Occupational risk of COVID-19 in the 1^st vs 2^nd wave of infection

Introduction

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emerged in late 2019 in China and has in September 2020 resulted in over 29.000.000 infected and over 900.000 deaths globally [1]. In the Nordic countries, the first cases with confirmed COVID-19 infections probably originated from bars and restaurants in Austria and Italy when Nordic residents visited the countries during winter holidays February 2020 [1]. Later, lockdown restrictions of activities particularly in trade, catering and tourism industries are believed to dramatically having reduced the spread of the virus, whereas the lockdown of schools and pre-schools are assumed to have had a smaller effect [2-5]. However, to what extent occupational settings implying close contact with customers, patients, children or students contribute to the spread of COVID-19 and its severity is currently unknown.

Only a few studies have been published on the occupational risk of COVID-19, mainly focusing on disease severity or mortality. The first reports of occupational risk of COVID-19 are from Singapore in early February 2020 and showed that 25 locally transmitted cases were employed in tourism and trading [6]. Later British studies reported that essential workers such as personal service occupations and plant and machine operatives had a higher risk of severe COVID-19 than non-essential workers, which are believed to work more from home-office [7]. Also, in England, Wales and Sweden, occupations in sales and retail, transport (Swedish bus/taxi drivers) and catering (chefs) had raised mortality rates of COVID-19, whereas teachers had lower mortality rates [8, 9].

An overview of the pattern of COVID-19 and accompanying utilization of health care services in persons employed in a wide range of occupations is currently lacking. Improved knowledge of occupational risk would greatly contribute to informing authorities on whether certain activities in these sectors should be “locked down” in attempts to limit the spread of the virus with its severe outcomes. Most European countries including Norway are experiencing or expected to experience two waves of infection [10], one during spring 2020, and one during fall 2020, which due to the novelty of the virus and restrictions undertaken may be associated with different occupational risks. Thus, for the two periods of infection in Norway and including the entire Norwegian population aged 20-70 years, we aimed to study the occupational risk of COVID-19 and its severity (hospitalizations) for persons employed in health professions, education and teaching, trade, catering, travel, tourism and recreation industries.

Methods

We utilized individual-level data from the BEREDT C19 register, which is a newly developed emergency preparedness register aiming to provide rapid knowledge of the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and how spread as well as measures to limit spread affect the population’s health, use of health care services and health-related behaviors [11]. The register consists of electronic patient records from all hospitals in Norway (NPR), data from the Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases (MSIS), The Norwegian Population Registry and the Employer- and Employee-register, which are merged on the unique personal identification number that is provided every Norwegian resident at birth or upon immigration. Thus, BEREDT C19 and our study include the entire Norwegian population including immigrants. Data are updated daily (except for the Employer-Employee-register, which was updated on August 25^th 2020) and spans the whole of 2020. BEREDT C19 includes results for the first positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests for SARS-CoV-2 of every resident in Norway with dates of testing and diagnosis, legally required to be reported from all laboratories to MSIS. The register also includes date of any hospitalization, with complete diagnostic codes from January 1^st 2020. Occupation is reported in the Employer-Employee-register with codes as described at Statistics Norway for all residents in Norway [12]. Thus, in the current study, our population included all living Norwegian residents in their working age, here defined as age between 20 and 70 years on January 1^st 2020. Non-residents (like tourists, temporary workers and asylum applicants) were excluded (i.e. all d-numbers). Institutional board review was conducted, and the Ethics Committee of South-East Norway confirmed (June 4th 2020, #153204) that external ethical board review was not required.

Results

We studied in total 3 553 407 persons aged 20-70 years living in Norway on January 1^st 2020 with mean (SD) age 44.1 (14.3) years, consisting of 51% men. Of these, 78.8% had birth country Norway and (24.4%) were nonemployed or not registered with any occupation. By October 20^th 2020, a total of 12 736 (0.3%) had contracted COVID-19, of which 953 (7.5%) were hospitalized with severe COVID-19 disease. The proportions with COVID-19 and related hospitalization per occupation are reported in Table 2 and S-table 2, respectively. We refrain from reporting absolute numbers due to few observations for certain occupations.

Outcome COVID-19 infection, 1^st wave (Feb 26^th-July 17^th 2020)

Persons employed as nurses, physicians, dentists, physiotherapists, bus, tram and taxi drivers had ∼1.5-3.5 times the odds of confirmed COVID-19 during the first wave of infection when compared to everyone in their working age (Figure 1, S-table 1). In contrast, teachers of children and students at any age, child care workers, as well as bartenders, waiters, sales shop assistants, cleaners, fitness instructors, hair dressers, hotel receptionists, travel guides and transport conductors had no increased risk, or even a reduced risk of confirmed COVID-19 when compared to everyone in their working age (Figure 1, S-table 1). Generally, point estimates were closer to 1 in analyses adjusted for age, sex and country of birth when compared to crude analyses (S-table 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

The odds (95% confidence interval) of COVID-19 during the 1^st wave of infection in Norway (Feb 26^th-July 17^th 2020), adjusted for age, sex and country of birth. Everyone in their working age (20-70 year) was the reference category (OR==1, vertical red line).

Outcome COVID-19 infection, 2^nd wave (July 18^th-October 20^th 2020)

The pattern of occupational risk of confirmed COVID-19 was different for the 2^nd wave of infection than for the 1^st wave of infection. In the 2^nd wave of infection, bartenders, waiters, food service counter attendants, travel stewards and taxi drivers had ∼1.5-4 times the odds of COVID-19 when compared to everyone in their working age (Figure 2, S-table 2). A range of occupations had no increased odds (OR∼1): child care workers, teachers of children and students at any age, fitness instructors, sales shop assistants, hair dressers, bus and tram drivers, hotel receptionists, cleaners and health personnel (nurses, physicians, physiotherapists and dentists) when compared to everyone in their working age (Figure 2, S-table 2). Again, point estimates were closer to 1 in analyses adjusted for age, sex and country of birth when compared to crude analyses (S-table 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

The odds (95% confidence interval) of COVID-19 during the 2^nd wave of infection in Norway (July 18^th - October 20^th 2020), adjusted for age, sex and country of birth. Everyone in their working age (20-70 year) was the reference category (OR==1, vertical red line).

Outcome Hospitalization with COVID-19 infection

None of the included occupations had any particularly increased risk of severe COVID-19, indicated by hospitalization, when compared with all infected in their working age (Figure 3, S-table 2), apart from dentists, who had a ∼7 (2-18) times increased odds ratio, and pre-school teachers, child care workers and taxi, bus and tram drivers who had a ∼1-2 times increased odds ratio. However, for several occupations, no hospitalizations were observed, confidence intervals were wide and all analyses should be interpreted with care due to the small number of COVID-19 hospitalizations (S-table 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

The odds (95% confidence interval) of being hospitalized with COVID-19 during the 1^st and 2^nd wave of infection in Norway (Feb 26^th-October 20^th 2020), adjusted for age, sex and country of birth. Everyone in their working age (20-70 year) with COVID-19 was the reference category (OR==1, vertical red line).

Discussion

Studying the entire Norwegian population, we report a different pattern of occupational risk of COVID-19 for the 1^st and the 2^nd wave of infection. Importantly, nurses, physicians, dentists, physiotherapists, bus, tram and taxi drivers had the highest risk of confirmed COVID-19 during the 1^st wave of infection, which shifted to bartenders, waiters, food counter attendants and travel stewards during the 2^nd wave of infection (compared to everyone in their working age). Teachers had no increased risk to only a moderate increased risk of COVID-19. We found indications that occupation may be of limited relevance for the risk of severe COVID-19, here studied as hospitalization with the disease.

We believe this report is the first to show the COVID-19 risks of specific occupations for the entire working population and for everyone diagnosed. Existing reports have considered the associations in smaller populations, have used broad categories of occupations and/or have considered only severe, hospital-confirmed COVID-19 or mortality [6-9]. Here, we study everyone with a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 in Norway in addition to hospital-confirmed COVID-19 as well as hospitalizations with COVID-19. For studying occupations, we use the internationally well-known ISCO-codes with four digits, and apply simple logistic regression models, making analyses easily reproducible and comparable when repeated in other countries or in other study samples.

Considering that workers both may become infected through their occupation but may also spread the virus to their customers, patients or pupils/students, our findings may have implications for pandemic policy. First, our findings give no reason to believe that teachers are at higher risk of infection, yet pre-school and child care workers may be at moderately increased risk of severe disease once it is contracted. In contrast, bartenders, waiters, travel stewards, bus, tram and taxi drivers had a higher risk of infection than other occupation groups in the 1^st and/or 2^nd wave of infection, and they also typically have contact with many different people in their work possibly exposing many people if they are not aware that they are infected. These findings may be of relevance for the future considerations of restrictions and/or the use of face masks in certain occupational settings. Our findings also raise important hypotheses for future research. As an example, although we had few cases and considerable uncertainty in our analyses of hospitalization with COVID-19, our results may indicate that dentists are at a considerably increased risk of severe COVID-19, raising important questions of the relevance of viral load or infectious dose in causing severe disease.

Except for our analyses of hospitalization, we chose to divide our analyses in two periods, the 1^st and 2^nd expected “waves” [10]. However, it is questionable whether Norway at all has experienced a second wave of infection, since the number of newly infected cases has been rising slower during fall 2020 when compared to spring 2020 (reproduction number per October 18^th 2020 = 1.1 (95% CI 0.95–1.14) [5]). Along this line, an important potential explanation for the differing findings in the 1^st and 2^nd wave may be differences in test criteria in Norway throughout the year, which changed from including only those with severe disease, at risk, and/or health personnel before summer to include everyone with mild symptoms and/or who had been in contact with persons having confirmed COVID-19 after summer. These differences in test criteria may also explain why health personnel were at increased risk during the 1^st wave but not the 2^nd wave. However, it is also possible that health personnel have implemented better infection control measures, resulting in fewer nurses, dentists etc. being infected as the pandemic progressed. Future research should further detail the association between type of health/medical occupation and infection risk before and after summer 2020, i.e. distinguish between occupations in specialist and primary care, nursing and elderly homes, etc. (work in progress, BEREDT C19).

Another issue of importance to the interpretation of our findings is that 24% of the working age population could not be categorized using available registry data, i.e. they may be everything from students and freelancers to those unemployed and disability pensioned. As an example, the persons infected during the 2^nd wave of infection were younger and likely consisted of more students when compared to persons infected in the 1^st wave of infection [1-5]. The students, typically aged 20-25, may more often than those aged ≥30, have no occupation, and/or more often have part-time work as bartenders, waiters, food counter attendants, child care workers and sales shop assistant etc., potentially explaining our results. The non-employed might also be on disability pensions, typically due to poor health and potentially at greater risk of severe COVID-19, potentially explaining why our findings indicate limited occupational risk of hospitalization with COVID-19. In total 12% of non-elderly adults in Norway are on disability pensions. Also, the proportions fully or partially retired increases from 0% to ∼ 95% between age 60 and age 70 [15], and they may be exposed to a minimal or considerable occupational risk.

Some important limitations should be mentioned. First, we cannot exclude that other factors than the occupation in question explain infection and hospitalization risks in our study. As an example, persons in full-employment may be at greater risk of COVID-19 than persons in part-time employment. Also, we cannot be sure we have sufficiently adjusted for other risk factors related to e.g. country of birth, residential area, risky behavior and health literacy, which may be of particular relevance to our analyses of hospitalization [5]. Further, it is possible that employees working and living close together in small areas (more typical for big cities) may be infected by each other rather than by the customers/children/patients they meet [16]. Indeed, point estimates and their 95% CI were lowered in adjusted analyses compared to crude analyses, suggesting that occupation and our outcomes are partly explained by sociodemographic factors. Finally, we converted the Norwegian occupation classification STYRK-98 to STYRK-08/ISCO-08 and some of the occupations (0.3%) were lost as they did not convert to the international system [12, 13]. The reference category was calculated using STYRK-98.

In conclusion, we show that nurses, physicians, dentists, physiotherapists, bus, tram and taxi drivers had the highest risk of confirmed COVID-19 during the 1^st wave of infection, which shifted to bartenders, waiters, food counter attendants and travel stewards having the greatest COVID-19 risk during the 2^nd wave of infection. Teachers had no increased risk to only a moderate increased risk of COVID-19. Our findings may be of relevance to increase the understanding of risk and transmission settings for COVID-19 in order to contribute to more targeted measures to decrease transmission of COVID-19 in public settings.

Conflict of interest disclosures

All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Funding/support

The study was funded by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. No external funding was received.

Role of the funder

The funding sources had no influence on the design or conduct of the study, the collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data, the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.