TY - JOUR T1 - When lockdown policies amplify social inequalities in COVID-19 infections. Evidence from a cross-sectional population-based survey in France JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.10.07.20208595 SP - 2020.10.07.20208595 AU - Nathalie Bajos AU - Florence Jusot AU - Ariane Pailhé AU - Alexis Spire AU - Claude Martin AU - Laurence Meyer AU - Nathalie Lydié AU - Jeanna-Eve Franck AU - Marie Zins AU - Fabrice Carrat AU - for the SAPRIS study group Y1 - 2020/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/11/2020.10.07.20208595.abstract N2 - Objectives To assess social inequalities in the trends in COVID-19 infections following lockdownDesign A cross-sectional survey conducted among the general population in France in April 2020, during COVID-19 lockdown.Participants 10 401 participants aged 18-64, from a national cohort who lived in the three metropolitan French regions most affected by the first wave of COVID-19.Main outcome The main outcome was occurrence of possible COVID-19 symptoms, defined as the occurrence of sudden onset of cough, fever, dyspnea, ageusia and/or anosmia, that lasted more than three days in the 15 days before the survey. We used multinomial regression models to identify social and health factors related to possible COVID-19 before and during the lockdown.Results In all, 1,304 (13.0%; 95% CI: 12.0%-14.0%) reported cases of possible COVID-19. The effect of lockdown on the occurrence of possible COVID-19 was different across social hierarchies. The most privileged class individuals saw a significant decline in possible COVID-19 infections between the period prior to lockdown and during the lockdown (from 8.8% to 4.3%, P=0.0001) while the decline was less pronounced among working class individuals (6.9% before lockdown and 5.5% during lockdown, P=0.03). This differential effect of lockdown remained significant after adjusting for other factors including history of chronic disease. The odds of being contaminated during lockdown as opposed to the prior period increased by 57% among working class individuals (OR=1.57; 95% CI: 1.0-2.48). The same was true for those engaged in in-person professional activities during lockdown (OR=1.53; 95% CI: 1.03-2.29).Interpretation Lockdown was associated with social inequalities in the decline in COVID-19 infections, calling for the adoption of preventive policies to account for living and working conditions. Such adoptions are critical to reduce social inequalities related to COVID-19, as working-class individuals also have the highest COVID-19 related mortality, due to higher prevalence of comorbidities.Section 1: What is already known on this topic Significant differences in COVID-19 incidence by gender, class and race/ethnicity are recorded in many countries in the world. Lockdown measures implemented throughout the globe have been effective in reducing transmission risks.Section 2: What this study adds Our study shows that lockdown’s impact was socially differentiated and has benefited the working classes the least. Such results underline the need to design COVID-19 preventive policies that take into account living and working conditions, as working-class individuals also have the highest COVID-19 related mortality, due to higher prevalence of comorbidities.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementANR (Agence Nationale de la Recherche, #ANR-20-COVI-000,#ANR-10-COHO-06), Inserm (Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale, #C20-26).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The survey was approved by the National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) ethics evaluation committee (approval #20-672 dated March 30th, 2020).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData are available upon reasonable request ER -