Lifting Universal Masking in Schools - Covid-19 Incidence among Students and Staff.

BACKGROUND: In February 2022, Massachusetts rescinded a statewide universal masking policy in public schools, and many Massachusetts school districts lifted masking requirements during the subsequent weeks. In the greater Boston area, only two school districts - the Boston and neighboring Chelsea districts - sustained masking requirements through June 2022. The staggered lifting of masking requirements provided an opportunity to examine the effect of universal masking policies on the incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) in schools. METHODS: We used a difference-in-differences analysis for staggered policy implementation to compare the incidence of Covid-19 among students and staff in school districts in the greater Boston area that lifted masking requirements with the incidence in districts that sustained masking requirements during the 2021-2022 school year. Characteristics of the school districts were also compared. RESULTS: Before the statewide masking policy was rescinded, trends in the incidence of Covid-19 were similar across school districts. During the 15 weeks after the statewide masking policy was rescinded, the lifting of masking requirements was associated with an additional 44.9 cases per 1000 students and staff (95% confidence interval, 32.6 to 57.1), which corresponded to an estimated 11,901 cases and to 29.4% of the cases in all districts during that time. Districts that chose to sustain masking requirements longer tended to have school buildings that were older and in worse condition and to have more students per classroom than districts that chose to lift masking requirements earlier. In addition, these districts had higher percentages of low-income students, students with disabilities, and students who were English-language learners, as well as higher percentages of Black and Latinx students and staff. Our results support universal masking as an important strategy for reducing Covid-19 incidence in schools and loss of in-person school days. As such, we believe that universal masking may be especially useful for mitigating effects of structural racism in schools, including potential deepening of educational inequities. CONCLUSIONS: Among school districts in the greater Boston area, the lifting of masking requirements was associated with an additional 44.9 Covid-19 cases per 1000 students and staff during the 15 weeks after the statewide masking policy was rescinded.

Methodological Approaches to Structural Change: Epidemiology and the Case for Reparations.

Scholars, activists, and policymakers have long called for reparations - a process of repair and restitution for harm and injustices done - to descendants of enslaved Africans in the U.S. as a structural intervention to address historic and ongoing injustices. However, there has been very limited epidemiologic work examining reparations. We explore some of the epidemiologic benefits and challenges of using causal inference frameworks to model reparations as an example of a large-scale, structural intervention that pushes the limits of what is considered "well-defined" and may violate key identification assumptions. Finally, we weigh these methodological limitations with the utility of assessing public health implications of reparations policies and conclude by discussing implications for future epidemiologic research.

Visualizing Neighborhood COVID-19 Levels, Trends, and Inequities in Wastewater: An Equity-Centered Approach and Comparison to CDC Methods.

CONTEXT: Monitoring neighborhood-level SARS-CoV-2 wastewater concentrations can help guide public health interventions and provide early warning ahead of lagging COVID-19 clinical indicators. To date, however, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Wastewater Surveillance System (NWSS) has provided methodology solely for communicating national and state-level "wastewater viral activity levels." PROGRAM: In October 2022, the Boston Public Health Commission (BPHC) began routinely sampling wastewater at 11 neighborhood sites to better understand COVID-19 epidemiology and inequities across neighborhoods, which vary widely in sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics. We developed equity-centered methods to routinely report interpretable and actionable descriptions of COVID-19 wastewater levels, trends, and neighborhood-level inequities. APPROACH AND IMPLEMENTATION: To produce these data visualizations, spanning October 2022 to December 2023, we followed four general steps: (1) smoothing raw values; (2) classifying current COVID-19 wastewater levels; (3) classifying current trends; and (4) reporting and visualizing results. EVALUATION: COVID-19 wastewater levels corresponded well with lagged COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths over time, with "Very High" wastewater levels coinciding with winter surges. When citywide COVID-19 levels were at the highest and lowest points, levels and trends tended to be consistent across sites. In contrast, when citywide levels were moderate, neighborhood levels and trends were more variable, revealing inequities across neighborhoods, emphasizing the importance of neighborhood-level results. Applying CDC/NWSS state-level methodology to neighborhood sites resulted in vastly different neighborhood-specific wastewater cut points for "High" or "Low," obscured inequities between neighborhoods, and systematically underestimated COVID-19 levels during surge periods in neighborhoods with the highest COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. DISCUSSION: Our methods offer an approach that other local jurisdictions can use for routinely monitoring, comparing, and communicating neighborhood-level wastewater levels, trends, and inequities. Applying CDC/NWSS methodology at the neighborhood-level can obscure and perpetuate COVID-19 inequities. We recommend jurisdictions adopt equity-focused approaches in neighborhood-level wastewater surveillance for valid community comparisons.

Instrumental Variable Analysis of Racial Discrimination and Blood Pressure in a Sample of Young Adults.

Racial inequities in blood pressure levels have been extensively documented. Experiences of racial discrimination could explain some of this disparity, although findings from previous studies have been inconsistent. To address limitations of prior literature, including measurement error, we implemented instrumental variable analysis to assess the relationship between racial discrimination in institutional settings and blood pressure. Using data from 3,876 Black and White adults with an average age of 32 years from examination 4 (1992-1993) of the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study, our primary analysis examined the relationship between self-reported experiences of racial discrimination in institutional settings and blood pressure using reflectance meter measurement of skin color as an instrument. Findings suggested that an increase in experiences of racial discrimination was associated with higher systolic and diastolic blood pressure (ß = 2.23 mm Hg (95% confidence interval: 1.85, 2.61) and ß = 1.31 (95% confidence interval: 1.00, 1.62), respectively). Our instrumental variable estimates suggest that experiences of racial discrimination within institutional settings contribute to racial inequities in elevated blood pressure and cardiovascular disease outcomes in a relatively young cohort of adults and may yield clinically relevant differences in cardiovascular health over the life course.

COVID-19 Cases and Hospitalizations by COVID-19 Vaccination Status and Previous COVID-19 Diagnosis - California and New York, May-November 2021.

By November 30, 2021, approximately 130,781 COVID-19-associated deaths, one in six of all U.S. deaths from COVID-19, had occurred in California and New York.* COVID-19 vaccination protects against infection with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19), associated severe illness, and death (1,2); among those who survive, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection also confers protection against severe outcomes in the event of reinfection (3,4). The relative magnitude and duration of infection- and vaccine-derived protection, alone and together, can guide public health planning and epidemic forecasting. To examine the impact of primary COVID-19 vaccination and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection on COVID-19 incidence and hospitalization rates, statewide testing, surveillance, and COVID-19 immunization data from California and New York (which account for 18% of the U.S. population) were analyzed. Four cohorts of adults aged ≥18 years were considered: persons who were 1) unvaccinated with no previous laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, 2) vaccinated (14 days after completion of a primary COVID-19 vaccination series) with no previous COVID-19 diagnosis, 3) unvaccinated with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, and 4) vaccinated with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Age-adjusted hazard rates of incident laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases in both states were compared among cohorts, and in California, hospitalizations during May 30-November 20, 2021, were also compared. During the study period, COVID-19 incidence in both states was highest among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis compared with that among the other three groups. During the week beginning May 30, 2021, compared with COVID-19 case rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, COVID-19 case rates were 19.9-fold (California) and 18.4-fold (New York) lower among vaccinated persons without a previous diagnosis; 7.2-fold (California) and 9.9-fold lower (New York) among unvaccinated persons with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis; and 9.6-fold (California) and 8.5-fold lower (New York) among vaccinated persons with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. During the same period, compared with hospitalization rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalization rates in California followed a similar pattern. These relationships changed after the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant became predominant (i.e., accounted for >50% of sequenced isolates) in late June and July. By the week beginning October 3, compared with COVID-19 cases rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, case rates among vaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis were 6.2-fold (California) and 4.5-fold (New York) lower; rates were substantially lower among both groups with previous COVID-19 diagnoses, including 29.0-fold (California) and 14.7-fold lower (New York) among unvaccinated persons with a previous diagnosis, and 32.5-fold (California) and 19.8-fold lower (New York) among vaccinated persons with a previous diagnosis of COVID-19. During the same period, compared with hospitalization rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalization rates in California followed a similar pattern. These results demonstrate that vaccination protects against COVID-19 and related hospitalization, and that surviving a previous infection protects against a reinfection and related hospitalization. Importantly, infection-derived protection was higher after the Delta variant became predominant, a time when vaccine-induced immunity for many persons declined because of immune evasion and immunologic waning (2,5,6). Similar cohort data accounting for booster doses needs to be assessed, as new variants, including Omicron, circulate. Although the epidemiology of COVID-19 might change with the emergence of new variants, vaccination remains the safest strategy to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections and associated complications; all eligible persons should be up to date with COVID-19 vaccination. Additional recommendations for vaccine doses might be warranted in the future as the virus and immunity levels change.

Correction: Variation in racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality by age in the United States: A cross-sectional study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003402.].

Making Injustice Visible: How a Health Department Can Demonstrate the Connection Between Structural Racism and the Health of Whole Neighborhoods.

CONTEXT: The New York City (NYC) Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) has built a presence in Tremont, a historically redlined neighborhood located in Bronx, NYC. As part of an agency-wide commitment to explicitly name racism as a threat to healthy communities, DOHMH has sought opportunities to educate and engage in discussion about historical and current structural racism. PROGRAM: Between January and September 2018, DOHMH exhibited Undesign the Redline, a pictorial timeline and historical analysis of redlining, in its Tremont office. The exhibit exposed neglected history, making concrete the concept of structural racism. IMPLEMENTATION: DOHMH staff led 101 tours for 950 visitors, including employees, community partners, and residents. Tours were given in English and Spanish in three 2-month cycles over 8 months. Tour guides also facilitated interactive workshops with youth groups, community-based organizations, and teams from city agencies to engage participants in the design and ownership of new systems intended to "undesign" the consequences of redlining. EVALUATION: Immediate feedback was requested from all participants at the conclusion of each tour and was collected on a bulletin board. Longer-term impact was assessed through an electronic survey sent to all participants who provided valid contact information to better understand ways that the exhibit impacted personal and professional actions. Participants reported talking with family, friends, and coworkers, seeking more information, and applying an equity lens to professional projects after experiencing the exhibit. DISCUSSION: Hosting the exhibit in a local health department building offered a concrete opportunity to learn about and discuss structural racism. Exhibit tours had immediate- and long-term impacts on participants and contributed to sustainable changes internal to DOHMH work. This work presents a concrete practice to make injustice visible and engage in open conversation about structural racism to build community trust.

Variation in racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality by age in the United States: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, non-Hispanic Black (NHB), Hispanic, and non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native (NHAIAN) populations experience excess COVID-19 mortality, compared to the non-Hispanic White (NHW) population, but racial/ethnic differences in age at death are not known. The release of national COVID-19 death data by racial/ethnic group now permits analysis of age-specific mortality rates for these groups and the non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander (NHAPI) population. Our objectives were to examine variation in age-specific COVID-19 mortality rates by racial/ethnicity and to calculate the impact of this mortality using years of potential life lost (YPLL). METHODS AND FINDINGS: This cross-sectional study used the recently publicly available data on US COVID-19 deaths with reported race/ethnicity, for the time period February 1, 2020, to July 22, 2020. Population data were drawn from the US Census. As of July 22, 2020, the number of COVID-19 deaths equaled 68,377 for NHW, 29,476 for NHB, 23,256 for Hispanic, 1,143 for NHAIAN, and 6,468 for NHAPI populations; the corresponding population sizes were 186.4 million, 40.6 million, 2.6 million, 19.5 million, and 57.7 million. Age-standardized rate ratios relative to NHW were 3.6 (95% CI 3.5, 3.8; p < 0.001) for NHB, 2.8 (95% CI 2.7, 3.0; p < 0.001) for Hispanic, 2.2 (95% CI 1.8, 2.6; p < 0.001) for NHAIAN, and 1.6 (95% CI 1.4, 1.7; p < 0.001) for NHAP populations. By contrast, NHB rate ratios relative to NHW were 7.1 (95% CI 5.8, 8.7; p < 0.001) for persons aged 25-34 years, 9.0 (95% CI 7.9, 10.2; p < 0.001) for persons aged 35-44 years, and 7.4 (95% CI 6.9, 7.9; p < 0.001) for persons aged 45-54 years. Even at older ages, NHB rate ratios were between 2.0 and 5.7. Similarly, rate ratios for the Hispanic versus NHW population were 7.0 (95% CI 5.8, 8.7; p < 0.001), 8.8 (95% CI 7.8, 9.9; p < 0.001), and 7.0 (95% CI 6.6, 7.5; p < 0.001) for the corresponding age strata above, with remaining rate ratios ranging from 1.4 to 5.0. Rate ratios for NHAIAN were similarly high through age 74 years. Among NHAPI persons, rate ratios ranged from 2.0 to 2.8 for persons aged 25-74 years and were 1.6 and 1.2 for persons aged 75-84 and 85+ years, respectively. As a consequence, more YPLL before age 65 were experienced by the NHB and Hispanic populations than the NHW population-despite the fact that the NHW population is larger-with a ratio of 4.6:1 and 3.2:1, respectively, for NHB and Hispanic persons. Study limitations include likely lag time in receipt of completed death certificates received by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for transmission to NCHS, with consequent lag in capturing the total number of deaths compared to data reported on state dashboards. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed racial variation in age-specific mortality rates not fully captured with examination of age-standardized rates alone. These findings suggest the importance of examining age-specific mortality rates and underscores how age standardization can obscure extreme variations within age strata. To avoid overlooking such variation, data that permit age-specific analyses should be routinely publicly available.

Structural Racism, Historical Redlining, and Risk of Preterm Birth in New York City, 2013-2017.

Objectives. To assess if historical redlining, the US government's 1930s racially discriminatory grading of neighborhoods' mortgage credit-worthiness, implemented via the federally sponsored Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) color-coded maps, is associated with contemporary risk of preterm birth (< 37 weeks gestation).Methods. We analyzed 2013-2017 birth certificate data for all singleton births in New York City (n = 528 096) linked by maternal residence at time of birth to (1) HOLC grade and (2) current census tract social characteristics.Results. The proportion of preterm births ranged from 5.0% in grade A ("best"-green) to 7.3% in grade D ("hazardous"-red). The odds ratio for HOLC grade D versus A equaled 1.6 and remained significant (1.2; P < .05) in multilevel models adjusted for maternal sociodemographic characteristics and current census tract poverty, but was 1.07 (95% confidence interval = 0.92, 1.20) after adjustment for current census tract racialized economic segregation.Conclusions. Historical redlining may be a structural determinant of present-day risk of preterm birth.Public Health Implications. Policies for fair housing, economic development, and health equity should consider historical redlining's impacts on present-day residential segregation and health outcomes.

The Legacy of 1987 Boreali v. Axelrod: Board of Health Rule-Making Under Siege.

We explore how a 1987 New York State court decision-Boreali v. Axelrod-affected public health rule-making nationally and, with considerable impact, locally in New York City (NYC).We discuss the history of the origin of the NYC Board of Health (BOH), and establish that legislatures can be challenging venues in which to enact public health-related laws. We describe how, as the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene began to tackle modern public health problems (e.g., chronic diseases caused by food and tobacco), the regulatory power of its BOH was challenged.In an era when industry funds political causes and candidates, the weakening of the independence of rule-making boards of health, such as the NYC BOH, might result in illness and death.

Structural racism and health inequities in the USA: evidence and interventions.

Despite growing interest in understanding how social factors drive poor health outcomes, many academics, policy makers, scientists, elected officials, journalists, and others responsible for defining and responding to the public discourse remain reluctant to identify racism as a root cause of racial health inequities. In this conceptual report, the third in a Series on equity and equality in health in the USA, we use a contemporary and historical perspective to discuss research and interventions that grapple with the implications of what is known as structural racism on population health and health inequities. Structural racism refers to the totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, health care, and criminal justice. These patterns and practices in turn reinforce discriminatory beliefs, values, and distribution of resources. We argue that a focus on structural racism offers a concrete, feasible, and promising approach towards advancing health equity and improving population health.