Nathalie Bajos1, Florence Jusot2, Ariane Pailhé3, Alexis Spire4, Claude Martin4, Laurence Meyer5, Nathalie Lydié6, Jeanna-Eve Franck7, Marie Zins8, Fabrice Carrat8. 1. Institut de Recherche Interdisciplinaire sur les enjeux Sociaux - Sciences sociales, politique, santé, IRIS (UMR 8156 CNRS - EHESS - U997 INSERM), 5 cours des humanités, 93322, Aubervilliers, France. nathalie.bajos@inserm.fr. 2. Paris Dauphine University, Paris, France. 3. National Institute for Demographic Studies, Paris, France. 4. French National Centre for Scientific Research, Paris, France. 5. University of Paris Sud, Paris, France. 6. Santé publique France, Paris, France. 7. Institut de Recherche Interdisciplinaire sur les enjeux Sociaux - Sciences sociales, politique, santé, IRIS (UMR 8156 CNRS - EHESS - U997 INSERM), 5 cours des humanités, 93322, Aubervilliers, France. 8. Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Significant differences in COVID-19 incidence by gender, class and race/ethnicity are recorded in many countries in the world. Lockdown measures, shown to be effective in reducing the number of new cases, may not have been effective in the same way for all, failing to protect the most vulnerable populations. This survey aims to assess social inequalities in the trends in COVID-19 infections following lockdown. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey conducted among the general population in France in April 2020, during COVID-19 lockdown. Ten thousand one hundred one participants aged 18-64, from a national cohort who lived in the three metropolitan French regions most affected by the first wave of COVID-19. The main outcome was occurrence of possible COVID-19 symptoms, defined as the occurrence of sudden onset of cough, fever, dyspnea, ageusia and/or anosmia, that lasted more than 3 days in the 15 days before the survey. We used multinomial regression models to identify social and health factors related to possible COVID-19 before and during the lockdown. RESULTS: In all, 1304 (13.0%; 95% CI: 12.0-14.0%) reported cases of possible COVID-19. The effect of lockdown on the occurrence of possible COVID-19 was different across social hierarchies. The most privileged class individuals saw a significant decline in possible COVID-19 infections between the period prior to lockdown and during the lockdown (from 8.8 to 4.3%, P = 0.0001) while the decline was less pronounced among working class individuals (6.9% before lockdown and 5.5% during lockdown, P = 0.03). This differential effect of lockdown remained significant after adjusting for other factors including history of chronic disease. The odds of being infected during lockdown as opposed to the prior period increased by 57% among working class individuals (OR = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.00-2.48). The same was true for those engaged in in-person professional activities during lockdown (OR = 1.53; 95% CI: 1.03-2.29). CONCLUSIONS: Lockdown was associated with social inequalities in the decline in COVID-19 infections, calling for the adoption of preventive policies to account for living and working conditions. Such adoptions are critical to reduce social inequalities related to COVID-19, as working-class individuals also have the highest COVID-19 related mortality, due to higher prevalence of comorbidities.
BACKGROUND: Significant differences in COVID-19 incidence by gender, class and race/ethnicity are recorded in many countries in the world. Lockdown measures, shown to be effective in reducing the number of new cases, may not have been effective in the same way for all, failing to protect the most vulnerable populations. This survey aims to assess social inequalities in the trends in COVID-19 infections following lockdown. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey conducted among the general population in France in April 2020, during COVID-19 lockdown. Ten thousand one hundred one participants aged 18-64, from a national cohort who lived in the three metropolitan French regions most affected by the first wave of COVID-19. The main outcome was occurrence of possible COVID-19 symptoms, defined as the occurrence of sudden onset of cough, fever, dyspnea, ageusia and/or anosmia, that lasted more than 3 days in the 15 days before the survey. We used multinomial regression models to identify social and health factors related to possible COVID-19 before and during the lockdown. RESULTS: In all, 1304 (13.0%; 95% CI: 12.0-14.0%) reported cases of possible COVID-19. The effect of lockdown on the occurrence of possible COVID-19 was different across social hierarchies. The most privileged class individuals saw a significant decline in possible COVID-19 infections between the period prior to lockdown and during the lockdown (from 8.8 to 4.3%, P = 0.0001) while the decline was less pronounced among working class individuals (6.9% before lockdown and 5.5% during lockdown, P = 0.03). This differential effect of lockdown remained significant after adjusting for other factors including history of chronic disease. The odds of being infected during lockdown as opposed to the prior period increased by 57% among working class individuals (OR = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.00-2.48). The same was true for those engaged in in-person professional activities during lockdown (OR = 1.53; 95% CI: 1.03-2.29). CONCLUSIONS: Lockdown was associated with social inequalities in the decline in COVID-19 infections, calling for the adoption of preventive policies to account for living and working conditions. Such adoptions are critical to reduce social inequalities related to COVID-19, as working-class individuals also have the highest COVID-19 related mortality, due to higher prevalence of comorbidities.
Entities:
Keywords:
COVID-19; General population; Lockdown; Risk factors; Social inequalities
Authors: David Rubin; Jing Huang; Brian T Fisher; Antonio Gasparrini; Vicky Tam; Lihai Song; Xi Wang; Jason Kaufman; Kate Fitzpatrick; Arushi Jain; Heather Griffis; Koby Crammer; Jeffrey Morris; Gregory Tasian Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-07-01
Authors: Marina Pollán; Beatriz Pérez-Gómez; Roberto Pastor-Barriuso; Jesús Oteo; Miguel A Hernán; Mayte Pérez-Olmeda; Jose L Sanmartín; Aurora Fernández-García; Israel Cruz; Nerea Fernández de Larrea; Marta Molina; Francisco Rodríguez-Cabrera; Mariano Martín; Paloma Merino-Amador; Jose León Paniagua; Juan F Muñoz-Montalvo; Faustino Blanco; Raquel Yotti Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Efrat Shadmi; Yingyao Chen; Inês Dourado; Inbal Faran-Perach; John Furler; Peter Hangoma; Piya Hanvoravongchai; Claudia Obando; Varduhi Petrosyan; Krishna D Rao; Ana Lorena Ruano; Leiyu Shi; Luis Eugenio de Souza; Sivan Spitzer-Shohat; Elizabeth Sturgiss; Rapeepong Suphanchaimat; Manuela Villar Uribe; Sara Willems Journal: Int J Equity Health Date: 2020-06-26
Authors: Saman Khalatbari-Soltani; Robert C Cumming; Cyrille Delpierre; Michelle Kelly-Irving Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Stephen A Lauer; Kyra H Grantz; Qifang Bi; Forrest K Jones; Qulu Zheng; Hannah R Meredith; Andrew S Azman; Nicholas G Reich; Justin Lessler Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Claire L Niedzwiedz; Catherine A O'Donnell; Bhautesh Dinesh Jani; Evangelia Demou; Frederick K Ho; Carlos Celis-Morales; Barbara I Nicholl; Frances S Mair; Paul Welsh; Naveed Sattar; Jill P Pell; S Vittal Katikireddi Journal: BMC Med Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 11.150
Authors: Vinicius V L Albani; Roseane A S Albani; Nara Bobko; Eduardo Massad; Jorge P Zubelli Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-09-20 Impact factor: 4.135