RESUMEN
IntroductionA small body of epidemiological research suggests that working in an essential sector is a risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection or subsequent disease or mortality. However, there is limited evidence to date on the US, or on how the risks associated with essential work differ across demographic subgroups defined by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. MethodsUsing publicly available data from the National Center for Health Statistics on deaths occurring in the US in 2020, we calculated per-capita COVID-19 mortality by industry and occupation. We additionally calculated per-capita COVID-19 mortality by essential industry--essential or not--by age group, sex, and race/ethnicity. ResultsAmong non-military individuals and individuals with a known industry or occupation, there were 48,030 reported COVID-19 deaths, representing 25.1 COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 working-age individuals after age standardization. Per-capita age-standardized COVID-19 mortality was 1.96 times higher among essential workers than among workers in non-essential industries, representing an absolute difference of 14.9 per 100,000. Across industry, per-capita age-standardized COVID-19 mortality was highest in the following industries: accommodation and food services (45.4 per 100,000); transportation and warehousing (43.4); agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting (42.3); mining (39.6); and construction (38.7). DiscussionGiven that SARS-CoV-2 is an airborne virus, we call for collaborative efforts to ensure that workplace settings are properly ventilated and that workers have access to effective masks. We also urge for paid sick leave, which can help increase vaccine access and minimize disease transmission.
RESUMEN
Releasing preprints is a popular way to hasten the speed of research but may carry hidden risks for public discourse. The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the novel SARS-CoV-2 infection highlighted the risk of rushing the publication of unvalidated findings, leading to damaging scientific miscommunication in the most extreme scenarios. Several high-profile preprints, later found to be deeply flawed, have indeed exacerbated widespread skepticism about the risks of the COVID-19 disease - at great cost to public health. Here, preprint article quality during the pandemic is examined by distinguishing papers related to COVID-19 from other research studies. Importantly, our analysis also investigated possible factors contributing to manuscript quality by assessing the relationship between preprint quality and gender balance in authorship within each research discipline. Using a comprehensive data set of preprint articles from medRxiv and bioRxiv from January to May 2020, we construct both a new index of manuscript quality including length, readability, and spelling correctness and a measure of gender mix among a manuscripts authors. We find that papers related to COVID-19 are less well-written than unrelated papers, but that this gap is significantly mitigated by teams with better gender balance, even when controlling for variation by research discipline. Beyond contributing to a systematic evaluation of scientific publishing and dissemination, our results have broader implications for gender and representation as the pandemic has led female researchers to bear more responsibility for childcare under lockdown, inducing additional stress and causing disproportionate harm to women in science.