May 2020 Jobs Report and Industry Update
“THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION — April 2020”
“More berries, apples and tea may have protective benefits against Alzheimer’s”
“Researchers release COVID-19 symptom tracker app”
“Re-purposing existing drugs for COVID-19 offers a more rapid alternative to a vaccine”
“Immunity of recovered COVID-19 patients could cut risk of expanding economic activity”
Human Capital Solutions, Inc. (HCS) www.humancs.com is a Retained Executive Search firm focused in Healthcare, Life Sciences, the Industrials, and Technology. Visit our LinkedIn Company Page to learn more about HCS and receive weekly updates.
HCS has created the Prosperity at Work proposition which focuses on creating prosperous relationships between companies and their employees (associates). HCS assists companies in improving bottom line profitability by efficiently planning, organizing and implementing optimized, practical and value-added business solutions.
Economics & Job Creation:
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION — APRIL 2020
Total nonfarm payroll employment fell by 20.5 million in April, and the unemployment rate rose to 14.7 percent,
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The changes in these measures reflect the effects of the
coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and efforts to contain it. Employment fell sharply in all major industry sectors,
with particularly heavy job losses in leisure and hospitality.
This news release presents statistics from two monthly surveys. The household survey measures labor force status,
including unemployment, by demographic characteristics. The establishment survey measures nonfarm employment,
hours, and earnings by industry. For more information about the concepts and statistical methodology used in these
two surveys, see the Technical Note.
Household Survey Data
In April, the unemployment rate increased by 10.3 percentage points to 14.7 percent. This is the highest rate and
the largest over-the-month increase in the history of the series (seasonally adjusted data are available back to
January 1948). The number of unemployed persons rose by 15.9 million to 23.1 million in April. The sharp increases
in these measures reflect the effects of the coronavirus pandemic and efforts to contain it. (See table A-1. For more
information about how the household survey and its measures were affected by the coronavirus pandemic, see the box
at the end of the news release.)
In April, unemployment rates rose sharply among all major worker groups. The rate was 13.0 percent for adult men,
15.5 percent for adult women, 31.9 percent for teenagers, 14.2 percent for Whites, 16.7 percent for Blacks, 14.5
percent for Asians, and 18.9 percent for Hispanics. The rates for all of these groups, with the exception of Blacks,
represent record highs for their respective series. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
The number of unemployed persons who reported being on temporary layoff increased about ten-fold to 18.1 million in
April. The number of permanent job losers increased by 544,000 to 2.0 million. (See table A-11.)
In April, the number of unemployed persons who were jobless less than 5 weeks increased by 10.7 million to
14.3 million, accounting for almost two-thirds of the unemployed. The number of unemployed persons who were
jobless 5 to 14 weeks rose by 5.2 million to 7.0 million. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless
for 27 weeks or more), at 939,000, declined by 225,000 over the month and represented 4.1 percent of the unemployed.
(See table A-12.)
The labor force participation rate decreased by 2.5 percentage points over the month to 60.2 percent, the lowest
rate since January 1973 (when it was 60.0 percent). Total employment, as measured by the household survey, fell
by 22.4 million to 133.4 million. The employment-population ratio, at 51.3 percent, dropped by 8.7 percentage points
over the month. This is the lowest rate and largest over-the-month decline in the history of the series (seasonally
adjusted data are available back to January 1948). (See table A-1.)
The number of persons who usually work full time declined by 15.0 million over the month, and the number who usually
work part time declined by 7.4 million. Part-time workers accounted for one-third of the over-the-month employment
decline. (See table A-9.)
The number of persons at work part time for economic reasons nearly doubled over the month to 10.9 million. These
individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been
reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs. This group includes persons who usually work full time and
persons who usually work part time. (See table A-8.)
The number of persons not in the labor force who currently want a job, at 9.9 million, nearly doubled in April.
These individuals were not counted as unemployed because they were not actively looking for work during the last
4 weeks or were unavailable to take a job. (See table A-1.)
Persons marginally attached to the labor force–a subset of persons not in the labor force who currently want a
job–numbered 2.3 million in April, up by 855,000 over the month. These individuals were not in the labor force,
wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months but had not looked
for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached who believed
that no jobs were available for them, numbered 574,000 in April, little changed from the previous month.
(See Summary table A.)
Establishment Survey Data
Total nonfarm payroll employment fell by 20.5 million in April, after declining by 870,000 in March. The April
over-the-month decline is the largest in the history of the series and brought employment to its lowest level
since February 2011 (the series dates back to 1939). Job losses in April were widespread, with the largest
employment decline occurring in leisure and hospitality. (See table B-1. For more information about how the
establishment survey and its measures were affected by the coronavirus, see the box note at the end of the news
In April, employment in leisure and hospitality plummeted by 7.7 million, or 47 percent. Almost three-quarters of the
decrease occurred in food services and drinking places (-5.5 million). Employment also fell in the arts, entertainment,
and recreation industry (-1.3 million) and in the accommodation industry (-839,000).
Employment declined by 2.5 million in education and health services in April. In health care, employment declined by
1.4 million, led by losses in offices of dentists (-503,000), offices of physicians (-243,000), and offices of other
health care practitioners (-205,000). Employment also declined in social assistance (-651,000), reflecting job losses
in child day care services (-336,000) and individual and family services (-241,000). Employment in private education
declined by 457,000 over the month.
Professional and business services shed 2.1 million jobs in April. Sharp losses occurred in temporary help services
(-842,000) and in services to buildings and dwellings (-259,000).
In April, employment in retail trade declined by 2.1 million. Job losses occurred in clothing and clothing accessories
stores (-740,000), motor vehicle and parts dealers (-345,000), miscellaneous store retailers (-264,000), and furniture
and home furnishings stores (-209,000). By contrast, the component of general merchandise stores that includes warehouse
clubs and supercenters gained 93,000 jobs.
In April, manufacturing employment dropped by 1.3 million. About two-thirds of the decline was in durable goods
manufacturing (-914,000), which saw losses in motor vehicles and parts (-382,000) and in fabricated metal products
(-109,000). Nondurable goods manufacturing shed 416,000 jobs.
Employment in the other services industry declined by 1.3 million in April, with nearly two-thirds of the decline
occurring in personal and laundry services (-797,000).
Government employment dropped by 980,000 in April. Employment in local government was down by 801,000, in part reflecting
school closures. Employment also declined in state government education (-176,000).
Construction employment fell by 975,000 in April, with much of the loss in specialty trade contractors (-691,000). Job
losses also occurred in construction of buildings (-206,000).
Employment fell in transportation and warehousing in April (-584,000). Transit and ground passenger transportation and
air transportation lost 185,000 jobs and 141,000 jobs, respectively.
Wholesale trade shed 363,000 jobs in April, largely reflecting losses in the durable and nondurable goods components.
Employment in financial activities fell by 262,000 over the month, with the vast majority of the decline occurring in
real estate and rental and leasing (-222,000).
Employment in information fell by 254,000 in April, driven by a decline in motion picture and sound recording
Mining lost 46,000 jobs in April, with most of the decline occurring in support activities for mining (-33,000).
In April, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by $1.34 to $30.01. Average
hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by $1.04 to $25.12 in April. The
increases in average hourly earnings largely reflect the substantial job loss among lower-paid workers; this change,
along with earnings increases, put upward pressure on the average hourly earnings estimates. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)
The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 0.1 hour to 34.2 hours in April. In
manufacturing, the workweek declined by 2.1 hours to 38.3 hours, and overtime declined by 0.9 hour to 2.1 hours. The
average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 0.1 hour to
33.5 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for February was revised down by 45,000 from +275,000 to +230,000, and
the change for March was revised down by 169,000 from -701,000 to -870,000. With these revisions, employment changes
in February and March combined were 214,000 lower than previously reported. (Monthly revisions result from additional
reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the
recalculation of seasonal factors.)
The Employment Situation for May is scheduled to be released on Friday, June 5, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).
“More berries, apples and tea may have protective benefits against Alzheimer’s”
Older adults who consumed small amounts of flavonoid-rich foods, such as berries, apples and tea, were two to four times more likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias over 20 years compared with people whose intake was higher, according to a new study led by scientists at the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging (USDA HNRCA) at Tufts University.
The epidemiological study of 2,800 people aged 50 and older examined the long-term relationship between eating foods containing flavonoids and risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD). While many studies have looked at associations between nutrition and dementias over short periods of time, the study published today in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition looked at exposure over 20 years.
Flavonoids are natural substances found in plants, including fruits and vegetables such as pears, apples, berries, onions, and plant-based beverages like tea and wine. Flavonoids are associated with various health benefits, including reduced inflammation. Dark chocolate is another source of flavonoids.
The research team determined that low intake of three flavonoid types was linked to higher risk of dementia when compared to the highest intake. Specifically:
- Low intake of flavonols (apples, pears and tea) was associated with twice the risk of developing ADRD.
- Low intake of anthocyanins (blueberries, strawberries, and red wine) was associated with a four-fold risk of developing ADRD.
- Low intake of flavonoid polymers (apples, pears, and tea) was associated with twice the risk of developing ADRD.
The results were similar for AD.
“Our study gives us a picture of how diet over time might be related to a person’s cognitive decline, as we were able to look at flavonoid intake over many years prior to participants’ dementia diagnoses,” said Paul Jacques, senior author and nutritional epidemiologist at the USDA HNRCA. “With no effective drugs currently available for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, preventing disease through a healthy diet is an important consideration.”
The researchers analyzed six types of flavonoids and compared long-term intake levels with the number of AD and ADRD diagnoses later in life. They found that low intake (15th percentile or lower) of three flavonoid types was linked to higher risk of dementia when compared to the highest intake (greater than 60th percentile). Examples of the levels studied included:
- Low intake (15th percentile or lower) was equal to no berries (anthocyanins) per month, roughly one-and-a-half apples per month (flavonols), and no tea (flavonoid polymers).
- High intake (60th percentile or higher) was equal to roughly 7.5 cups of blueberries or strawberries (anthocyanins) per month, 8 apples and pears per month (flavonols), and 19 cups of tea per month (flavonoid polymers).
“Tea, specifically green tea, and berries are good sources of flavonoids,” said first author Esra Shishtar, who at the time of the study was a doctoral student at the Gerald J. and Dorothy R. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University in the Nutritional Epidemiology Program at the USDA HNRCA. “When we look at the study results, we see that the people who may benefit the most from consuming more flavonoids are people at the lowest levels of intake, and it doesn’t take much to improve levels. A cup of tea a day or some berries two or three times a week would be adequate,” she said.
Jacques also said 50, the approximate age at which data was first analyzed for participants, is not too late to make positive dietary changes. “The risk of dementia really starts to increase over age 70, and the take home message is, when you are approaching 50 or just beyond, you should start thinking about a healthier diet if you haven’t already,” he said.
To measure long-term flavonoid intake, the research team used dietary questionnaires, filled out at medical exams approximately every four years by participants in the Framingham Heart Study, a largely Caucasian group of people who have been studied over several generations for risk factors of heart disease.
To increase the likelihood that dietary information was accurate, the researchers excluded questionnaires from the years leading up to the dementia diagnosis, based on the assumption that, as cognitive status declined, dietary behavior may have changed, and food questionnaires were more likely to be inaccurate.
The participants were from the Offspring Cohort (children of the original participants), and the data came from exams 5 through 9. At the start of the study, the participants were free of AD and ADRD, with a valid food frequency questionnaire at baseline. Flavonoid intakes were updated at each exam to represent cumulative average intake across the five exam cycles.
Researchers categorized flavonoids into six types and created four intake levels based on percentiles: less than or equal to the 15th percentile, 15th-30th percentile, 30th-60th percentile, and greater than 60th percentile. They then compared flavonoid intake types and levels with new diagnoses of AD and ADRD.
There are some limitations to the study, including the use of self-reported food data from food frequency questionnaires, which are subject to errors in recall. The findings are generalizable to middle-aged or older adults of European descent. Factors such as education level, smoking status, physical activity, body mass index and overall quality of the participants’ diets may have influenced the results, but researchers accounted for those factors in the statistical analysis. Due to its observational design, the study does not reflect a causal relationship between flavonoid intake and the development of AD and ADRD.
“Researchers release COVID-19 symptom tracker app”
A consortium of scientists with expertise in big data research and epidemiology recently developed a COVID Symptom Tracker app aimed at rapidly collecting information to aid in the response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. As reported in the journal Science, early use of the app by more than 2.5 million people in the U.S. and the U.K has generated valuable data about COVID-19 for physicians, scientists, and public officials to better fight the viral outbreak.
“The app collects daily information from individuals in the community about whether they feel well, and if not, their specific symptoms and if they have been tested for COVID-19,” said senior author Andrew T. Chan, MD, PhD, Chief of the Clinical and Translational Epidemiology Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Director of Cancer Epidemiology at the MGH Cancer Center. The app is designed to provide insights on where the COVID-19 hot spots are and new symptoms to look out for, and it may be useful as a planning tool to inform guidelines around self-isolation, identify regions in need of additional ventilators and expanded hospital capacity, and provide real-time data to prepare for future outbreaks.
The COVID Symptom Tracker was launched in the U.K. on March 24th and became available in the U.S. on March 29th. Since launch, it has been used by more than 3 million people.
“This work has led to the development of accurate models of COVID-19 infection rates in the absence of sufficient population testing,” said Dr. Chan. “For example, the U.K. government has acted upon these estimates by providing advanced notice to local health authorities about when to expect a surge of cases.” Researchers are also using results from the app to investigate risk factors for infection, as well as the effects of COVID-19 on patients’ health.
Dr. Chan also pointed out that the app does not have any contact tracing function in contrast with software that is being rolled out in the future by some states in collaboration with Apple and Google. “Our app is designed to be entirely voluntary so that they can share information about how they are feeling in a way that safeguards their privacy.”
The team is asking individuals, even those who are feeling well, to download the app and participate in this effort to provide critically valuable information related to COVID-19. The study was conducted by a team led by researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), King’s College London, and Zoe Global Ltd.
MGH investigators were supported by the Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness (MassCPR) and Mark and Lisa Schwartz (ATC, LHN, DAD). ATC is the Stuart and Suzanne Steele MGH Research Scholar. Zoe provided in kind support for all aspects of building, running and supporting the tracking app and service to all users worldwide. King’s College of London investigators (KAL, MNL, TV, MG, CHS, MJC, SO, CJS, TDS) were supported by the Wellcome Trust and EPSRC (WT212904/Z/18/Z, WT203148/Z/16/Z, WT213038/Z/18/Z), the NIHR GSTT/KCL Biomedical Research Centre, MRC/BHF (MR/M016560/1), the NIHR, and the Alzheimer’s Society (AS-JF-17-011).
“Repurposing existing drugs for COVID-19 offers a more rapid alternative to a vaccine”
Repurposing existing medicines focused on known drug targets is likely to offer a more rapid hope of tackling COVID-19 than developing and manufacturing a vaccine, argue an international team of scientists in the British Journal of Pharmacology today.
Since the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in late 2019, more than 3.5 million people are known to have been infected, leading to over 240,000 deaths worldwide from COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. The race is on to find new drugs to treat COVID-19 patients and to develop a vaccine to prevent infection in the first place.
A team of researchers representing the International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology today say there will be no ‘magic bullet’ to treat the disease and argue that a multi-pronged approach is needed to find new drugs. They caution that an effective and scalable vaccine is likely to take over a year before it can used to tackle the global pandemic.
When a virus enters our body, unless we have already developed immunity from previous infection or vaccination, it will break into our cells, hijacking their machinery and using it to replicate and spread throughout the body. Often, the symptoms we see are a result of our immune system fighting back in an attempt to clear the infection. In severe cases, this immune response can become overactive, potentially leading to a so-called cytokine storm, causing collateral damage to organs along the way.
“Any drug to treat COVID-19 will need to focus on the three key stages of infection: preventing the virus entering our cells in the first place, stopping it replicating if it gets inside the cells, and reducing the damage that occurs to our tissues, in this case, the lungs and heart,” said Professor Anthony Davenport from the University of Cambridge, one of the authors of the review.
The review looks at potential therapeutic drug targets – the chinks in the virus’s own armour or weak spots in the body’s defences. Two key targets appear to be proteins on the surface of our cells, to which SARS-CoV-2 binds allowing it entry – ACE2 and TMPRSS2. TMPRSS2 appears to be very common on cells, whereas ACE2 is usually present at low levels that increase depending on sex, age, and smoking history.
“As we know these two proteins play a role in this coronavirus infection, we can focus on repurposing drugs that already have regulatory approval or are in the late stages of clinical trials,” said Professor Davenport. “These treatments will have already been shown to be safe and so, if they can now be shown to be effective in COVID-19, they could be brought to clinical use relatively quickly.”
One promising candidate is remdesivir, a drug originally developed for Ebola. Although clinical trials found it to be insufficiently effective at treating Ebola, clinical trials in the USA have suggested the drug may be beneficial for treating patients hospitalised with COVID-19, and the FDA has now approved it for emergency use. There have also been promising findings from studies of monoclonal antibodies, but this type of drug is expensive to produce and therefore less likely to be scalable.
“While we’re waiting for a vaccine, drugs currently being used to treat other illnesses can be investigated as treatments for COVID-19 – in other words repurposed,” said Dr Steve Alexander from the University of Nottingham.
“There’s unlikely to be a single magic bullet – we will probably need several drugs in our armoury, some that will need be used in combination with others. The important thing is that these drugs are cheap to produce and easy to manufacture. That way, we can ensure access to affordable drugs across the globe, not just for wealthier nations.”
The team say that we need to move quickly to identify existing drugs that are effective in clinical trials so that we can begin treating patients as rapidly as possible, but also because cases are likely to fall during the summer meaning there will be fewer people who can be recruited to clinical trials ahead of an anticipated second wave of the disease in autumn. They estimate there are currently more than 300 clinical trials taking place worldwide, though many of these investigational drugs are unlikely to be effective for widespread use because either it is not clear which part of the disease pathway they are targeting or they cause unpleasant side-effects.
They also advise patience for the promise of developing an effective vaccine against the virus anytime soon. Even after a new vaccine candidate has been shown to offer immunity against the coronavirus in humans, it needs to be tested in larger numbers of people to ensure it is safe to use. Manufacturing and distributing a vaccine at the scale needed to tackle this pandemic will also present significant challenges.
“Although there are a lot of vaccines being developed around the world, which we hope will be successful, it’s still going to take a long time before those vaccines are shown to be effective and can be manufactured at the scale needed to make an impact,” said Dr Steve Alexander.
“Some of the vaccines may not work, so the more drugs that can be tested and the more we know about the targets, the more likely we are to get something which is effective. The very specificity of vaccines means they are limited in which viruses they can neutralise. The lessons we learn and the drugs we generate will hopefully provide a greater degree of protection, not just against the COVID-19 virus, but also against the next viral threat.”
Professor Davenport is a member of the Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, and a Fellow at St Catharine’s College.
“Immunity of recovered COVID-19 patients could cut risk of expanding economic activity”
While attention remains focused on the number of COVID-19 deaths and new cases, a separate statistic — the number of recovered patients — may be equally important to the goal of minimizing the pandemic’s infection rate as shelter-in-place orders are lifted.
The presumed immunity of those who have recovered from the infection could allow them to safely substitute for susceptible people in certain high-contact occupations such as healthcare. Dubbed “shield immunity,” the anticipated protection against short-term reinfection could allow recovered patients to expand their interactions with infected and susceptible people, potentially reducing overall transmission rates when interactions are permitted to expand.
New modeling of the virus’ behavior suggests that an intervention strategy based on shield immunity could reduce the risk of allowing the higher levels of human interaction needed to support expanded economic activity. The number of Americans infected by the novel coronavirus is likely much higher than what has been officially reported, and that could be good news for efforts to utilize their presumed immunity to protect the larger community.
However, there are two important caveats to the strategy. The first is that the duration of immunity to reinfection by SARS-CoV-2 remains unknown; however, individuals who survived infections by related viral infections, like SARS, had persistent antibodies for approximately two years — and those who survived infection to MERS had evidence of immunity for approximately three years. The second issue is that determining on a broad scale who has antibodies that may protect them from the coronavirus will require a level of reliable serological testing not yet available in the United States.
“Our model describes ways in which serological tests used to identify individuals who have been infected by and recovered from COVID-19 could help both reduce future transmission and foster increased economic engagement,” said Joshua Weitz, professor in the School of Biological Sciences and founding director of the Interdisciplinary Ph.D. in Quantitative Biosciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. “The idea is to think in advance about how identifying recovered individuals could help serve the collective good, using information collected on neutralizing antibodies in new ways.”
A paper describing the modeling behind the concept of shield immunity was published May 7 in the journal Nature Medicine by a team of researchers from Georgia Tech, Princeton University and McMaster University. The researchers studied the potential impacts of presumed immunity among recovered persons using a computational model of COVID-19 epidemiological dynamics, building upon a SEIR (susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered) framework.
In a population of 10 million citizens, for example, the model predicts that in a worst-case transmission scenario, implementation of an intermediate shielding strategy could help reduce deaths from 71,000 to 58,000, while an enhanced shielding plan could cut deaths from 71,000 to 20,000. The model also suggests that shielding could enhance the effects of social distancing strategies that may remain in place once higher levels of economic activity resume.
Identification of individuals who have protective antibodies against the novel coronavirus has begun only recently. Antibody tests are not 100% specific, implying that tests can lead to false positives. However, targeted use of antibody testing in groups with elevated exposure will lead to increases in positive predictive value, even with imperfect tests. The serological antibody test differs from widespread polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing being done to determine whether people are actively infected with the virus.
Among healthcare professionals, serological testing could identify recovered individuals who might then be able to interact with patients with reduced concern for infection. Other recovered individuals could be used to help reduce transmission risk in nursing homes, the food service industry, emergency medical services, grocery stores, retailing and other essential operations. Across society, the relatively small number of individuals with immunity could substitute for people whose immunity status isn’t known; reducing transmission risk both for recovered individuals and those who remain immunologically naive.
“We want to think about serology as an intervention,” Weitz said. “Finding out who is immune to the coronavirus could make a big difference in trying to reduce the risk to people who would be vulnerable by interacting with someone who could pass on the disease.”
Serological testing to identify those with immunity might begin with healthcare workers, who may be more likely to have been infected by the coronavirus because of their exposure to infected persons, Weitz said. Because so many infections do not produce the distinctive COVID-19 symptoms, it’s likely that many people have recovered from the illness without knowing they’ve had had it, potentially expanding the pool of recovered persons.
“There may be a deeper pool of individuals who can help within their own fields and other fields of specialization to reduce transmission,” Weitz said. “The reality is that people within high-contact jobs probably are likely to have a higher incidence of infection than other groups.”
But using antibody information about individuals would create potential privacy issues, and require that those individuals make informed decisions about accepting additional risks for the greater good of the community.
“What this model says is that if we could identify individuals who are immune, there is a chance that some individuals would not have to reduce their level of interaction with others because that interaction would be less risky,” he added. “Rather than trying to keep reducing interactions, which is helpful for reducing transmission but bad for what it does for the economy, we might be able to maintain interactions while reducing the risk, combined with other mitigation approaches.”
Ultimately, addressing the pandemic will require development and mass production of a vaccine that could boost immunity levels beyond 60 percent in the general population. Until that is available, Weitz believes that shield immunity could become part of the approach to the challenge.
“We don’t have a silver bullet,” he said. “Until we have a vaccine, we will have to use a combination of strategies to control COVID-19, and shield immunity is potentially one of them.”
In addition to Weitz, co-authors of the paper included Dr. Stephen J. Beckett, Ashley R. Coenen, Dr. David Demory, Marian Dominguez-Mirazo, Dr. Chung-Yin Leung, Guanlin Li, Andreea Magalie, Rogelio Rodriguez-Gonzalez, Shashwat Shivam, and Conan Zhao, all from Georgia Tech; Prof. Jonathan Dushoff of McMaster University, and Sang Woo Park of Princeton University.
This research was supported by the Simons Foundation (SCOPE Award ID 329108), the Army Research Office (W911NF1910384), National Institutes of Health (1R01AI46592-01), and National Science Foundation (1806606 and 1829636). Any findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and not necessarily of the sponsoring agencies.