Search

Both SARS-CoV-2 and influenza virus can be transmitted by asymptomatic, presymptomatic, or symptomatic infected persons. We assessed effects on work attendance while ill before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States by analyzing data collected prospectively from persons with acute respiratory illnesses enrolled in a multistate study during 2018–2022. Persons with previous hybrid work experience were significantly less likely to work onsite on the day before through the first 3 days of illness than those without that experience, an effect more pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemic than during prepandemic influenza seasons. Persons with influenza or COVID-19 were significantly less likely to work onsite than persons with other acute respiratory illnesses. Among persons with positive COVID-19 test results available by the second or third day of illness, few worked onsite. Hybrid and remote work policies might reduce workplace exposures and help reduce spread of respiratory viruses.

Persons with COVID-19–like illnesses are advised to stay home to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. We assessed relationships between telework experience and COVID-19 illness with work attendance when ill. Adults experiencing fever, cough, or loss of taste or smell who sought healthcare or COVID-19 testing in the United States during March–November 2020 were enrolled. Adults with telework experience before illness were more likely to work at all (onsite or remotely) during illness (87.8%) than those with no telework experience (49.9%) (adjusted odds ratio 5.48, 95% CI 3.40–8.83). COVID-19 case-patients were less likely to work onsite (22.1%) than were persons with other acute respiratory illnesses (37.3%) (adjusted odds ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.24–0.53). Among COVID-19 case-patients with telework experience, only 6.5% worked onsite during illness. Telework experience before illness gave mildly ill workers the option to work and improved compliance with public health recommendations to stay home during illness.

The introduction and rapid transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States resulted in methods to assess, mitigate, and contain the resulting COVID-19 disease derived from limited knowledge. Screening for testing has been based on symptoms typically observed in inpatients, yet outpatient symptoms may differ. Classification and regression trees recursive partitioning created a decision tree classifying participants into laboratory-confirmed cases and non-cases. Demographic and symptom data from patients ages 18–87 years enrolled from March 29–June 8, 2020 were included. Presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 was the target variable. Of 832 tested, 77 (9.3%) tested positive. Cases significantly more often reported diarrhea (12 percentage points (PP)), fever (15 PP), nausea/vomiting (9 PP), loss of taste/smell (52 PP), and contact with a COVID-19 case (54 PP), but less frequently reported sore throat (−27 PP). The 4-terminal node optimal tree had sensitivity of 69%, specificity of 78%, positive predictive value of 20%, negative predictive value of 97%, and AUC of 76%. Among those referred for testing, negative responses to two questions could classify about half (49%) of tested persons with low risk for SARS-CoV-2 and would save limited testing resources. Outpatient symptoms of COVID-19 appear to be broader than the inpatient syndrome. Initial supplies of anticipated COVID-19 vaccines may be limited and administration of first such available vaccines may need to be prioritized for essential workers, the most vulnerable, or those likely to have a robust response to vaccine. Another priority group could be those not previously infected. Those who screen out of testing may be less likely to have been infected by SARS-CoV-2 virus thus may be prioritized for vaccination when supplies are limited.