Cited by 267COVID-19 epidemiological studiesHealthcare Systems and ChallengesCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies

Excess mortality associated with the COVID-19 pandemic among Californians 18–65 years of age, by occupational sector and occupation: March through November 2020

Open access
Chen, Yea-Hung, Glymour, Maria, Riley, Alicia, Balmes, John, Duchowny, Kate, Harrison, Robert, Matthay, Ellicott, Bibbins-Domingo, Kirsten·2021·PLOS ONE

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Though SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks have been documented in occupational settings and in-person essential work has been suspected as a risk factor for COVID-19, occupational differences in excess mortality have, to date, not been examined. Such information could point to opportunities for intervention, such as vaccine prioritization or regulations to enforce safer work environments. Methods and findings: Using autoregressive integrated moving average models and California Department of Public Health data representing 356,188 decedents 18–65 years of age who died between January 1, 2016 and November 30, 2020, we estimated pandemic-related excess mortality by occupational sector and occupation, with additional stratification of the sector analysis by race/ethnicity. During these first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, working-age adults experienced 11,628 more deaths than expected, corresponding to 22% relative excess and 46 excess deaths per 100,000 living individuals. Sectors with the highest relative and per-capita excess mortality were food/agriculture (39% relative excess; 75 excess deaths per 100,000), transportation/logistics (31%; 91 per 100,000), manufacturing (24%; 61 per 100,000), and facilities (23%; 83 per 100,000). Across racial and ethnic groups, Latino working-age Californians experienced the highest relative excess mortality (37%) with the highest excess mortality among Latino workers in food and agriculture (59%; 97 per 100,000). Black working-age Californians had the highest per-capita excess mortality (110 per 100,000), with relative excess mortality highest among transportation/logistics workers (36%). Asian working-age Californians had lower excess mortality overall, but notable relative excess mortality among health/emergency workers (37%), while White Californians had high per-capita excess deaths among facilities workers (70 per 100,000). Conclusions: Certain occupational sectors are associated with high excess mortality during the pandemic, particularly among racial and ethnic groups also disproportionately affected by COVID-19. In-person essential work is a likely venue of transmission of coronavirus infection and must be addressed through vaccination and strict enforcement of health orders in workplace settings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0252454

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Black and Hispanic workers in low-wage, often consumer-facing, positions have notably high rates of COVID-19 mortality.

    “Black and Hispanic workers in low-wage, often consumer-facing, positions, have notably high rates of COVID-19 mortality [6].”

    From Parental and Other Caregiver Loss Due to COVID-19 in the United States: Prevalence by Race, State, Relationship, and Child Age (2023) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Results report notably high pandemic-related excess mortality among Black and Latino Californians in several occupational sectors, and the Discussion notes that essential sectors include many low-wage workers. The study does not establish mortality rates specifically for low-wage, consumer-facing Black and Hispanic workers; it measures excess deaths during the pandemic rather than COVID-19 deaths specifically. The passages supplied do not provide page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Caregiver loss is even more heavily concentrated in vulnerable populations than shown in our results.

    “Our ability to observe more specific geographic and demographic disparities is constrained by the limitations of available data, but we can infer from other analyses that caregiver loss is even more heavily concentrated in vulnerable populations than shown in our results.”

    From Parental and Other Caregiver Loss Due to COVID-19 in the United States: Prevalence by Race, State, Relationship, and Child Age (2023) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Results and Discussion report disproportionate excess mortality among Black and Latino working-age Californians and workers in several essential sectors. The paper does not measure caregiver loss or compare its concentration in vulnerable populations with the citing authors’ results, so it supports the inference’s mortality premise but not the stated conclusion. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, Y.-H., Glymour, M., Riley, A., Balmes, J., Duchowny, K., Harrison, R., Matthay, E., & Bibbins-Domingo, K.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Chen, Yea-Hung
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2021-06-04
Volume
16
Issue
6
Pages
e0252454
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3164915915
Cited by
267
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 85 · 2021: 71
FWCI
23.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
UCSF Chancellors Fund
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare Systems and Challenges
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, excess mortality, occupational differences, occupational sectors, occupation, working-age adults, racial and ethnic disparities, industrial workers, essential work, California, COVID-19 vaccine prioritization, occupational safety regulations, Latino workers, Black workers, Asian workers, white workers, health equity
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, California, Ethnicity, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Occupations, Racial Groups, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review