The COVID-19 pandemic: one year later – an occupational perspective

About one year ago, we wrote about how the COVID-19 pandemic was unfolding worldwide and started to impact our personal professional lives (1). Little did know that, later, more than 2.5 million people would have died, with highest death tolls in Europe, North America, Latin America (2). Whereas many countries, life expectancy has increased steadily over past decades a couple of months per year, emerging evidence shows that will abruptly end this trend various countries. As most affected at birth US down during first half 2020 already 1.0 compared 2019 (3). Projections indicate potential loss 1.13 years for total population, resulting lowest since 2003. The disproportionate burden mortality is reflected staggering 3.1 Latino population 2.1 Black (4). It can be expected that,disparities between social ethnic groups demonstrating different differently. Although deaths attributed mainly occur among elderly, often underlying health conditions, there scattered an individual`s type job may contribute risk becoming infected and, hence, pattern society. One reports emerged from UK, where certificates hold information on occupation. COVID-19-related men skilled occupations, security guards occupation rate. Other occupations risks included taxi drivers, chauffeurs, bus restaurant chefs, sales retail assistants. Men women care, including care home-care workers, had mortality, but doctors nurses healthcare rates similar general workforce (5). This report points importance as factor also availability use appropriate protection mitigate infected. In addition, well-established socio-economic factors inequalities intermingled risk, demonstrated by fact drivers belonged same group higher when residing London These findings are mirrored recent preprint publication state California, reporting relative excess particularly high food/agriculture, transportation/logistics, facilities, manufacturing workers. Again, Californian workers were disproportionally (6). Hence, working living circumstances strongly intertwined, best illustrated several well-documented outbreaks slaughterhouses pointing conditions significantly interrelated housing transportation arrangements, precarious work migrant doing paid jobs (7). A large population-based study Sweden showed influenced (less m 2 individual household; someone age household), neighbourhood characteristics (higher density) educational level (lower education) (8). raises question well distinguish contribution these COVID-19, added complexity together vulnerable groups. There lively debate which face contracting primarily towards dealing (suspected) patients, involve number daily contact public or close physical proximity others. However, clear insight lacking access testing capacity suitable protective equipment, organizational environmental control measures differ across occupations. users symptoms app UK frontline reported 12-fold rate positive tests community. After adjustment likelihood receiving test, using inverse probability weighting, test reduced 3.4-fold rate, bias due (9). Many studies been published infection within specific occupational groups, robust variety needed investigate incidence coronavirus professions. An illustrative example SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroprevalence 18 cities Iran, comparable supermarket cashiers, pharmacy employees, hotel staff (10). suggest environment (eg, hospitals) mitigated effective precautions, while training those settings low perception danger less trained From perspective, not only facing fatal non-fatal consequences indirect effects mental health. authors anecdotal levels anxiety, depression, post-traumatic disorder professionals. cross-sectional mere indications exposed patients psychologically stressed. longitudinal conducted Japan, following 1000 two wave. adjusting covariates, psychological distress (and subscales fatigue, depression) fear worry whereas stress remained remarkably constant non-healthcare (11). While broadly affect (12), concern it adversely vulnerable, ie, who existing problems before (13). Keeping reintegrating individuals labor market major challenge prior COVID-­19 (14), might become even bigger near future. Less still known required change their regular practice. baseline survey cohort illustrates profound 30% all home, 24% hours income, 19% furloughed placed leave absence (15). Working home increase flexibility control, offset non-work-friendly no room alone, lack high-quality internet connection, ergonomic station). panel Germany suggested children exhaustion, autonomy partner support partly mitigating effect (16). small England found 72% changed remote experienced sedentary behavior, poorer quality sleep, mood disturbances (17). repeated study, comparing 2016 2020, experience diversity use, considerably `techno stress`, defined individual’s attempts struggles deal constantly evolving ICTs changing cognitive requirements (18). long-lasting workers` unknown. safe bet accept arrangements remain after pandemic. We three priorities research agenda health: Identification risks. Such insights immensely valuable preparedness threats future pandemics. changes how, where, work, workers’ health, especially accelerated trends macroeconomic online marketplaces), need both professionals policy makers adapt acceleration. traditional workplace abandoned new ways must create value organization worker. inequalities. great disproportionately cannot isolated social, economic, conditions. reiterate previous words: short-term impacts societies, systems, workplaces alike. Occupational experts challenged world, world better place References 1. Burdorf A, Porru F, Rugulies R. Covid-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: Scand J Work Environ Health 2020;46:229-30. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3893 2. Johns Hopkins Corona virus resource center. Available at: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality, accessed March 2, 2021. 3. Arias E, Tejada-Vera B, Ahmad F. Provisional Life Expectancy Estimates January through June, 2020. Department Human Services: National Vital Statistics System Report No. 010, Feb https://doi.org/10.15620/100392 4. Andrasfay T, Goldman N. Reductions populations. PNAS 2021;118:e2014746118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2014746118 5. United Kingdom Office Statistics. Statistical bulletin: Coronavirus (COVID-19) related occupation, Wales: registered up 20 April Release date: 11 May 6. Chen YH, Glymour M, Riley Balmes J, Duchowny K, Harrison R, et al. Excess associated Californians 18-65 age, sector occupation: October medRxiv preprint. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.21.21250266 7. Kromhout H. Learning global Occup Med 2020;77:587-8. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2020-106801 8. Brandén Aradhya S, Kolk Härkönen Drefahl Malmberg Residential context adults aged 70 older Stockholm: population-based, observational individual-level data. Lancet Healthy Longev 2020;1:e80-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-7568(20)30016-7 9. Nguyen LH, Drew DA, Graham MS, Joshi AD, Guo CG, Ma W, Risk front-line health-care community: prospective study. Public 2020;5:e475-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30164-X 10. Poustchi H, Darvishian Mohammadi Z, Shayanrad Delavari Bahadorimonfared high-risk Iran: Infect Dis Published Online December 15, doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30858-6 11. Sasaki N, Kuroda Tsuno Kawakami deterioration outbreak: Japan. 2020;46:639-44. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3922 12. Galea Merchant RM, Lurie distancing. prevention early intervention. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(6):817- https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.1562 13. Varga TV, Bu Dissing AS, Elsenburg LK, Herranz Bustamante JJ, Matta Loneliness, worries, precautionary behaviours response analysis 200,000 Western Northern Europeans. Reg Eur. 2021;(2):100020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2020.100020 14. Schuring Robroek SJW, A. benefits employment persons common problems: selection causation mechanism. 2017;43:540-9. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3675 15. Kobayashi LC, O’Shea BQ, Kler JS, Nishimura Palavicino-Maggio CB, Eastman MR, Cohort profile: Coping Study, mixed-methods middle-aged adults’ well-being USA. BMJ Open 2021;11:e044965. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044965 16. Meyer Zill Dilba D, Gerlach Schumann S. Employee Germany: demands, resources, exhaustion. Int Psychol 21, online. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12743 17. Barone Gibbs Kline CE, Huber KA, Paley JL, Perera shelter-at-home life-style desk 2021, 18. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqab011 Nimrod G. Technostress hostile world: Aging Mental https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2020.1861213