To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Little is known about the transmissibility of COVID-19 from patients with atypical presentations. Five COVID-19 patients presenting without acute respiratory symptoms exposed 247 contacts during their hospital stay. After 14 days of close surveillance, 19 contacts developed respiratory symptoms and were screened for SARS-CoV-2. None were infected with COVID-19.
In late December 2019, a cluster of patients with pneumonia caused by an unknown pathogen was reported from Wuhan, Hubei Province, China. The pathogen has been identified as a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 and the disease has been named as COVID-19. The objective of this study to perform the first holistic scientometric evaluation of coronavirus publications.
Our main source for this study was Web of Science Collection database. All items published between 1980 and 2019 were included. A distribution map of global production in coronavirus literature and scientometric networks were generated.
The USA, China, Germany the UK and Netherlands were the most productive countries. Publications in coronavirus literature have been produced from almost every country in the world, except for some countries in Asia and Africa.
While in 1980s the USA and developed countries from Europe were major source countries and the virus was identified only as an animal disease in the literature and its biological and genetic structure was investigated, in the 2000s, China became a major contributor of coronavirus literature because the SARS outbreak originated from southern China. Almost all most cited publications in this period are related to SARS and ACE2 protein. In 2010s.
The effectiveness of air traffic restriction in containing the spread of infectious diseases is full of controversy in prior literature. In Jan. 2020, the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) announces air traffic restriction in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study is to empirically examine the policy effectiveness.
The data from two third-party platforms are used in this investigation. The COVID-19 data from DXY and the air traffic data from Airsavvi are matched to each other. The robust panel regression with controlling city effect and time effect is conducted.
The curvilinear relations are found between the air traffic restriction and the existing cases, and the recovery rate (quadratic term = 9.006 and -0.967, respectively). As the strength of air traffic restriction is growing, the negative effect (-8.146) of air traffic restriction on the existing cases and the positive effect (0.961) of air traffic restriction on the recovery rate, respectively, begin to be decreasing.
On macro level, the air traffic restriction may help alleviate the growth of existing cases and help raise the recovery rate of COVID-19 in megacities of China, but these effects will both marginally recede as the restriction strength is intensifying.
The coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to be a devastating chapter in history. The consequences of the pandemic unfold daily and they extend beyond physical health. Current research suggests that it is a public mental health crisis. With regards to the physical effects of COVID-19, policy makers have drawn from past experiences, such as the acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak of 2003, to craft unique responses. A similar approach must be taken to address the mental health effects of the pandemic. Because COVID-19 can fit the definitions of a mental health disaster, it can be addressed using the principles of disaster mental health management. This letter to the editor presents arguments for defining COVID-19 as a mental health disaster, the challenges facing policy makers in addressing it as such, and calls upon researchers to fill this gap in the literature.
When the World Health Organization declared the Covid-19 a pandemic, concerns were expressed on the possible effect of the virus on countries in Africa with fragile health systems and poor indices of human development (Makoni 2020). For example, prior to the pandemic, per capita health expenditure and ratio of health care personnel to the general population were low (Institute of Health Matrix and Evaluation 2020); moreover, there is a poor political will to improve health care generally. To compound this in Nigeria is the fact that insurgence is common, especially in the Northeastern part of the country, and that has produced many internally displaced persons who live in various camps. In addition, there are many street children begging for alms partly due to religious and cultural reasons; these again are more common in Northern Nigeria. It therefore looks like the ground is fertile for a rapid spread of Covid-19.
This study aims to capture perspectives of healthcare workers (HCWs) on COVID-19 and infection prevention and control (IPAC) measures implemented during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.
A cross-sectional survey of HCWs was conducted.
HCWs from the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.
A self-administered survey was distributed to HCWs. We analyzed factors influencing HCWs’ knowledge and self-reported use of personal protective equipment (PPE), concerns of contracting COVID-19 and acceptance of the recommended IPAC precautions for COVID-19.
A total of 175 HCWs (35 (20%) staff physicians, 24 (14%) residents or fellows, 72 (41%) nurses, 14 (8%) respiratory therapists, 14 (8%) administration staff and 14 (8%) other employees) completed the survey between March 6th and March 10th. Most of the respondents were from the emergency department (n=58; 33%) and the Intensive Care Unit (n=58; 33%). Eighty-six respondents (50%) identified the correct donning order. Only 60 (35%) identified the correct doffing order, but the majority (n=113, 70%) indicated the need to wash their hands immediately prior to removal of their mask and eye protection. Ninety-one (54%) respondents felt comfortable with recommendations for droplet/contact precautions for routine care of patients with COVID-19. HCWs’ occupation and concerns about contracting COVID-19 outside of work were associated with non-acceptance of the recommendation (p = 0.016 and p=0.036 respectively).
As part of their pandemic response plans, healthcare institutions should have ongoing trainings for HCWs that focus on appropriate PPE doffing and discussions around modes of transmission of COVID-19.
In testimony before U.S. Congress on March 11, 2020, members of the House Oversight and Reform Committee were informed that estimated mortality for the novel coronavirus was ten-times higher than for seasonal influenza. Additional evidence, however, suggests the validity of this estimation could benefit from vetting for biases and miscalculations. The main objective of this article is to critically appraise the coronavirus mortality estimation presented to Congress. Informational texts from the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are compared with coronavirus mortality calculations in Congressional testimony. Results of this critical appraisal reveal information bias and selection bias in coronavirus mortality overestimation, most likely caused by misclassifying an influenza infection fatality rate as a case fatality rate. Public health lessons learned for future infectious disease pandemics include: safeguarding against research biases that may underestimate or overestimate an associated risk of disease and mortality; reassessing the ethics of fear-based public health campaigns; and providing full public disclosure of adverse effects from severe mitigation measures to contain viral transmission.
Personal protective equipment (PPE) is a critical need during the COVID-19 pandemic. Alternative sources of surgical masks, including 3D-printed approaches that may be reused, are urgently needed to prevent PPE shortages. Few data exist identifying decontamination strategies to inactivate viral pathogens and retain 3D-printing material integrity.
Objective of Study:
Test viral disinfection methods on 3D-printing materials.
The virucidal activity of common disinfectants (10% bleach, quaternary ammonium sanitizer, 3% hydrogen peroxide, or 70% isopropanol and exposure to heat (50oC, and 70oC) were tested on four 3D-printed materials used in the healthcare setting, including one used in a surgical mask design developed by the Veterans Health Administration. Inactivation was assessed for several clinically relevant RNA and DNA pathogenic viruses including SARS-CoV-2 and HIV-1.
SARS-CoV-2 and all viruses tested were completely inactivated by a single application of bleach, ammonium quaternary compounds, or hydrogen peroxide. Similarly, exposure to dry heat (70oC) for 30 minutes completely inactivated all viruses tested. In contrast, 70% isopropanol reduced viral titers significantly less well following a single application. Inactivation did not interfere with material integrity of the 3D-printed materials.
Several standard decontamination approaches effectively disinfected 3D-printed materials. These approaches were effective in the inactivation SARS-CoV-2, its surrogates and other clinically relevant viral pathogens. The decontamination of 3D printed surgical mask materials may be useful during crisis situations where surgical mask supplies are limited.
National Interpersonal distance preference is considered a cultural characteristic. Interpersonal distance is critical for the spread dynamics of COVID-19. COVID-19’s spread trend shows various characteristics in different countries. We think that one of the factors influencing this variation could be national interpersonal distance preference.
We employed regression analysis based on data of national interpersonal distance preferences (social, personal, and intimate) presented by Sorokowska et al. (2017) and COVID-19 growth rate data for 40 different countries which are calculated using OWD’s (2020) data.
National interpersonal distance preferences with its three dimensions significantly decrease the growth rate of COVID-19 in countries.
Understanding the relation between national interpersonal distance preference and contagion growth of COVID-19 might be very useful information to be utilized in decision-making processes of individuals, societies and governments to develop culturally well-suited counter-pandemic politics, strategies, and procedures during COVID-19 pandemic or any upcoming epidemic or pandemic threats in the future, instead of standard fit-to-all strategies.
In this study, we carried out a text analysis on the information disseminated and discussed among netizens on the Baidu Post Bar (the world’s largest Chinese forum) during the COVID-19 epidemic, to create a policy basis for health administrative departments.
We used Python tools to search for the relevant data on the Baidu Post Bar. Next, a text analysis was performed on the posts’ contents using a combination of LDA, sentiment analysis, and correlation analysis.
According to the LDA analysis, the public was highly interested in topics such as COVID-19 prevention, infection symptoms, infection and coping measures, sources of transmission and treatments, community management, and work resumption. The majority of the public had negative emotional values, yet a portion of the public held positive emotional values. We also performed a correlation analysis of the influencing factors was established.
Netizens’ degree of concern shown in their posts was greatly associated with the spread of COVID-19. With the rise, diffusion, outbreak, and mitigation of COVID-19 in China, netizens have successively created a large number of posts, and the topics of discussion varied over time. Therefore, the media and the government have the responsibility to distribute positive information, to correctly guide the public’s emotions to bring some sort of reassurance to the public.
Since the outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus infection (2019-nCoV) in Wuhan City, China, pediatric cases have gradually increase. It is very important to prevent cross-infection in pediatric fever clinics, how identify children with fever in pediatric fever clinics, and strengthen the management of pediatric fever clinics. According to prevention and control programs, we propose the guidance on the management of pediatric fever clinics during the novel coronavirus pneumonia epidemic period, which outlines in detail optimizes processes, prevents cross-infection, health protection and disinfection of medical staff. The present consideration statement summarizes current strategies on pre-diagnosis, triage, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of 2019-nCoV infection, which provide practical suggestions on strengthening the management of pediatric fever clinics during the novel coronavirus pneumonia epidemic period.
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, several frontline workers have expressed their concerns about reduced emergency department (ED) utilization. We aimed to examine the changes in ED utilization during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, in a country with a well-developed primary care system.
Retrospective analysis of ED utilization in three Dutch hospitals during a 60-day period starting on February 15, 2020. The identical period in 2019 was used as a reference. ED visits were labeled as COVID (defined as COVID-19 suspected) or non-COVID related. Admission rates were compared using chi-square tests, and the reduction in ED visits was assessed descriptively.
During the study period, daily ED volume was 18% lower compared to 2019. ED utilization further declined (-29%) during lockdown. Combined admission rates were higher in 2020 compared to 2019 (p<0.001), and were higher for COVID versus non-COVID ED visits (p<0.001).
ED utilization was markedly reduced during the local rise of COVID-19 in a region with a well-developed primary care system and relatively low ED self-referral rates. Although it cannot directly be concluded from the findings of our study, this observation likely reflects a complex interaction between pure lockdown effects and viral fear, which warrants further research.
Responding to the extreme scarcity of medical resources during the early outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Wuhan, China, an emergency specialist hospital of Leishenshan started to construct on January 26, 2020 and accommodate patients on February 6, 2020. The clinical laboratory center of Leishenshan Hospital (CLCLH) was constructed at the same time within 11 days to support the treatment of inpatients in Leishenshan Hospital and the testing of suspected patients from different fever clinics in Wuhan. The CLCLH could perform a total of 320 clinic, 299 biochemistry, 31 microorganism and 47 infection and immunity examinations per day. It could also complete an average of 239 nucleic acid tests and 118 SARS-CoV-2 antibody examinations per day. No suspected cases were documented amongst the health care workers during the operation of the CLCLH. The construction and operation experiences of the CLCLH is provided in this study and might be used by other countries as reference. The content of this study is divided into four parts: (1) the establishment of the CLCLH, including its layout and medical resource allocation; (2) the major testing items; (3) the specific procedure of COVID-19 indicator examination; (4) the standardized personal protection measures.
COVID-19 began to spread across Wuhan, China by the end of 2019 and patients were unable to be hospitalized since medical resources were limited.
A questionnaire survey was conducted among 108 participants with mild COVID-19 who have isolated at home under the guidance of doctors. The results of the questionnaire and outpatient data were integrated to evaluate participants’ compliance with various epidemic prevention measures.
During isolation, most participants were able to follow epidemic prevention measures under the guidance of doctors. After 14 days from the start of isolation, 45.37% of the participants recovered. About half of the participants were relieved of symptoms, and most of them were transferred to mobile cabin hospitals to continue isolation. 3 participants with worsening symptoms were transferred to the designated hospitals. There were no deaths of the participants, but there were 7 family members that were infected.
During a period of home isolation under the guidance of a doctor, individuals can comply with epidemic prevention measures and symptoms can be improved. Scientific home isolation may be an effective way to relieve the strain of medical and social resources during the epidemic of COVID-19.