Lower Prevalence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection Among People Experiencing Homelessness Tested in Outdoor Encampments Compared With Overnight Shelters: Denver, Colorado, June-July 2020.

BACKGROUND: A better understanding of the risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that people experiencing homelessness (PEH) face in congregate shelters versus unsheltered encampments is critical for an effective pandemic response. METHODS: We analyzed factors associated with current and past severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among PEH in day and overnight shelters and encampments in Denver, Colorado, during June 2-July 28, 2020, and constructed multivariable logistic regression models to examine risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 RNA and seropositivity with age, race/ethnicity, testing location, testing month, and symptom status as predictor variables. RESULTS: A total of 823 participants were tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and 276 individuals were tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. A greater percentage of PEH at overnight shelters tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA (8.6% vs 2.5%, P < .01) and antibodies (21.5% vs 8.7%, P = .03) compared with encampments. In regression models, testing at an overnight shelter compared with testing at encampments (odds ratio [OR] = 3.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16-9.02) had increased odds of a positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA result. Age >60 years compared with age <40 years (OR = 5.92; 95% CI: 1.83-20.3), Hispanic ethnicity (OR = 3.43; 95% CI: 1.36-8.95), and non-Hispanic Black race compared with non-Hispanic White race (OR = 3.07; 95% CI: 1.16-8.26), and testing at an overnight shelter compared to testing at encampments (OR = 2.45; 95% CI: 1.04-6.17) had increased odds of a positive antibody result. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the need for continuing assessment of mitigation strategies in shelters, increasing access to individual rooms and linkage to housing options for PEH, and supporting people to remain in encampments when these options are not available.

A persistent lack of international representation on editorial boards in environmental biology.

The scholars comprising journal editorial boards play a critical role in defining the trajectory of knowledge in their field. Nevertheless, studies of editorial board composition remain rare, especially those focusing on journals publishing research in the increasingly globalized fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Using metrics for quantifying the diversity of ecological communities, we quantified international representation on the 1985-2014 editorial boards of 24 environmental biology journals. Over the course of 3 decades, there were 3,827 unique scientists based in 70 countries who served as editors. The size of the editorial community increased over time-the number of editors serving in 2014 was 4-fold greater than in 1985-as did the number of countries in which editors were based. Nevertheless, editors based outside the "Global North" (the group of economically developed countries with high per capita gross domestic product [GDP] that collectively concentrate most global wealth) were extremely rare. Furthermore, 67.18% of all editors were based in either the United States or the United Kingdom. Consequently, geographic diversity-already low in 1985-remained unchanged through 2014. We argue that this limited geographic diversity can detrimentally affect the creativity of scholarship published in journals, the progress and direction of research, the composition of the STEM workforce, and the development of science in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and much of Asia (i.e., the "Global South").