Skip to main content
SearchLoginLogin or Signup

Review 1: "Excess Mortality Associated with the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Californians 18–65 years of Age, By Occupational Sector and Occupation: March Through October 2020"

Published onApr 13, 2022
Review 1: "Excess Mortality Associated with the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Californians 18–65 years of Age, By Occupational Sector and Occupation: March Through October 2020"
1 of 2
key-enterThis Pub is a Review of
Excess mortality associated with the COVID-19 pandemic among Californians 18–65 years of age, by occupational sector and occupation: March through October 2020
Description

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

RR:C19 Evidence Scale rating by reviewer:

  • Reliable. The main study claims are generally justified by its methods and data. The results and conclusions are likely to be similar to the hypothetical ideal study. There are some minor caveats or limitations, but they would/do not change the major claims of the study. The study provides sufficient strength of evidence on its own that its main claims should be considered actionable, with some room for future revision.

***************************************

Review:

This study makes reliable, well substantiated, and generally supported claims that essential occupational sectors represent a key site of intervention for preventing excess morbidity and especially mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19. The main suggestions would be to consider the intersection of sector-ethnicity-occupation slightly more systematically throughout the study and to consider the role of non-work/workplace factors that might further spread infection among these groups of workers. This study provides some much-needed insights on contextual (e.g., not just demographic, or biomedical) factors related to SARS-CoV-2 infection to better highlight some of the most vulnerable groups and the sites or environments in which socio-behavioral and/or industrial and environmental interventions can be employed to reduce spread. In this sense, the study substantially advances understandings of who is most affected by the pandemic and why.

There are a few points regarding how the data are presented that could be improved, largely in the abstract and discussion sections. Essentially, the authors have identified both excess mortality in (1) specific sectors, (2) specific ethnic/racial groups, and then (3) specific combinations of certain ethnic minority workers working in specific sectors, adding (4) general data on excess mortality in specific occupations to further contextualize the ethnic and sectoral differences. I would like to see the discussion reflect the excellent data in a more systematic way. For example, discuss first which sectors have the greatest excess mortality and why; second, which ethnic groups have the greatest excess mortality and then, (3) the ethnicity/race-sectoral combinations which the excess mortality (in terms of RR) exceeds, say, both the general RR for the ethnic/racial group and for the sectoral group by at least .20 (or a threshold of the authors’ choosing).

There is brief reference to some group-specific patterns (e.g., high excess mortality among Asian healthcare workers and Latino agricultural and production workers), but the explanation is sometimes a bit muddled (e.g., referring to demographics rather than specific explanations). These potential explanations could be fleshed out and presented more systematically. In terms of general ethnic/racial and sectoral disparities, for example, why might excess mortality for Latinos be so high in general and even in non-essential occupations? The extant literature or the occupational data featured within the study—perhaps also stratified by race/ethnicity (as with sectors)—could be used to better contextualize these specific patterns more systematically. For example, whether the predominance of a specific occupation held among a specific ethnic group working in that sector (e.g., prevalence of certain ethnic groups employed in food service compared with other types of retail) or in combination with demographic factors (e.g., the health care worker group for some ethnic groups being more comprised of medical doctors who are likely to be older individuals). The abstract should be a summation of the most important points from this systematic analysis—currently, the sum of the results being highlighted in the abstract seem cherry-picked with limited context.

Relatedly, at least some brief attention could be given to the non-workplace factors contributing to elevated excess mortality for some groups. Some of this may have to do with where various groups live and the compounding influence of place/neighborhood on spread, in addition to actual housing stock (which is mentioned briefly). It would be helpful to—at least in a few sentences—to consider the broader intersection of factors associated with the nexus of work and living arrangement (e.g., carpooling, socializing after work in the same places, shared housing or neighborhoods among multiple individuals working at the same facility or set of facilities). Consider the work by Bui et al. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7439983/) and Lewis et al. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32970656/) in Utah as a close complement to this California work and as a way to extend the discussion on excess mortality for these groups. A few last technical considerations would be as follows:

(1) State upfront which years of data (2018 and 2019) are being used as the comparators for 2020 rather than referring to historical periods generally—currently, the years are not identified until the end of the methods section.

(2) It may be helpful to use death rates (e.g., per 1,000 or 100,000) rather than raw death counts for context and comparability to other states.

(3) It would be helpful to stick to just one mode of reporting excess mortality, e.g., RR rather than % increased risk.


Comments
0
comment

No comments here

Why not start the discussion?