Introduction

The CSO has prepared an experimental analysis, using previously published international research (in the context of work practices in the United States), of occupation groups in relation to how physically close to other people workers are when they perform their current job and how often their job requires that they be exposed to disease or infection. Using that analysis, and additional information from the Irish Census of Population 2016, this paper has been prepared to help provide an additional insight into potential COVID-19-related exposure in Ireland.

Key Findings

• In general, there was a correlation between working in proximity to others and increased exposure to disease.
• Artists and agricultural machinery drivers are the two occupation groups who ranked themselves as working furthest from others while paramedics, dental practitioners and physiotherapists ranked themselves as working in closest proximity to others.
• Medical and dental technicians (including dental nurses), veterinarians and nursing auxiliaries and assistants (including ambulance staff but excluding paramedics) also feel that they work in very close proximity to others.
• A number of occupation groups, of which programmers and software development professionals make up the largest employment numbers, rated themselves as never being exposed to disease while at work.
• Medical and dental technicians (including dental nurses) are again the group who rated themselves as being most exposed to disease while nursing and midwifery professionals are the second-highest ranked group for such exposure.
• Those working in retail (sales and retail assistants, cashiers and checkout operators (including shelf fillers)), along with farmers, made up the two largest occupation groups in the country. According to the research, both groups felt that they are at low risk of exposure to disease while farmers rated themselves as working in slight proximity to others and those in retail rated themselves as working at a little more than arm’s length from others.
• Both the primary and nursery education teaching professionals’ occupation group and the secondary education teaching professionals rated themselves as working at arm’s length from others but the latter group (secondary education) felt that they have an exposure to disease which is less than that felt by the primary and nursery education teaching professionals.
• The waiters and waitresses occupation group, along with the bar staff occupation group, rated themselves as working in similar proximity to others but waiting staff felt that they have a higher rate of exposure to disease.

 

 

Additional Information

The research worked to identify how closely to others each occupation group feels it works. It also worked to identify how each group feels in terms of exposure to disease and in general, there is a correlation between working in proximity to others and increased exposure to disease. However, there are occupation groups identified which work closely to others but did not feel they were exposed to disease, and also groups who feel they are exposed to disease while not working in close proximity to others.

This research shows that, in terms of both proximity to others and exposure to disease that:

• Healthcare workers such as dentists and medical and dental technicians (including dental nurses), felt that they require close contact with others in order to perform their job and are also exposed to disease on a daily basis by virtue of the tasks they do.
• Occupations including associate professionals such as advertising executives and laundry workers, dry cleaners and pressers felt that they generally do not work too near to people and are rarely exposed to diseases.
• The two largest occupation groups are farmers and sales/retail assistants, cashiers and checkout operators. Farmers felt that they work only slightly close to others and are at a low risk of contracting a disease, while sales and retail assistants, cashiers and checkout operators (including shelf fillers) felt that they work at a little more than an arm’s length from others but have a slightly lower risk of getting a disease.

In terms of proximity to others in work, it can be seen that:

• Many healthcare-related occupations, as could be expected, are among those who feel that they work in close proximity to others. These healthcare occupations which work in close proximity include paramedics, dental practitioners, physiotherapists and medical and dental technicians (including dental nurses) along with nursing auxiliaries and assistants (including ambulance staff).
• Those working in other caring, leisure and services occupation groups also felt that they work in close proximity to others. Such groups include care escorts, educational support assistants, nursery nurses and assistants and playworkers (including playgroup leaders).
• Artists and agricultural machinery drivers were the two occupation groups who felt that they work furthest from others.

In terms of exposure to disease, it can be seen that:

• Many of the same occupation groups that scored highly on proximity also scored highly on exposure to disease. Medical and dental technicians (including dental nurses) are the group who felt most exposed to disease while nursing and midwifery professionals are the second highest ranked group for exposure to disease.
• Five occupation groups scored 0 on the scale of exposure to disease indicating that they felt that are never exposed to disease. Of these five groups the greatest employment was in the programmers and software development professionals’ group.

For further COVID-19 related information go to the CSO COVID-19 Information Hub

Background notes

An analysis of occupations by their potential exposure to diseases and proximity to others when working has been performed, using an approach developed by the United Kingdom’s Office for National Statistics (ONS), to provide some additional insight into potential exposure to COVID-19.

The data for the analysis originally comes from O*NET, a database on specific occupations maintained by the Employment and Training Administration office of the US Department of Labour.[1] It contains answers to a number of questions about individuals’ working conditions and day-to-day tasks of their job, including, inter alia, how physically close to other people workers are when they perform their current job and how often their job requires that they be exposed to disease or infection.

Respondents score their job on a scale of one to five where, for proximity, one indicates that the respondent does not work near other people (beyond 100 feet) while five indicates that they are very close to others (near touching). For exposure, one indicates no exposure at all to disease while five indicates daily exposure.[2]

The data is harmonised on a scale ranging from 0 to 100 by using the following equation: S = ((O-L)/(H-L)) * 100 where S is the standardised score, O the original rating score between one and five, L the lowest possible score (one) and H the highest possible score (five).

Under this new classification, the standardised physical proximity measure is defined by:

0 –     I do not work near other people (beyond 100 ft.)
25 –   I work with others but not closely (for example, private office)
50 –   Slightly close (for example, shared office)
75 –   Moderately close (at arm’s length)
100 – Very close (near touching)

The standardised exposure to disease or infections measure is defined by:

0 –    Never
25 –  Once a year or more but not every month
50 –  Once a month or more but not every week
75 –  Once a week or more but not every day
100 – Every day

The data was originally published by the New York Times using the US Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system but the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) have recoded to UK SOC 2010, the classification system also used by the CSO for Census of Population occupational data.[3]

The Census of Population 2016 was the source of data on the number of persons employed (on a Principal Economic Status or PES basis), the percentages of workers aged 55 and over, female workers and non-Irish nationality.[4]  Cases where the relevant percentage was greater than 95% are coded as ‘>95’ while those less than 5% are coded as ‘<5’.

The income data comes from the Geographical Profiles of Income in Ireland 2016.[5] Annual income is defined as annual gross income from employment, rents, pensions, education grants and social welfare for 2016 before deductions such as tax and social insurance. It excludes investment income, including saving accounts, bonds, stocks and shares, foreign rental property income and Community Employment Programme income. The median value is the value below which 50% of the observations lie.

It is important to remember that this analysis is based on US data and comparable Irish occupations may have a different structure. Furthermore, the data was collected in 2019 and the way jobs are organised will have changed in the current environment, assuming people are still at work. It therefore ignores any remedial action taken to mitigate exposure to diseases and to reduce the need to work physically close to others.

[1]https://www.onetonline.org/

[2] For more information on these questions, please see questions 21 and 29 in the Work Content element of the O*NET database, https://www.onetcenter.org/dl_files/MS_Word/Work_Context.pdf and https://www.onetonline.org/find/descriptor/browse/Work_Context/4.C.2/

[3] See https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/15/business/economy/coronavirus-worker-risk.html  and https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/whichoccupationshavethehighestpotentialexposuretothecoronaviruscovid19/2020-05-11YT and ONS releases

[4] The percentage of non-Irish workers excludes those where nationality was “not stated”.

[5] See https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-gpii/geographicalprofilesofincomeinireland2016/