Introduction: Because of their inability to access adequate medical care, transportation, and nutrition, socially vulnerable populations are at an increased risk of health challenges during disasters. This study estimates the association between case counts of COVID-19 infection and social vulnerability in the U.S., identifying counties at increased vulnerability to the pandemic. Methods: Using Social Vulnerability Index and COVID-19 case count data, an ordinary least squares regression model was fitted to assess the global relationship between COVID-19 case counts and social vulnerability. Local relationships were assessed using a geographically weighted regression model, which is effective in exploring spatial nonstationarity. Results: As of May 12, 2020, a total of 1,320,909 people had been diagnosed with COVID-19 in the U.S. Of the counties included in this study (91.5%, 2,844 of 3,108), the highest case count was recorded in Trousdale, Tennessee (16,525.22 per 100,000) and the lowest in Tehama, California (1.54 per 100,000). At the global level, overall Social Vulnerability Index (e b =1.65, p=0.03) and minority status and language (e b =6.69, p<0.001) were associated with increased COVID-19 case counts. However, on the basis of the local geographically weighted model, the association between social vulnerability and COVID-19 varied among counties. Overall, minority status and language, household composition and transportation, and housing and disability predicted COVID-19 infection. Conclusions: Large-scale disasters differentially affect the health of marginalized communities. In this study, minority status and language, household composition and transportation, and housing and disability predicted COVID-19 case counts in the U.S. Addressing the social factors that create poor health is essential to reducing inequities in the health impacts of disasters.

While the health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline health care workers have been well described, the effects of the COVID-19 response on the U.S. public health workforce, which has been impacted by the prolonged public health response to the pandemic, has not been adequately characterized. A cross-sectional survey of public health professionals was conducted to assess mental and physical health, risk and protective factors for burnout, and short- and long-term career decisions during the pandemic response. The survey was completed online using the Qualtrics survey platform. Descriptive statistics and prevalence ratios (95% confidence intervals) were calculated. Among responses received from 23 August and 11 September 2020, 66.2% of public health workers reported burnout. Those with more work experience (1–4 vs. <1 years: prevalence ratio (PR) = 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.08−3.36; 5–9 vs. <1 years: PR = 1.89, CI = 1.07−3.34) or working in academic settings (vs. practice: PR = 1.31, CI = 1.08–1.58) were most likely to report burnout. As of September 2020, 23.6% fewer respondents planned to remain in the U.S. public health workforce for three or more years compared to their retrospectively reported January 2020 plans. A large-scale public health emergency response places unsustainable burdens on an already underfunded and understaffed public health workforce. Pandemic-related burnout threatens the U.S. public health workforce’s future when many challenges related to the ongoing COVID-19 response remain unaddressed.

BackgroundPublic adherence to influenza vaccination recommendations has been low, particularly among younger adults and children under 2, despite the availability of safe and effective seasonal vaccine. Intention to receive 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) vaccine has been estimated to be 50% in select populations. This report measures knowledge of and intention to receive pandemic vaccine in a population-based setting, including target groups for seasonal and H1N1 influenza.Methodology and Principal FindingsOn August 28–29, 2009, we conducted a population-based survey in 2 counties in North Carolina. The survey used the 30×7 two-stage cluster sampling methodology to identify 210 target households. Prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated. Knowledge of pandemic influenza A (H1N1) vaccine was high, with 165 (80%) aware that a vaccine was being prepared. A total of 133 (64%) respondents intended to receive pandemic vaccine, 134 (64%) intended to receive seasonal vaccine, and 109 (53%) intended to receive both. Reporting great concern about H1N1 infection (PR 1.55; 95%CI: 1.30, 1.85), receiving seasonal influenza vaccine in 2008–09 (PR 1.47; 95%CI: 1.18, 1.82), and intending to receive seasonal influenza vaccine in 2009–10 (PR 1.27; 95%CI: 1.14, 1.42) were associated with intention to receive pandemic vaccine. Not associated were knowledge of vaccine, employment, having children under age 18, gender, race/ethnicity and age. Reasons cited for not intending to get vaccinated include not being at risk for infection, concerns about vaccine side effects and belief that illness caused by pandemic H1N1 would be mild. Forty-five percent of households with children under 18 and 65% of working adults reported ability to comply with self-isolation at home for 7–10 days if recommended by authorities.Conclusions and SignificanceThis is the first report of a population based rapid assessment used to assess knowledge and intent to receive pandemic vaccine in a community sample. Intention to receive pandemic and seasonal vaccines was higher than previously published reports. To reach persons not intending to receive pandemic vaccine, public health communications should focus on the perceived risk of infection and concerns about vaccine safety.

Individual perception of risk has consistently been considered an important determinant of hurricane evacuation in published studies and reviews. Adequate risk assessment is informed by environmental and social cues, as well as evacuation intentions and past disaster experience. This cross-sectional study measured perceived flood risk of 570 residents of three coastal North Carolina counties, compared their perception with actual risk determined by updated flood plain maps, and determined if either was associated with evacuation from Hurricane Isabel in 2003. Census blocks were stratified by flood zone and 30 census blocks were randomly selected from each flood zone. Seven interviews were conducted at random locations within selected blocks. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were conducted to produce crude and adjusted risk differences. Neither the designated flood zone of the parcel where the home was located nor the residents' perceived flood risk was associated with evacuation from Hurricane Isabel in the bivariate analysis. In the multivariable analysis, intention to evacuate and home type were important confounders of the association between actual risk and evacuation. The belief that one is at high risk of property damage or injury is important in evacuation decision making. However, in this study, while coastal residents' perceived risk of flooding was correlated with their actual flood risk, neither was associated with evacuation. These findings provide important opportunities for education and intervention by policymakers and authorities to improve hurricane evacuation rates and raise flood risk awareness.

No abstract