During a pandemic, syndromic methods for monitoring illness outside of health care settings, such as tracking absenteeism trends in schools and workplaces, can be useful adjuncts to conventional disease reporting (1,2). Each month, CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) monitors the prevalence of health-related workplace absenteeism among currently employed full-time workers in the United States, overall and by demographic and occupational subgroups, using data from the Current Population Survey (CPS).* This report describes trends in absenteeism during October 2019-April 2020, including March and April 2020, the period of rapidly accelerating transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Overall, the prevalence of health-related workplace absenteeism in March and April 2020 were similar to their 5-year baselines. However, compared with occupation-specific baselines, absenteeism among workers in several occupational groups that define or contain essential critical infrastructure workforce † categories was significantly higher than expected in April. Significant increases in absenteeism were observed in personal care and service § (includes child care workers and personal care aides); healthcare support ¶ ; and production**

No abstract

Background Surveillance systems lack detailed occupational exposure information from workers with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health partnered with six states to collect information from adults diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection (either COVID-19 or asymptomatic infection) who worked in person (outside the home) in non-healthcare settings during the two weeks prior to illness onset. Methods The survey captured demographic, medical, occupational characteristics, and work- and non-work-related risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Reported close contact with a person known or suspected to have COVID-19 was categorized by setting as: exposure at work, exposure outside of work only, or no known exposure/didn’t know if they had exposures. Frequencies and percentages of exposure types are compared by respondent characteristics and risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results Of 1,111 qualified respondents, 19.4% reported exposure at work, 23.4% reported exposure outside of work only, and 57.2% reported no known exposure/didn’t know if they had exposures. Workers in protective service occupations (48.8%) and public administration industries (35.6%) reported exposure at work most often. Over a third (33.7%) of respondents who experienced close contact with ≥10 coworkers per day and 28.8% of respondents who experienced close contact with ≥10 customers/clients per day reported exposures at work. Conclusions Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 at work was common among respondents. Examining differences in exposures among different groups of workers can help identify populations with the greatest need for prevention interventions. The benefits of recording employment characteristics as standard demographic information will remain relevant as new and reemerging public health issues occur.

No abstract