Those who are still formulating plans should consider likely differences in infl uenza exposure and identify potential strategies for mitigating such disparities. Mathematical models have demonstrated that community-based interventions, such as quarantine and individual isolation, may be important for reducing infl uenza attack rates and overall incidence (29) . Most pandemic plans call for limiting public gatherings and closing schools to slow the spread of infl uenza, without adequately taking into account how implementing these strategies could differentially affect disadvantaged groups. Recent recommendations from CDC go further in recognizing the differential effect of socialdistancing measures on vulnerable communities (18) . Although CDC advocates fl exible work arrangements, income replacement, and job security to minimize the negative effects of social-distancing measures, it pays inadequate attention to those whose jobs will not accommodate these interventions. More specifi c solutions should be outlined in pandemic preparedness plans to address the economic effects of quarantine on low-income persons, who by staying home may be at risk wage loss, job termination, or both. Job security and income replacement are key components to limiting the effects of potential quarantine measures on disadvantaged persons (39) and should be extended to all persons, regardless of their type of work.