11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Social Distance Monitor with a Wearable Magnetic Field Proximity Sensor

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Social distancing and contact/exposure tracing are accepted to be critical strategies in the fight against the COVID-19 epidemic. They are both closely connected to the ability to reliably establish the degree of proximity between people in real-world environments. We proposed, implemented, and evaluated a wearable proximity sensing system based on an oscillating magnetic field that overcomes many of the weaknesses of the current state of the art Bluetooth based proximity detection. In this paper, we first described the underlying physical principle, proposed a protocol for the identification and coordination of the transmitter (which is compatible with the current smartphone-based exposure tracing protocols). Subsequently, the system architecture and implementation were described, finally an elaborate characterization and evaluation of the performance (both in systematic lab experiments and in real-world settings) were performed. Our work demonstrated that the proposed system is much more reliable than the widely-used Bluetooth-based approach, particularly when it comes to distinguishing between distances above and below the 2.0 m threshold due to the magnetic field’s physical properties.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic

          Since the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that caused coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the use of face masks has become ubiquitous in China and other Asian countries such as South Korea and Japan. Some provinces and municipalities in China have enforced compulsory face mask policies in public areas; however, China's national guideline has adopted a risk-based approach in offering recommendations for using face masks among health-care workers and the general public. We compared face mask use recommendations by different health authorities (panel ). Despite the consistency in the recommendation that symptomatic individuals and those in health-care settings should use face masks, discrepancies were observed in the general public and community settings.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 For example, the US Surgeon General advised against buying masks for use by healthy people. One important reason to discourage widespread use of face masks is to preserve limited supplies for professional use in health-care settings. Universal face mask use in the community has also been discouraged with the argument that face masks provide no effective protection against coronavirus infection. Panel Recommendations on face mask use in community settings WHO 1 • If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. China 2 • People at moderate risk* of infection: surgical or disposable mask for medical use. • People at low risk† of infection: disposable mask for medical use. • People at very low risk‡ of infection: do not have to wear a mask or can wear non-medical mask (such as cloth mask). Hong Kong 3 • Surgical masks can prevent transmission of respiratory viruses from people who are ill. It is essential for people who are symptomatic (even if they have mild symptoms) to wear a surgical mask. • Wear a surgical mask when taking public transport or staying in crowded places. It is important to wear a mask properly and practice good hand hygiene before wearing and after removing a mask. Singapore 4 • Wear a mask if you have respiratory symptoms, such as a cough or runny nose. Japan 5 • The effectiveness of wearing a face mask to protect yourself from contracting viruses is thought to be limited. If you wear a face mask in confined, badly ventilated spaces, it might help avoid catching droplets emitted from others but if you are in an open-air environment, the use of face mask is not very efficient. USA 6 • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not recommend that people who are well wear a face mask (including respirators) to protect themselves from respiratory diseases, including COVID-19. • US Surgeon General urged people on Twitter to stop buying face masks. UK 7 • Face masks play a very important role in places such as hospitals, but there is very little evidence of widespread benefit for members of the public. Germany 8 • There is not enough evidence to prove that wearing a surgical mask significantly reduces a healthy person's risk of becoming infected while wearing it. According to WHO, wearing a mask in situations where it is not recommended to do so can create a false sense of security because it might lead to neglecting fundamental hygiene measures, such as proper hand hygiene. However, there is an essential distinction between absence of evidence and evidence of absence. Evidence that face masks can provide effective protection against respiratory infections in the community is scarce, as acknowledged in recommendations from the UK and Germany.7, 8 However, face masks are widely used by medical workers as part of droplet precautions when caring for patients with respiratory infections. It would be reasonable to suggest vulnerable individuals avoid crowded areas and use surgical face masks rationally when exposed to high-risk areas. As evidence suggests COVID-19 could be transmitted before symptom onset, community transmission might be reduced if everyone, including people who have been infected but are asymptomatic and contagious, wear face masks. Recommendations on face masks vary across countries and we have seen that the use of masks increases substantially once local epidemics begin, including the use of N95 respirators (without any other protective equipment) in community settings. This increase in use of face masks by the general public exacerbates the global supply shortage of face masks, with prices soaring, 9 and risks supply constraints to frontline health-care professionals. As a response, a few countries (eg, Germany and South Korea) banned exportation of face masks to prioritise local demand. 10 WHO called for a 40% increase in the production of protective equipment, including face masks. 9 Meanwhile, health authorities should optimise face mask distribution to prioritise the needs of frontline health-care workers and the most vulnerable populations in communities who are more susceptible to infection and mortality if infected, including older adults (particularly those older than 65 years) and people with underlying health conditions. People in some regions (eg, Thailand, China, and Japan) opted for makeshift alternatives or repeated usage of disposable surgical masks. Notably, improper use of face masks, such as not changing disposable masks, could jeopardise the protective effect and even increase the risk of infection. Consideration should also be given to variations in societal and cultural paradigms of mask usage. The contrast between face mask use as hygienic practice (ie, in many Asian countries) or as something only people who are unwell do (ie, in European and North American countries) has induced stigmatisation and racial aggravations, for which further public education is needed. One advantage of universal use of face masks is that it prevents discrimination of individuals who wear masks when unwell because everybody is wearing a mask. It is time for governments and public health agencies to make rational recommendations on appropriate face mask use to complement their recommendations on other preventive measures, such as hand hygiene. WHO currently recommends that people should wear face masks if they have respiratory symptoms or if they are caring for somebody with symptoms. Perhaps it would also be rational to recommend that people in quarantine wear face masks if they need to leave home for any reason, to prevent potential asymptomatic or presymptomatic transmission. In addition, vulnerable populations, such as older adults and those with underlying medical conditions, should wear face masks if available. Universal use of face masks could be considered if supplies permit. In parallel, urgent research on the duration of protection of face masks, the measures to prolong life of disposable masks, and the invention on reusable masks should be encouraged. Taiwan had the foresight to create a large stockpile of face masks; other countries or regions might now consider this as part of future pandemic plans. © 2020 Sputnik/Science Photo Library 2020 Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The positive impact of lockdown in Wuhan on containing the COVID-19 outbreak in China

            Abstract Background With its epicenter in Wuhan, China, the COVID-19 outbreak was declared a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) by the World Health Organization (WHO). Consequently, many countries have implemented flight restrictions to China. China itself has imposed a lockdown of the population of Wuhan as well as the entire Hubei province. However, whether these two enormous measures have led to significant changes in the spread of COVID-19 cases remains unclear. Methods We analyzed available data on the development of confirmed domestic and international COVID-19 cases before and after lockdown measures. We evaluated the correlation of domestic air traffic to the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases and determined the growth curves of COVID-19 cases within China before and after lockdown as well as after changes in COVID-19 diagnostic criteria. Results Our findings indicate a significant increase in doubling time from 2 days (95% Confidence Interval, CI): 1.9–2.6), to 4 days (95% CI: 3.5–4.3), after imposing lockdown. A further increase is detected after changing diagnostic and testing methodology to 19.3 (95% CI: 15.1–26.3), respectively. Moreover, the correlation between domestic air traffic and COVID-19 spread became weaker following lockdown (before lockdown: r = 0.98, p < 0.05 vs. after lockdown: r = 0.91, p = NS). Conclusions A significantly decreased growth rate and increased doubling time of cases was observed, which is most likely due to Chinese lockdown measures. A more stringent confinement of people in high risk areas seem to have a potential to slow down the spread of COVID-19.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Minimising intra-hospital transmission of COVID-19: the role of social distancing

              Sir, Funding This work was not grant-funded. In the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus, SARS CoV-2, early isolation of hospitalised inpatients with suspected COVID-19 is important to reduce the likelihood of nosocomial spread. However, patients with COVID-19 may present with respiratory syndromes indistinguishable from those caused by common respiratory viruses. [1] This poses a challenge for early isolation and containment, especially during significant ongoing community transmission. While isolation ward beds are prioritized for suspected COVID-19 cases, unsuspected cases of COVID-19 without suspicious contact or travel history may initially be nursed outside of dedicated isolation wards prior to detection. Given that patients outside the isolation ward may not be subject to movement restrictions and share common facilities, social mingling represents a potential route for nosocomial spread, especially as COVID-19 cases may present with mild symptoms and remain relatively well.[1] While social distancing has been identified as crucial for containment in the community,[2] social distancing within hospitals is equally vital in reducing nosocomial spread, especially in hospitals where the majority of patients are nursed in multi-bedded cohort rooms, rather than in single-occupancy rooms. In Singapore, a globalised Asian city-state, the first imported case of COVID-19 was reported in end-January 2020; followed by the first case of local transmission in early February 2020. [3] At our institution, the Singapore General Hospital (SGH), the isolation ward was reserved for confirmed/suspected cases of COVID-19. However, given rising numbers of locally-transmitted cases, from 4 February, our institution placed individuals admitting with respiratory symptoms but without suspicious contact or travel history in respiratory surveillance wards (RSWs) where COVID-19 was first excluded and healthcare workers (HCWs) used full personal protective equipment (PPE) including N95 masks, disposable gowns, gloves and faceshields. Despite this resource-intensive containment effort, it was recognised that some cases of COVID-19 with mild symptoms might be initially admitted to the general ward. Our institution therefore emphasised hospital-wide social distancing measures. For patients admitting to the RSW, as the risk of a potentially unsuspected case of COVID-19 was higher, patients were advised to avoid mingling and to wear surgical masks at all times; with no visitors were allowed. Additionally, infrastructural modifications were instituted to facilitate social distancing. In the RSWs, patients were nursed in cohort rooms with three patients to a room, spaced at least ∼2 metres apart, and partitions were placed between patient beds (Figure 1 ). In the general ward, shared communal facilities (eg. day rooms) were closed during the duration of the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak, and patients were limited to one visitor at any time. HCWs in the general ward wore surgical masks. Hospital-wide, in common areas such as waiting areas, pharmacies, food and retail outlets, patients were directed to keep one metre apart from one another, using visual cues (eg. floor markings and markings on seats) to guide waiting and queuing in both seated and standing areas. Figure 1 Comparison of ward layout and social distancing measures employed in general ward and respiratory surveillance ward, during COVID-19 outbreak Figure 1 Over a 3-month period from 4 January to 4 April 2020, a total of 75 confirmed cases of COVID-19 were diagnosed in our institution. While the majority of cases (84.0%, 63/75) were admitted to isolation wards, 12 cases of COVID-19 were initially admitted outside of the isolation ward. Of these, the majority (91.6%, 11/12) were admitted to the RSW. One patient was initially admitted to the general ward and nursed in a cohorted cubicle with 5 other patients, as respiratory symptoms were initially mild. The patient was transferred to an RSW 19 hours after admission, where the diagnosis of COVID-19 was made. At diagnosis, the cycle threshold (Ct) value for SARS-CoV-2 on rt-PCR (polymerase chain reaction) testing of oropharyngeal swab samples was 18, an inverse surrogate for high viral load and potential infectivity; this was in keeping with data suggesting peak viral shedding in the first week of symptoms. [4] A total of 18 patients in the general ward and 2 patients in the RSW had shared a room or common toilet with the index case; all were deemed to be exposed, (Figure 1) given potential contamination of the shared air and surface environment from droplet and fomite spread.[5] A total of 8 HCWs in the general ward had cared for the patient while wearing surgical masks. However, none of the exposed patients or HCWs developed COVID-19 within the estimated incubation period, [6] despite being closely followed up for 14 days. Of note, the patient had complied with social distancing measures and had not interacted with any of the other exposed patients. At the patient’s initiative, he had worn a mask throughout the admission as an added precaution to minimise infection. Minimising nosocomial transmission of COVID-19 remains a challenge, given the wide spectrum of respiratory syndromes and mild respiratory symptoms at presentation. [1] Influencing patient behaviour to reduce the risk of patient-to-patient spread remains crucial. Social distancing between inpatients is important during an ongoing outbreak and should be reinforced in higher-risk areas. Conflict of interest The authors report no conflicts of interest.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Sensors (Basel)
                Sensors (Basel)
                sensors
                Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)
                MDPI
                1424-8220
                07 September 2020
                September 2020
                : 20
                : 18
                : 5101
                Affiliations
                [1 ]German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany; bo.zhou@ 123456dfki.de (B.Z.); paul.lukowicz@ 123456dfki.de (P.L.)
                [2 ]Department of Computer Science, University of Kaiserslautern, 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: sizhen.bian@ 123456dfki.de
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6760-5539
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8976-5960
                Article
                sensors-20-05101
                10.3390/s20185101
                7571083
                32906831
                4af3462c-d5c9-47f5-8826-71e346180424
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 01 August 2020
                : 03 September 2020
                Categories
                Article

                Biomedical engineering
                magnetic field,magneitic sensing,magnetic sensor,proximity sensing,covid-19,social distancing

                Comments

                Comment on this article