COVID-19 Outbreaks and Mortality Among Public Transportation Workers — California, January 2020–May 2022

Heinzerling, Amy; Vergara, Ximena; Gebreegziabher, Elisabeth; Beckman, John; Wong, Jessie J.; Nguyen, Alyssa; Khan, S. Sudheer; Frederick, Matt; Bui, David; Chan, Elena; Gibb, Kathryn; Rodríguez, Andrea; Jain, Seema; Cummings, Kristin J.

doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7133a4

Cited by 15 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…High prevalence of COVID-19 infection was also found in bus drivers in Madrid, Spain between 25 March and 11 July 2020 through a screening program for essential workers ( Martínez-Cortés et al, 2022 ). In California, COVID-19 outbreak incidence during January 2020–May 2022 was 5.2 times as high in the bus and urban transit industry as in other industries in the state ( Heinzerling et al, 2022 ). This strengthens the indications of an occupational risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection among bus drivers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among public transport workers in Sweden

Dahlman¹,

Anund²

2022

Journal of Transport & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among public transport workers in Sweden

Dahlman¹,

Anund²

2022

Journal of Transport & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Large outbreaks in meat-packing plants, nursing homes, and prisons made it evident early in the pandemic that certain work settings imposed an elevated risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. [18][19][20][21] Additional evidence, established through outbreak investigations and epidemiologic studies, have further demonstrated the role of work in generating disparities in COVID-19 illness, morbidity, and mortality by industry and occupation [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] above and beyond socio-environmental factors. 33,34 Second, the specific source of a person's COVID-19 illness is often difficult if not impossible to identify.…”

Section: Rationale For a Covid-19 Presumptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why presumptions are important in occupational health: The example of COVID‐19 infection as an occupational disease

Laskaris,

Markowitz

2023

American J Industrial Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Workers who become ill or injured on the job while undertaking extraordinary risks on behalf of the public are, at times, granted facilitated access to workers' compensation (WC) benefits through the application of presumptions in the compensation process. Since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, a broad range of occupational groups faced an elevated risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) exposure at work to perform vital services to maintain our food supply, sustain needed transportation, provide health care, assure energy supply and others. Some states or jurisdictions in the United States recognized both the risk and the service of these workers by enacting COVID‐19 presumption laws to streamline selected essential workers' eligibility for WC benefits. Other states did not. Results of these contrasting public approaches permit an examination of the impact of presumptions in compensation by examining the frequency and outcomes of COVID‐19 claims in “COVID‐19 presumption” and “nonpresumption” states. Despite state‐level variations in economic response to the pandemic, industry mix, and presumption eligibility criteria, the use of COVID‐19 presumptions appears to have substantially increased claim filing rates and improved access to benefits. Lastly, the additional costs of COVID‐19 claims to employers and insurers were lower than initially predicted. In response to future airborne infectious disease outbreaks, workers' compensation presumption laws should be universally implemented to permit a broad range of high‐risk workers to work on the public's behalf without fear of losing wages and incurring medical expenses associated with a work‐related viral exposure.

show abstract

“…Public transport passengers [ 28 , 29 ] and workers [ 30 , 31 ] are the most-at-risk populations of contamination due to: (1) a high passenger flow density; (2) forced contact with a large number of often infected people who arrive from regions where mass vaccination has not yet been carried out; (3) the mixing of the populations of different districts of the city and different cities and countries; (4) difficulty in maintaining social distance; (5) a low social responsibility of people with symptoms of the disease using public transport. Thus, according to Heinzerling A. et al, the incidence of COVID-19 among workers in the transport industry was 5.2 times higher in the bus and urban transport industries and 3.6 times higher in the air transport industry than in all California industries combined [ 32 ]. Therefore, wearing personal equipment that reduces the risk of spreading COVID-19 on public transport by both passengers and workers is especially important.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of the Face Mask Use by Public Transport Passengers and Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Shashina

Sannikova

Shcherbakov

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(1) Background: The use of face masks and gloves in public places directly shows the commitment of the population to the established regulations. Public transport is one of the most-at-risk places of contamination. The aim of the study was to analyze the face mask use by public transport passengers and workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. (2) Methods: Public transport passengers and workers were surveyed. Periodic intermittent selective observation was used to gauge the level of adherence to the established regulations among public transport passengers. Factor analysis was used to identify factors determining the face-mask-wearing comfort. (3) Results: The majority of passengers (87.5%) and all transport workers (100%) used face masks and gloves. Most of the users wore only face masks. Only 41.6% of passengers and 74.7% of transport workers wore face masks correctly. Motivational attitudes at the implementation of preventive measures were determined: established regulations in the public place (55.8%) and the protection of one’s own health and the health of family members (44.2%). Only 22.5% of those wearing face masks believed that doing so will have any effect on the spread of an infectious disease, and 10.8% wore masks to maintain the health of people around themselves. A low level of social responsibility was demonstrated. For 53.4% of workers, face mask wearing was uncomfortable. The majority of workers had adverse reactions to mask wearing: feeling short of breath (52.8%), hyperemia of face skin (33.8%), and facial hyperhidrosis (67.4%). (4) Conclusions: The comfort of wearing a mask is determined by adverse reactions occurrence, the properties of the mask, working conditions, and the duration of wearing the face mask. It is necessary to develop recommendations to reduce wearing discomfort. These recommendations, along with methods of raising the social responsibility of the population, can contribute to a greater commitment of the population to non-specific prevention measures.

show abstract

COVID-19 Outbreaks and Mortality Among Public Transportation Workers — California, January 2020–May 2022

Cited by 15 publications

References 5 publications

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among public transport workers in Sweden

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among public transport workers in Sweden

Why presumptions are important in occupational health: The example of COVID‐19 infection as an occupational disease

Analysis of the Face Mask Use by Public Transport Passengers and Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About