With vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, on the near-term horizon, U.S. policymakers are focusing on how to ensure that Americans get vaccinated. This challenge has been compounded by reports that White House officials are exerting undue influence over the agencies that would ordinarily lead such efforts, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Background: 
The Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative is generally considered an effective way to promote breastfeeding. Although China has the largest number of baby-friendly hospitals in the world, research on baby-friendly practices in China is limited, and the rate of exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) at 6 months, 20.7%, compared to the 2025 global goal of 50% is low. It is, therefore, important to determine the factors that remain significant barriers to EBF in China. To explore how the key baby-friendly practices affect EBF duration in China, we used a case-control study to compare the effects of baby-friendly-related practices on both EBF and non-breastfeeding (NBF) mothers at 3 months and to investigate the effects of both single and comprehensive baby-friendly practices in promoting EBF duration at 3 months, which is one step toward EBF at 6 months.

Methods: 
Participants were recruited from four maternal and child health hospitals in western (Chongqing), eastern (Qingdao), southern (Liuzhou), and central China (Maanshan). A total of 421 mothers (245 in the EBF group, 176 in the NBF group) of infants aged 3 months were surveyed through a self-reported questionnaire from April 2018 to March 2019. The experience of baby-friendly practices and breastfeeding during hospitalization were assessed with yes/no questions. Socio-demographic factors that influenced breastfeeding at 3 months were analyzed using bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

Results: 
Of mothers in the EBF group, 65.57% reported engaging in at least seven baby-friendly practices compared to 47.72% of mothers in the NBF group. Significantly more mothers in the EBF group engaged in baby-friendly practices than in the NBF group. These practices included “breastfeeding within one hour after birth” (74.29% vs. 59.09%), “breastfeeding on demand” (86.48% vs. 75.00%), and “never use a pacifier” (46.53% vs. 31.25%). After adjusting for confounding variables, we found that the mothers who engaged in fewer than seven baby-friendly practices were about 1.7 times less likely to breastfeed than were those who engaged in seven or more baby-friendly practices (odds ratio [OR] 1.720, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.106, 2.667). Further, the mothers who did not breastfeed on demand were as likely to not breastfeed up to 3 months (OR 2.263, 95% CI 1.265, 4.049), as were mothers who did not breastfeed during hospitalization (OR 4.379, 95% CI 1.815, 10.563).

Conclusions: 
These data from hospitals in China suggest that higher compliance with baby-friendly practices may have a positive impact on EBF at 3 months, particularly in terms of promoting the implementation of breastfeeding on demand and breastfeeding during hospitalization in China.

Few issues in the policy response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have inspired as impassioned debate as school reopening. There is broad agreement that school closures involve heavy burdens on students, parents, and the economy, with profound equity implications, but also that the risk of outbreaks cannot be eliminated even in a partial reopening scenario with in-school precautions. Consensus largely ends there, however: the approaches states and localities have taken to integrating these concerns into school reopening plans are highly variable.

On August 17, 2020, the Los Angeles Unified School District launched a program to test more than 700,000 students and staff for SARS-CoV-2. The district is paying a private contractor to provide next-day, early-morning results for as many as 40,000 tests daily. As of October 4, a total of 34,833 people had been tested at 42 sites. The program is notable not only because it’s ambitious, but also because it’s unusual: testing is conspicuously absent from school reopening plans in many other districts. Typically, exhaustive attention has instead focused on physical distancing, face coverings, hygiene, staggering of schedules, and cohorting (dividing students into small, fixed groups). Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, and state officials have urged schools to prepare for Covid-19 cases, they have offered strikingly little substantive guidance on testing. Immediate attention to improving testing access and response planning is essential to the successful reopening of schools.

Although health care billing claims data have been widely used to study health care use, spending, and policy changes, their use in the study of infectious disease has been limited. Other data sources, including from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), have provided timelier reporting to outbreak experts. However, given the scope of SARS-CoV-2—the causative agent responsible for the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic—and the multidimensional impact of the crisis on the health care system, analyses relying on health care claims data have begun to appear. Claims-based COVID-19 studies have a role, but it is critical to understand the limitations of these data. We are concerned that many weaknesses are not recognized by those familiar with other forms of patient-level data. Below, we examine several major considerations and make suggestions about where claims data may be best leveraged to inform policy and decision making.

Abstract

The economic and mortality impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have been widely discussed, but there is limited evidence on their relationship across demographic and geographic groups. We use publicly available monthly data from January 2011 through April 2020 on all-cause death counts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and employment from the Current Population Survey to estimate excess all-cause mortality and employment displacement in April 2020 in the United States. We report results nationally and separately by state and by age group. Nationally, excess all-cause mortality was 2.4 per 10,000 individuals (about 30% higher than reported COVID deaths in April) and employment displacement was 9.9 per 100 individuals. Across age groups 25 y and older, excess mortality was negatively correlated with economic damage; excess mortality was largest among the oldest (individuals 85 y and over: 39.0 per 10,000), while employment displacement was largest among the youngest (individuals 25 to 44 y: 11.6 per 100 individuals). Across states, employment displacement was positively correlated with excess mortality (correlation = 0.29). However, mortality was highly concentrated geographically, with the top two states (New York and New Jersey) each experiencing over 10 excess deaths per 10,000 and accounting for about half of national excess mortality. By contrast, employment displacement was more geographically spread, with the states with the largest point estimates (Nevada and Michigan) each experiencing over 16 percentage points employment displacement but accounting for only 7% of the national displacement. These results suggest that policy responses may differentially affect generations and geographies.