Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 Transmission among Meat Processing Workers in Nebraska, USA, and Effectiveness of Risk Mitigation Measures

Abstract

I n the early months of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, meat processing facilities became among the largest epicenters of COVID-19 outbreaks in the United States (1). Declared a critical infrastructure industry in April 2020 (2), meat processing facilities are particularly vulnerable to COV-ID-19 because of the high density of workers required for operations, prolonged close contact of personnel on the production line, indoor work environments with compact cafeteria and locker room areas, and a workforce with diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds that make educational efforts more challenging (3). A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report found that, as of May 31, 2020, >16,000 workers in meat and poultry processing facilities in the United States had been diagnosed with COVID-19 and 86 had died (4); as of October 2020, those case counts and deaths had more than tripled (5). Meat processing facilities in Nebraska employ ≈26,000 workers (6). The fi rst COVID-19 illness among meat processing facility workers in Nebraska was identifi ed March 9, 2020. As of July 2020, cases had been reported among workers in 23 Nebraska meat processing facilities. The University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) and Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services partnered to mitigate COVID-19 risks in Nebraska among workers in this industry. Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services expanded case investigations and contact tracing teams and coordinated 2 mass testing events with participating meat processing facilities. UNMC created evidence-based guidelines for facilities (7) and assembled a team of infectious disease and infection prevention and control (IPC) experts to provide onsite and virtual technical assistance to facilities to evaluate gaps in IPC practices and provide facility-specifi c IPC recommendations. Local and state health departments conducted case investigations to collect information on demographics, employer, occupation, industry, illness descriptions, medical history, and outcomes among Nebraska meat processing workers. Moreover, although industry-specifi c guidelines for mitigating COVID-19 transmission in meat processing facilities have been issued by CDC and other public health

The Backward Art of Slowing the Spread? Congregation Efficiencies during COVID-19

“…The average daily number of new cases during this period is therefore 52 for meat packers and 195 for the remaining community in the 32 counties. Herstein et al (2021) found that the eleven meatpacking facilities implementing universal masking and workstation dividers had 5.4 times the daily rate of new cases before implementation than after. Applied to the 52 daily cases cited above, that puts the average daily number of new cases May 18 -July 31 ("after") among meat packers in the 32 counties at 10.…”

“…Food processing plants were notorious for spreading COVID-19, partly because "the high density of workers required for operations, prolonged close contact of personnel on the production line, indoor work environments with compact cafeteria and locker room areas" (Herstein, et al 2021). Based on their county-level data for the first half of 2020, Taylor,19 The New York state order is New York Department of Health (2020).…”

Potential environmental transmission routes of SARS-CoV-2 inside a large meat processing plant experiencing COVID-19 clusters

“…Research performed in the United States on evaluation of effectiveness of COVID-19 measures in meat processing plants suggested mitigation of transmission after initiating universal mask policy and installing physical barriers but the exact effect could not be determined as not all, potentially confounding, factors (e.g. other measures implemented, transmission beyond the workplace) could be assessed 40 .…”

“…60uL sample was removed, and 90 ul MagNA Pure 96 External Lysis Buffer (Roche) was added. PDV (10 uL) was used as internal control, as described previously 40 . RNA was eluted in 30 uL distilled water, 8 uL was used for the SARS-CoV-2 PCR, as described previously 17 .…”

Late surges in COVID-19 cases and varying transmission potential partially due to public health policy changes in 5 Western states, March 10, 2020-January 10, 2021

“…[21][22][23] Among the five states, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming implemented the mask mandate and followed with the Rt reduction, which echoed with the 313 current existing body of research on the efficacy of face masking in preventing the transmission 314 of SARS-CoV-2. [24][25][26] However, South Dakota and Idaho also experienced the Rt reduction 315 without adopting the mask mandate, perhaps due to voluntary adoption of facemasks, which will 316 require further investigation. 317 318 Furthermore, we observed an increase in Rt after schools (K-12 schools, colleges, and universities) reopened in South Dakota, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, except North Dakota.…”