IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0266058.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Disparities in COVID-19 fatalities among working Californians

Author

Listed:
  • Kristin J Cummings
  • John Beckman
  • Matthew Frederick
  • Robert Harrison
  • Alyssa Nguyen
  • Robert Snyder
  • Elena Chan
  • Kathryn Gibb
  • Andrea Rodriguez
  • Jessie Wong
  • Erin L Murray
  • Seema Jain
  • Ximena Vergara

Abstract

Background: Information on U.S. COVID-19 mortality rates by occupation is limited. We aimed to characterize 2020 COVID-19 fatalities among working Californians to inform preventive strategies. Methods: We identified laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 fatalities with dates of death in 2020 by matching death certificates to the state’s COVID-19 case registry. Working status for decedents aged 18–64 years was determined from state employment records, death certificates, and case registry data and classified as “confirmed working,” “likely working,” or “not working.” We calculated age-adjusted overall and occupation-specific COVID-19 mortality rates using 2019 American Community Survey denominators. Results: COVID-19 accounted for 8,050 (9.9%) of 81,468 fatalities among Californians 18–64 years old. Of these decedents, 2,486 (30.9%) were matched to state employment records and classified as “confirmed working.” The remainder were classified as “likely working” (n = 4,121 [51.2%]) or “not working” (n = 1,443 [17.9%]) using death certificate and case registry data. Confirmed and likely working COVID-19 decedents were predominantly male (76.3%), Latino (68.7%), and foreign-born (59.6%), with high school or less education (67.9%); 7.8% were Black. The overall age-adjusted COVID-19 mortality rate was 30.0 per 100,000 workers (95% confidence interval [CI], 29.3–30.8). Workers in nine occupational groups had age-adjusted mortality rates higher than this overall rate, including those in farming (78.0; 95% CI, 68.7–88.2); material moving (77.8; 95% CI, 70.2–85.9); construction (62.4; 95% CI, 57.7–67.4); production (60.2; 95% CI, 55.7–65.0); and transportation (57.2; 95% CI, 52.2–62.5) occupations. While occupational differences in mortality were evident across demographic groups, mortality rates were three-fold higher for male compared with female workers and three- to seven-fold higher for Latino and Black workers compared with Asian and White workers. Conclusion: Californians in manual labor and in-person service occupations experienced disproportionate COVID-19 mortality, with the highest rates observed among male, Latino, and Black workers; these occupational group should be prioritized for prevention.

Suggested Citation

  • Kristin J Cummings & John Beckman & Matthew Frederick & Robert Harrison & Alyssa Nguyen & Robert Snyder & Elena Chan & Kathryn Gibb & Andrea Rodriguez & Jessie Wong & Erin L Murray & Seema Jain & Xime, 2022. "Disparities in COVID-19 fatalities among working Californians," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-15, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0266058
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266058
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0266058
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0266058&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0266058?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dingel, Jonathan I. & Neiman, Brent, 2020. "How many jobs can be done at home?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Couch, Kenneth A. & Fairlie, Robert W. & Xu, Huanan, 2020. "Early evidence of the impacts of COVID-19 on minority unemployment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    2. Jacek Rothert, 2020. "Optimal federal redistribution during the uncoordinated response to a pandemic," Departmental Working Papers 64, United States Naval Academy Department of Economics.
    3. Piotr Lewandowski & Katarzyna Lipowska & Mateusz Smoter, 2022. "Working from home during a pandemic – a discrete choice experiment in Poland," IBS Working Papers 03/2022, Instytut Badan Strukturalnych.
    4. Lee, Munseob & Finerman, Rachel, 2021. "COVID-19, commuting flows, and air quality," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    5. Bart Roelofs & Dimitris Ballas & Hinke Haisma & Arjen Edzes, 2022. "Spatial mobility patterns and COVID‐19 incidence: A regional analysis of the second wave in the Netherlands," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S1), pages 21-40, November.
    6. Lewandowski, Piotr & Lipowska, Katarzyna & Smoter, Mateusz, 2023. "Mismatch in preferences for working from home: Evidence from discrete choice experiments with workers and employers," Ruhr Economic Papers 1026, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    7. Juan C. Palomino & Juan G. Rodríguez & Raquel Sebastian, 2023. "The COVID-19 shock on the labour market: poverty and inequality effects across Spanish regions," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(5), pages 814-828, May.
    8. Claudia Hupkau & Barbara Petrongolo, 2020. "Work, Care and Gender during the COVID‐19 Crisis," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 623-651, September.
    9. David Baqaee & Emmanuel Farhi, 2020. "Nonlinear Production Networks with an Application to the Covid-19 Crisis," NBER Working Papers 27281, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Gottlieb Charles & Grobovšek Jan & Poschke Markus & Saltiel Fernando, 2022. "Lockdown Accounting," The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, De Gruyter, vol. 22(1), pages 197-210, January.
    11. Graham, James & Ozbilgin, Murat, 2021. "Age, industry, and unemployment risk during a pandemic lockdown," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    12. Basso, Gaetano & Boeri, Tito & Caiumi, Alessandro & Paccagnella, Marco, 2020. "The New Hazardous Jobs and Worker Reallocation," IZA Discussion Papers 13532, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Carlos Díaz & Sebastian Fossati & Nicolás Trajtenberg, 2022. "Stay at home if you can: COVID‐19 stay‐at‐home guidelines and local crime," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 1067-1113, December.
    14. Louis-Philippe Beland & Abel Brodeur & Taylor Wright, 2020. "COVID-19, Stay-at-Home Orders and Employment: Evidence from CPS Data," Carleton Economic Papers 20-04, Carleton University, Department of Economics, revised 19 May 2020.
    15. John McLaren & Su Wang, 2020. "Effects of Reduced Workplace Presence on COVID-19 Deaths: An Instrumental-Variables Approach," NBER Working Papers 28275, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Kouki, Amairisa, 2023. "Beyond the “Comforts” of work from home: Child health and the female wage penalty," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    17. Stefano Magrini & Alessandro Spiganti, 2021. "The Day After Covid-19: Implications for Growth, Specialization, and Inequality," Working Papers 2021:13, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    18. Nizamani, Sarah & Waheed, Muhammad Shahid, 2020. "Poverty and Inequality amid COVID-19 – Evidence from Pakistan’s Labour Market," MPRA Paper 100422, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. John Gathergood & Fabian Gunzinger & Benedict Guttman-Kenney & Edika Quispe-Torreblanca & Neil Stewart, 2020. "Levelling Down and the COVID-19 Lockdowns: Uneven Regional Recovery in UK Consumer Spending," Papers 2012.09336, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2020.
    20. Jean-Marc Bourgeon & José de Sousa & Alexis Noir-Luhalwe, 2022. "Social Distancing and Risk Taking: Evidence from a Team Game Show [Distanciation sociale et prise de risque : Les résultats d'un jeu d'équipe]," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03792423, HAL.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0266058. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.