scholarly journals Employer-Mandated Vaccination for COVID-19

2021 ◽  
pp. e1-e4
Author(s):  
Mark A. Rothstein ◽  
Wendy E. Parmet ◽  
Dorit Rubinstein Reiss
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Drug Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Polarization ◽  
Kaiser Family Foundation ◽  
Lack Of Information ◽  
The Us ◽  
Public Health Officials ◽  
New Phase

When the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decided to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) for the first two vaccines for COVID-19, the United States’ response to the pandemic entered a new phase. Initially, the greatest challenge is having enough doses of vaccine and administering them to all who want it. Yet even while many wait expectantly for their turn to be vaccinated, a significant minority of Americans are hesitant. Lack of information or misinformation about the vaccine, a long-standing and well-entrenched antivaccination movement, distrust of public health officials, and political polarization have left many people ambivalent or opposed to vaccination. According to a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation taken in late November and early December 2020, 27% of respondents surveyed stated that they would “probably” or “definitely” not be willing to be vaccinated.1 Reflecting the sharp partisan divide that has characterized views about the pandemic, Democrats (86%) were far more likely than Republicans (56%) to be vaccinated. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print February 4, 2021: e1–e4. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.306166 )

scholarly journals Impacts of social distancing policies on mobility and COVID-19 case growth in the US

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory A. Wellenius ◽  
Swapnil Vispute ◽  
Valeria Espinosa ◽  
Alex Fabrikant ◽  
Thomas C. Tsai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Infection Control ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Social Consequences ◽  
Social Distancing ◽  
Mobility Data ◽  
The Us ◽  
Public Health Officials

AbstractSocial distancing remains an important strategy to combat the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. However, the impacts of specific state-level policies on mobility and subsequent COVID-19 case trajectories have not been completely quantified. Using anonymized and aggregated mobility data from opted-in Google users, we found that state-level emergency declarations resulted in a 9.9% reduction in time spent away from places of residence. Implementation of one or more social distancing policies resulted in an additional 24.5% reduction in mobility the following week, and subsequent shelter-in-place mandates yielded an additional 29.0% reduction. Decreases in mobility were associated with substantial reductions in case growth two to four weeks later. For example, a 10% reduction in mobility was associated with a 17.5% reduction in case growth two weeks later. Given the continued reliance on social distancing policies to limit the spread of COVID-19, these results may be helpful to public health officials trying to balance infection control with the economic and social consequences of these policies.

Poxvirus Countermeasures During an Emergency in the United States

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Bice ◽  
Kevin Yeskey
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
National Security ◽  
The United States ◽  
Smallpox Vaccine ◽  
Accidental Release ◽  
The Us ◽  
Public Health Officials ◽  
Deadly Disease ◽  
Medical Countermeasures

AbstractAlthough smallpox was eradicated worldwide by 1980, national security experts remain concerned that it could be used in a deliberate attack. The United States and other governments have given priority to developing and stockpiling vaccines and antivirals to protect their populations from the potential reintroduction of this deadly disease. Public health officials are also concerned about the spread of related zoonotic orthopoxviruses such as monkeypox and cowpox, against which smallpox vaccine provides protection. This report analyzes how medical countermeasures available in the US Strategic National Stockpile will be given priority and used in the event of an intentional or accidental release of smallpox in the United States. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2015;9:121-126)

Letters to the Editor

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 473-473
Author(s):  
David B. Nelson ◽  
Renate D. Kimbrough ◽  
Philip S. Landrigan ◽  
A. Wallace Hayes ◽  
George C. Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Drug Administration ◽  
Food Supply ◽  
Food Industry ◽  
The United States ◽  
Letters To The Editor ◽  
Department Of Agriculture ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
Food Commodities

Dr Wray's comments are, of course, very appropriate and encouraging. Aflatoxin was first detected in food commodities from other parts of the world. As concentrations in other parts of the world have usually been higher, little attention has been paid to the possibility of aflatoxin exposure in humans in the United States except by those who are directly involved in monitoring the human food supply (US Department of Agriculture, the food industry, and the US Food and Drug Administration).

Recent measles outbreaks in the United States: A look at the causes and responses

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (10) ◽  
pp. 491-496
Author(s):  
Tracy Perron ◽  
Heather Larovere ◽  
Victoria Guerra ◽  
Kathleen Kilfeather ◽  
Nicole Pare ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Personal Autonomy ◽  
Disease Outbreaks ◽  
The United States ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Course Of Action ◽  
Public Health Officials ◽  
Measles Outbreaks

As measles cases continue to rise in the United States and elsewhere, public health officials, health care providers and elected officials alike are facing critical questions of how to protect the health of the public from current and future vaccine preventable disease outbreaks while still preserving the religious and personal autonomy of the populations they serve. As measles cases are being examined and carefully managed, public health officials are also tasked with revisiting vaccination policies and agendas to determine the best evidence-based interventions to control this epidemic. To determine the best course of action for the public's interest, research and current literature must be examined to protect and promote the health and wellbeing of those currently affected by the measles outbreak and those yet to be exposed.

Disaster preparedness and response: Implications for public health nurses

2006 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 48
Author(s):  
Andrea Jennings-Sanders, Dr.PH, RN
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Disaster Preparedness ◽  
The United States ◽  
Local State ◽  
Public Health Nurses ◽  
Access To Information ◽  
Public Health Officials ◽  
Disaster Preparedness And Response

Disasters are becoming more of an integral aspect of life in the United States and in other countries. Public health nurses are in the forefront of providing health services to people affected by disasters. Thus, it is essential that all public health nurses have access to information that will assist them in disaster situations. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how the Framework for Public Health Nurses: Interventions Model can be utilized for planning and responding to disasters. The interventions in the model are directly applicable to disaster situations and, in addition, raise questions on issues that need to be addressed by local, state, and federal public health officials.

scholarly journals Differential impact of non-pharmaceutical public health interventions on COVID-19 epidemics in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoshuang Liu ◽  
Xiao Xu ◽  
Guanqiao Li ◽  
Xian Xu ◽  
Yuyao Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
The United States ◽  
School Closure ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Public Health Interventions ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
The Us ◽  
Individualized Decision

Abstract Background: The widespread pandemic of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) poses an unprecedented global health crisis. In the United States (US), different state governments have adopted various combinations of non-pharmaceutical public health interventions (NPIs), such as non-essential business closures and gathering bans, to mitigate the epidemic from February to April, 2020. Quantitative assessment on the effectiveness of NPIs is greatly needed to assist in guiding individualized decision making for adjustment of interventions in the US and around the world. However, the impacts of these approaches remain uncertain.Methods: Based on the reported cases, the effective reproduction number (Rt) of COVID-19 epidemic for 50 states in the US was estimated. Measurements on the effectiveness of nine different NPIs were conducted by assessing risk ratios (RRs) between R t and NPIs through a generalized linear model (GLM). Results: Different NPIs were found to have led to different levels of reduction in Rt. Stay-at-home contributed approximately 51% (95% CI 46%-57%), wearing (face) masks 29% (15%-42%), gathering ban (more than 10 people) 19% (14%-24%), non-essential business closure 16% (10%-21%), declaration of emergency 13% (8%-17%), interstate travel restriction 11% (5%-16%), school closure 10% (7%-14%), initial business closure 10% (6%-14%), and gathering ban (more than 50 people) 7% (2%-11%).Conclusions: This retrospective assessment of NPIs on Rt has shown that NPIs played critical roles on epidemic control in the US in the past several months. The quantitative results could guide individualized decision making for future adjustment of NPIs in the US and other countries for COVID-19 and other similar infectious diseases.

scholarly journals The US Public Health Service House-to-House Canvass Survey of the Morbidity and Mortality of the 1918 Influenza Pandemic

2020 ◽  
pp. e1-e8
Author(s):  
Alfredo Morabia
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Cumulative Incidence ◽  
Public Health Service ◽  
San Antonio ◽  
Influenza Pandemic ◽  
The United States ◽  
Population Based ◽  
The Us

Between November 20, 1918, and March 12, 1919, the US Public Health Service carried out a vast population-based survey to assess the incidence rate and mortality of the influenza pandemic among 146 203 persons in 18 localities across the United States. The survey attempted to retrospectively assess all self-reported or diagnosed cases of influenza since August 1, 1918. It indicated that the cumulative incidence of symptomatic influenza over 6 months had been 29.4% (range = 15% in Louisville, KY, to 53.3% in San Antonio, TX). The overall case fatality rate (CFR) was 1.70%, and it ranged from 0.78% in San Antonio to 3.14% in New London, Connecticut. Localities with high cumulative incidence were not necessarily those with high CFR. Overall, assuming the survey missed asymptomatic cases, between August 1, 1918, and February 21, 1919, maybe more than 50% of the population was infected, and about 1% of the infected died. Eight months into the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States has not yet launched a survey that would provide population-based estimates of incidence and CFRs analogous to those generated by the 1918 US Public Health Service house-to-house canvass survey of influenza. Published online ahead of print December 8, 2020: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.306025 )

scholarly journals Differential impact of non-pharmaceutical public health interventions on COVID-19 epidemics in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoshuang Liu ◽  
Xiao Xu ◽  
Guanqiao Li ◽  
Xian Xu ◽  
Yuyao Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
The United States ◽  
School Closure ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Public Health Interventions ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Individualized Decision

Abstract The widespread pandemic of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) poses an unprecedented global health crisis. In the United States (US), different state governments have adopted various combinations of non-pharmaceutical public health interventions (NPIs) to mitigate the epidemic from February to April, 2020. Quantitative assessment on the effectiveness of NPIs is in great need to assist in guiding the individualized decision making for adjustment of interventions in the US and around the world. However, the impact of these approaches remain uncertain. Based on the reported cases, the effective reproduction number of COVID-19 epidemic for 50 states in the US was estimated. The measurement on the effectiveness of eight different NPIs was conducted by assessing risk ratios (RRs) between and NPIs through a generalized linear model (GLM). Different NPIs were found to have led to different levels of reduction in. Stay-at-home contributed approximately 51% (95% CI 46%-57%), gathering ban (more than 10 people) 19% (14%-24%), non-essential business closure 16% (10%-21%), declaration of emergency 13% (8%-17%), interstate travel restriction 11% (5%-16%), school closure 10% (7%-13%), initial business closure 10% (6%-14%), and gathering ban (more than 50 people) 6% (2%-11%). This retrospective assessment of NPIs on has shown that NPIs played critical roles on epidemic control in the US in the past several months. The quantitative results could guide individualized decision making for future adjustment of NPIs in the US and other countries for COVID-19 and other similar infectious diseases.

scholarly journals Mask adherence and rate of COVID-19 across the United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlie B. Fischer ◽  
Nedghie Adrien ◽  
Jeremiah J. Silguero ◽  
Julianne J. Hopper ◽  
Abir I. Chowdhury ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
General Public ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Level Data ◽  
High Adherence ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
Public Health Officials

AbstractMask wearing has been advocated by public health officials as a way to reduce the spread of COVID-19. In the United States, policies on mask wearing have varied from state to state over the course of the pandemic. Even as more and more government leaders encourage or even mandate mask wearing, many citizens still resist the notion. Our research examines mask wearing policy and adherence in association with COVID-19 case rates. We used state-level data on mask wearing policy for the general public and on proportion of residents who stated they always wear masks in public. For all 50 states and the District of Columbia (DC), these data were abstracted by month for April ⍰ September 2020 to measure their impact on COVID-19 rates in the subsequent month (May ⍰ October 2020). Monthly COVID-19 case rates (number of cases per capita over two weeks) >200 per 100,000 residents were considered high. Fourteen of the 15 states with no mask wearing policy for the general public through September reported a high COVID-19 rate. Of the 8 states with at least 75% mask adherence, none reported a high COVID-19 rate. States with the lowest levels of mask adherence were most likely to have high COVID-19 rates in the subsequent month, independent of mask policy or demographic factors. Mean COVID-19 rates for states with at least 75% mask adherence in the preceding month was 109.26 per 100,000 compared to 249.99 per 100,000 for those with less adherence. Our analysis suggests high adherence to mask wearing could be a key factor in reducing the spread of COVID-19. This association between high mask adherence and reduced COVID-19 rates should influence policy makers and public health officials to focus on ways to improve mask adherence across the population in order to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.

scholarly journals The Check and Report Ebola (CARE+) Program to Monitor Travelers for Ebola After Arrival to the United States, 2014-2016

2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (6) ◽  
pp. 592-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather A. Joseph ◽  
Abbey E. Wojno ◽  
Kelly Winter ◽  
Onalee Grady-Erickson ◽  
Erin Hawes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
West Africa ◽  
Emerging Infectious Diseases ◽  
Care Program ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Government ◽  
Public Health Authorities ◽  
Control And Prevention

The 2014-2016 Ebola epidemic in West Africa influenced how public health officials considered migration and emerging infectious diseases. Responding to the public’s concerns, the US government introduced enhanced entry screening and post-arrival monitoring by public health authorities to reduce the risk of importation and domestic transmission of Ebola while continuing to allow travel from West Africa. This case study describes a new initiative, the Check and Report Ebola (CARE+) program that engaged travelers arriving to the United States from countries with Ebola outbreaks. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention employed CARE ambassadors, who quickly communicated with incoming travelers and gave them practical resources to boost their participation in monitoring for Ebola. The program aimed to increase travelers’ knowledge of Ebola symptoms and how to seek medical care safely, increase travelers’ awareness of monitoring requirements, reduce barriers to monitoring, and increase trust in the US public health system. This program could be adapted for use in future outbreaks that involve the potential importation of disease and require the education and active engagement of travelers to participate in post-arrival monitoring.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document