace outbreaks and linking cases or deaths to outbreaks might have resulted in an underestimation of the number of affected facilities and cases among workers. Third, data were not reported on variations in testing availability and practices, which might influence the number of cases reported. Fourth, industry data were used for race/ethnicity comparisons; demographic characteristics of total worker populations in affected facilities were not available, limiting the ability to quantify the degree to which some racial and ethnic minority groups might be disproportionately affected by COVID-19 in this industry. Reported frequencies of demographic and symptom data likely underestimate the actual prevalence because of missing data, which limits the conclusions that can be drawn from descriptive analyses. Fifth, information on interventions and prevention efforts was available for a subset of affected facilities and therefore might not be generalizable to all facilities. Information was subject to self-report by facility management, and all available intervention efforts might not have been captured. Further evaluation of the extent of control measures and timing of implementations is needed to assess effectiveness of control measures. Sixth, symptom data collected at facility-wide testing was self-reported and might have been influenced by the presence of employers. Finally, workers in this industry are members of their local communities, and their source of exposure and infection could not be determined; for those living in communities experiencing widespread transmission, exposure might have occurred within the surrounding community as well as at the worksite. High population-density workplace settings such as meat and poultry processing facilities present ongoing challenges to preventing and reducing the risk for SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Collaborative implementation of interventions and prevention efforts, which might include comprehensive testing strategies, could help reduce COVID-19–associated occupational risk. Targeted, workplace-specific prevention strategies are critical to reducing COVID-19–associated health disparities among vulnerable populations Lessons learned from investigating outbreaks of COVID-19 in meat and poultry processing facilities could inform investigations in other food production and agriculture workplaces to help prevent and reduce COVID-19 transmission among all workers in these essential industries. Summary What is already known about this topic? COVID-19 outbreaks among meat and poultry processing facility workers can rapidly affect large numbers of persons. What is added by this report? Among 23 states reporting COVID-19 outbreaks in meat and poultry processing facilities, 16,233 cases in 239 facilities occurred, including 86 (0.5%) COVID-19–related deaths. Among cases with race/ethnicity reported, 87% occurred among racial or ethnic minorities. Commonly implemented interventions included worker screening, source control measures (universal face coverings), engineering controls (physical barriers), and infection prevention measures (additional hand hygiene stations). What are the implications for public health practice? Targeted workplace interventions and prevention efforts that are appropriately tailored to the groups most affected by COVID-19 are critical to reducing both COVID-19–associated occupational risk and health disparities among vulnerable populations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Characteristics of Adult Outpatients and Inpatients with COVID-19 — 11 Academic Medical Centers, United States, March–May 2020

              Descriptions of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States have focused primarily on hospitalized patients. Reports documenting exposures to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, have generally been described within congregate settings, such as meat and poultry processing plants ( 1 ) and long-term care facilities ( 2 ). Understanding individual behaviors and demographic characteristics of patients with COVID-19 and risks for severe illness requiring hospitalization can inform efforts to reduce transmission. During April 15–May 24, 2020, telephone interviews were conducted with a random sample of adults aged ≥18 years who had positive reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results for SARS-CoV-2 in outpatient and inpatient settings at 11 U.S. academic medical centers in nine states. Respondents were contacted 14–21 days after SARS-CoV-2 testing and asked about their demographic characteristics, underlying chronic conditions, symptoms experienced on the date of testing, and potential exposures to SARS-CoV-2 during the 2 weeks before illness onset (or the date of testing among those who did not report symptoms at the time of testing). Among 350 interviewed patients (271 [77%] outpatients and 79 [23%] inpatients), inpatients were older, more likely to be Hispanic and to report dyspnea than outpatients. Fewer inpatients (39%, 20 of 51) reported a return to baseline level of health at 14–21 days than did outpatients (64%, 150 of 233) (p = 0.001). Overall, approximately one half (46%) of patients reported known close contact with someone with COVID-19 during the preceding 2 weeks. This was most commonly a family member (45%) or a work colleague (34%). Approximately two thirds (64%, 212 of 333) of participants were employed; only 35 of 209 (17%) were able to telework. These findings highlight the need for screening, case investigation, contact tracing, and isolation of infected persons to control transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection during periods of community transmission. The need for enhanced measures to ensure workplace safety, including ensuring social distancing and more widespread use of cloth face coverings, are warranted ( 3 ). The Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in the Critically Ill (IVY) Network is a collaboration of U.S. medical centers conducting research on vaccine effectiveness for and epidemiologic studies of influenza, and recently started conducting epidemiologic studies on COVID-19. To explore the spectrum of illness across health care settings and potential community SARS-CoV-2 exposures after issuance of national social distancing guidelines on March 16, 2020 ( 4 ), 11 academic medical centers in nine states conducted telephone-based surveys of a sample of patients with positive SARS-COV-2 test results during April 15–May 24, 2020 (testing dates = March 31–May 10, 2020). Medical centers submitted lists of persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection to Vanderbilt University and identified location of testing (intensive care unit [ICU], non-ICU hospital admission, emergency department [ED] without admission during the encounter, and other outpatient settings). To achieve a broadly representative cohort, selection of patients was made using site-specific stratified random sampling by location of testing. The median proportions sampled were 67% of inpatients and 53% of outpatients. Personnel from CDC telephoned patients during intervals of 14–21 days (97%) or 28–35 days (3%) after testing; up to seven call attempts were made per patient for each period. Interviews were conducted in English, Spanish, French, Creole, Portuguese, Arabic, Burmese, and Somali. Respondents or their proxies were asked to provide patient demographic and socioeconomic information, clinical signs and symptoms on the date of testing, underlying chronic conditions, and potential exposures to SARS-CoV-2 during the 2 weeks preceding illness onset (or 2 weeks before test date in patients who did not report symptoms). This 14-day exposure period was selected to encompass the estimated COVID-19 incubation period for most persons ( 5 ). Patients who responded at 28–35 days were asked the same questions, with the exception of signs or symptoms at the time of testing because the delay between symptom onset and interview date increased the potential for introducing recall bias. To compare responses among patients who received inpatient and outpatient testing, descriptive statistics were analyzed, using Wilcoxon rank-sum testing for continuous variables and chi-squared or Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables. Patients with proxy respondents or who had died were excluded because details about symptoms, medical conditions, and exposure histories were frequently unknown. Statistical analyses were conducted using Stata software (version 16; StataCorp). At least one telephone call was attempted for 798 randomly selected patients 309 inpatients [98 ICU and 211 non-ICU] and 489 outpatients [144 ED and 345 non-ED]) across the 11 sites. Among these, 544 (68%) answered calls, and 398 (50%) completed interviews. Sixty-seven (8%) patients or proxies refused, 37 (5%) were unable to complete the interview because of a language barrier, 42 (5%) requested a callback but could not be reached on further call attempts; 20 (3%) were reported to have died within 21 days of testing (nine proxy respondents interviewed and 11 refused). A total of 48 proxy interviews were excluded, leaving 350 of 398 for analysis.* Among the 350 respondents with completed interviews, 271 (77%) were tested as outpatients (70 ED and 201 non-ED) and 79 (23%) as inpatients (17 ICU and 62 non-ICU) (Table 1). The median number of patient respondents by site was 20 (interquartile range = 11–46). The median respondent age was 43 years; 185 (53%) were female, 116 (33%) white, 73 (21%) non-Hispanic black (black), 43 (12%) non-Hispanic of another race, and 116 (33%) Hispanic. Nineteen patients reported another positive SARS-CoV-2 test result before the test date applicable to this study. Among outpatients, 8% (22 of 271) were later admitted to the hospital after having outpatient testing. TABLE 1 Self-reported demographic and baseline clinical characteristics of outpatients (N = 271) and inpatients (N = 79) with SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR–positive test results at 14–21 days or 28–35 days after testing — academic medical centers,* United States, March–May 2020 Characteristic No. (%) Total (350) Outpatients (271) Inpatients (79) P-value Median age, yrs, (IQR) 43 (32–57) 42 (31–54) 54 (36–68) $74,000 57 (16) 49 (18) 8 (10) Unknown/Refused to answer 112 (32) 84 (31) 28 (35) Underlying medical condition (334)§ Number, median (IQR) 1 (0–2) 1 (0–2) 2 (1–3) 10 persons 28 (8) 21 (8) 7 (9) 0.77 Used public transportation 23 (7) 12 (5) 11 (15) 0.003 Abbreviations: COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019; IQR = interquartile range. * Patients were sampled from 11 academic medical centers in nine states (University of Washington [Washington], Oregon Health and Sciences University [Oregon], University of California Los Angeles and Stanford University [California], Hennepin County Medical Center [Minnesota], Vanderbilt University [Tennessee], The Ohio State University [Ohio], Wake Forest University [North Carolina], Montefiore Medical Center [New York], Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Baystate Medical Center [Massachusetts]). † Exposures were elicited in 2 weeks preceding illness onset or 2 weeks preceding testing for asymptomatic patients. § Of 350 patient respondents, 339 were included; 11 (3%) were excluded for not answering any of the exposure-related questions; for individual exposures in 339 included respondents, some respondents were missing data on close contact with a person with a COVID-19 case (seven), being employed (six), working outside the home (11), ability to telework (three), working at a health care facility (one), average number of daily contacts outside the home (15), frequency of interaction with others outside the home (23), days going out for groceries (20), attendance at gathering with ≥10 persons (six), and use of public transportation (six); denominators used to calculate proportions of respondents with individual exposures or behaviors exclude patients with missing data for the exposure or behavior. ¶ Other included exposures within health care settings (18), assisted living facilities (six), neighbors (two), clients at work (one), exposure at a correctional facility (one), and roommate at long-term care facility (one); among 24 exposures in health care settings or assisted living facilities, 22 were reported among persons who worked in a health care facility. Approximately two thirds (64%, 212 of 333) of participants were employed; however, only 35 of 209 (17%) were able to telework. Outpatients were more likely to report being employed than were inpatients (70% versus 42%; p<0.001) and interacted with persons outside the home more frequently (p<0.001). Among employed participants, 53 (25%) reported working in health care. Discussion Few studies have systematically collected data on COVID-19 patients from varied health care settings in the United States. In this multistate telephone-based survey of 350 U.S. COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients, inpatients were typically older and had more underlying chronic conditions, findings that have been previously observed with both COVID-19 and influenza patients ( 6 – 8 ). Compared with outpatients, inpatients reported lower household incomes and were less likely to be white. Differences by race/ethnicity are consistent with those reported previously ( 9 ) (e.g., 43% of inpatients were Hispanic, and 28% were black), although in this descriptive analysis no adjustment for other factors was made to evaluate any independent association between race/ethnicity and COVID-19 severity. Approximately one third of symptomatic outpatients reported that they had not returned to baseline health by the interview date 14–21 days after testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. In comparison, almost all outpatient working adults with laboratory-confirmed influenza reported returning to normal activities within 14 days of illness onset during the 2012–13 influenza season ( 10 ). Fewer than one half of patients were aware of recent close contact with someone with COVID-19, highlighting a need for increased screening, case investigation, contact tracing, and isolation of infected persons during periods of community transmission. This finding suggests that ensuring social distancing and more widespread use of cloth face coverings are warranted ( 3 ). A majority of COVID-19 patients reported working during the 2 weeks preceding illness, and few had the ability to telework, underscoring the need for enhanced measures to ensure workplace safety. The findings in this report are subject to at least six limitations. First, given that the survey was telephone-based, some nonresponse bias is possible. Patients with more severe illnesses might have still been hospitalized at the time of the survey or might have died, resulting in a higher proportion of nonrespondents among patients with more severe illness. Estimates of the frequency of clinical characteristics should therefore be interpreted with caution. Second, patients were sampled from academic medical centers with differing numbers of respondents; therefore, patients in this study are not representative of cases nationwide. With limited testing capacity, some groups (e.g., health care and other essential workers) might also have been preferentially tested. Third, data were obtained by self-report and might be subject to recall bias. Fourth, this survey documented a cross-section of symptoms reported on the date of testing, and symptoms might have changed during the course of illness. In addition, a few patients reported an earlier positive test result, which might have led to misclassification of test setting; however, this was infrequent (5%). Fifth, no adjustment for other factors to determine whether variables were independently associated with illness severity was made. Finally, a small proportion of respondents were asymptomatic at the time of testing. However, comparisons including demographics and exposure histories were similar when the analysis was restricted to only patients who reported symptoms. This study provides insights into epidemiologic characteristics of patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during March–May 2020, documenting differences between patients with medically attended outpatient and inpatient illness regarding demographic characteristics, baseline underlying chronic conditions, symptoms, and exposures that could be used to target public health interventions. In addition, among symptomatic respondents, inpatients and outpatients with COVID-19 reported similar numbers of symptoms, but different types of symptoms as previously described. § Thus, a range of symptoms should prompt testing for SARS-CoV-2. The wide range of symptoms reported, and the lack of known COVID-19 contact in 54% of patients, underscores the need for isolation of infected persons, contact tracing and testing during ongoing community transmission, and prevention measures including social distancing and use of cloth face coverings. Summary What is already known about this topic? Exposures to SARS-CoV-2 have commonly been described in congregate settings rather than broader community settings. What is added by this report? In a multistate telephone survey of 350 adult inpatients and outpatients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, only 46% reported recent contact with a COVID-19 patient. Most participants’ contacts were a family member (45%) or a work colleague (34%). Two thirds of participants were employed; only 17% were able to telework. What are the implications for public health practice? Case investigation, contact tracing, and isolation of infected persons are needed to prevent ongoing community transmission, given the frequent lack of a known contact. Enhanced measures to ensure workplace safety, including social distancing and more widespread use of cloth face coverings, are warranted.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
                MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep
                WR
                Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
                Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
                0149-2195
                1545-861X
                21 August 2020
                21 August 2020
                : 69
                : 33
                : 1133-1138
                Affiliations
                Epidemic Intelligence Service, CDC; Division of Environmental Health Science and Practice, National Center for Environmental Health, CDC; Utah Department of Health, Salt Lake City, Utah; Salt Lake County Health Department, Salt Lake City, Utah; Summit County Health Department, Park City, Utah; Southeast Utah Health Department, Price, Utah; Davis County Health Department, Clearfield, Utah; Weber-Morgan Health Department, Ogden, Utah; Wasatch County Health Department, Heber, Utah.
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: David Bui, pgz2@ 123456cdc.gov .
                Article
                mm6933e3
                10.15585/mmwr.mm6933e3
                7439983
                32817604
                2fdbe8d7-f414-4c60-9420-c727acffe155

                All material in the MMWR Series is in the public domain and may be used and reprinted without permission; citation as to source, however, is appreciated.

                History
                Categories
                Full Report

                Comments

                Comment on this article