Life Expectancy and Causes of Premature Death by Subgroup for Community-Based Action in Marin County, California, 2017-2021.

INTRODUCTION: Marin is a medium-sized county in California's San Francisco Bay Area. Despite its historically higher-than-average life expectancy and socioeconomic level, known economic and health disparities by race, ethnicity, and geography became more visible during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Methods: We calculated life expectancy, measured years of potential life lost (YPLLs), and described premature mortality for the five years of 2017-2021 by race, ethnicity, census tract, and resource level (as measured by Healthy Places Index [HPI]) to provide data on inequities to guide community-centered action to reduce premature mortality.  Results: Life expectancy for the county was 85.2 years. The non-Hispanic African American/Black population experienced the lowest life expectancy of 77.1 years, 11.6 years lower than the non-Hispanic Asian population which had the highest life expectancy (88.7 years). There was a 14.9-year difference in life expectancy between the census tracts with the lowest (77.1 years) and highest (92.0 years) estimates. We found a moderate, positive association between census tract resource level (HPI) and life expectancy (r=0.58, p<0.01). The leading causes of premature death were cancer, diseases of the circulatory system, and accidental overdoses, with variation by subgroup.  Conclusion: These data highlight health disparities that persist in Marin County and can inform data-driven public health strategies to narrow gaps in longevity between communities.

Phased Return of Students to 77 Transitional Kindergarten-8th Grade Schools With Cohesive Mitigation Strategies Serving as Protective Factors Against the Increase of COVID-19 Cases in Marin County: September 2020-January 2021.

Background and objective Earlier uncertain implications of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the pediatric population prompted the authorities to close schools worldwide under the premise that school settings would serve as drivers of an increase in the cases of COVID-19. Safe and equitable full-in-person school instruction is a critical factor in the continued educational gains of children and for their general well-being. The objective of this study was to report epidemiological trends related to the increasing percentage of students returning to in-person instruction, the suspected in-school transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19, and countywide COVID-19 case rates during the first 21 weeks of school reopening in Marin County, CA, in the fall of 2020. Materials and methods The institutional review board (IRB) approval was waived for this study as it did not involve any identifiable human subjects data. Retrospective electronic reviews of countywide COVID-19 daily case count and COVID-19-related reports associated with in-person school participants from 77 schools in Marin County, CA, from September 8, 2020, to January 29, 2021, were conducted. The data were made available in collaboration with the Marin County Office of Education (MCOE) and Marin County Department of Health and Human Services (Marin HHS). Descriptive trends analyses were performed to determine whether the phased increase of students attending in-person learning was a significant contributor to countywide COVID-19 incidence rate, crude rate, and in-school COVID-19 viral transmission. This is the first long retrospective study of COVID-19 data among the reopened school population during the second half of the first pandemic year. It was conducted in a 21-week surveillance period involving an immense collaboration between Marin County's public health officials and school administrators. Results Over the 21-week observational period involving 17,639 students, 4,938 school staff, and 899,175 student days, the countywide COVID-19 crude rate decreased (from 89.9 to 35.89 per 10,000) as more students returned to in-person learning. The schools' strict adherence to public health guidance and site-specific safety plans against COVID-19 yielded a significantly reduced incidence rate of 0.84% among in-person learning participants; only nine cases were traced to suspected in-school SARS-CoV-2 transmission by way of rigorous contact tracing. The countywide COVID-19 incidence rate was 2.09%. Conclusions It is possible to minimize COVID-19 transmissions in in-person learning settings with cohesive mitigation strategies, specifically strict adherence to proper masking by students and staff while on school grounds. There is no clear correlation that the increasing phased return of students to in-person school drove an increase in countywide COVID-19 cases in Marin County, CA. Our findings revealed that schools were capable of safely resuming operations by following public health orders and recommendations. The increasing percentage of students returning to in-person school did not drive an increased COVID-19 case rate in the community. On the contrary, this analysis revealed that there was a drop in countywide COVID-19 cases as the phased student return percentage increased.

Outbreak Associated with SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant in an Elementary School - Marin County, California, May-June 2021.

On May 25, 2021, the Marin County Department of Public Health (MCPH) was notified by an elementary school that on May 23, an unvaccinated teacher had reported receiving a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The teacher reported becoming symptomatic on May 19, but continued to work for 2 days before receiving a test on May 21. On occasion during this time, the teacher read aloud unmasked to the class despite school requirements to mask while indoors. Beginning May 23, additional cases of COVID-19 were reported among other staff members, students, parents, and siblings connected to the school. To characterize the outbreak, on May 26, MCPH initiated case investigation and contact tracing that included whole genome sequencing (WGS) of available specimens. A total of 27 cases were identified, including that of the teacher. During May 23-26, among the teacher's 24 students, 22 students, all ineligible for vaccination because of age, received testing for SARS-CoV-2; 12 received positive test results. The attack rate in the two rows seated closest to the teacher's desk was 80% (eight of 10) and was 28% (four of 14) in the three back rows (Fisher's exact test; p = 0.036). During May 24-June 1, six of 18 students in a separate grade at the school, all also too young for vaccination, received positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. Eight additional cases were also identified, all in parents and siblings of students in these two grades. Among these additional cases, three were in persons fully vaccinated in accordance with CDC recommendations (1). Among the 27 total cases, 22 (81%) persons reported symptoms; the most frequently reported symptoms were fever (41%), cough (33%), headache (26%), and sore throat (26%). WGS of all 18 available specimens identified the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant. Vaccines are effective against the Delta variant (2), but risk of transmission remains elevated among unvaccinated persons in schools without strict adherence to prevention strategies. In addition to vaccination for eligible persons, strict adherence to nonpharmaceutical prevention strategies, including masking, routine testing, facility ventilation, and staying home when symptomatic, are important to ensure safe in-person learning in schools (3).

Breast cancer screening beliefs by practice location.

BACKGROUND: This study examines variations in breast cancer screening among primary care clinicians by geographic location of clinical practice. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey design was used to examine approaches to breast cancer screening among physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants involved in primary care practice. A summary index of beliefs about breast cancer screening was created by summing the total number of responses in agreement with each of four survey items; values for this summary variable ranged between zero and four. Respondents were classified into urban, rural and suburban categories based upon practise location. RESULTS: Among the 428 respondents, agreement with "correct" responses ranged from 50% to 71% for the individual survey items; overall, half agreed with three or more of the four breast cancer screening items. While no significant differences were noted by practice location, variation in responses were evident. Reported use of written breast cancer guidelines was less in both suburban (OR = 0.51) and urban areas (OR = 0.56) when compared to clinicians in rural areas. CONCLUSION: Development of an evidence-based consensus statement regarding breast cancer screening would support a single set of unambiguous guidelines for implementation in all primary care settings, thus decreasing variations in how breast cancer screening is approached across varied clinical settings.