Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      COVID-19 Blind Spots: A Consensus Statement on the Importance of Competent Political Leadership and the Need for Public Health Cognizance

      other

      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

          As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, important discoveries and considerations emerge regarding the SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) pathogen; its biological and epidemiological characteristics; and the corresponding psychological, societal, and public health (PH) impacts. During the past year, the global community underwent a massive transformation, including the implementation of numerous nonpharmacological interventions; critical diversions or modifications across various spheres of our economic and public domains; and a transition from consumption-driven to conservation-based behaviors. Providing essential necessities such as food, water, health care, financial, and other services has become a formidable challenge, with significant threats to the existing supply chains and the shortage or reduction of workforce across many sectors of the global economy. Food and pharmaceutical supply chains constitute uniquely vulnerable and critically important areas that require high levels of safety and compliance. Many regional health-care systems faced at least one wave of overwhelming COVID-19 case surges, and still face the possibility of a new wave of infections on the horizon, potentially in combination with other endemic diseases such as influenza, dengue, tuberculosis, and malaria. In this context, the need for an effective and scientifically informed leadership to sustain and improve global capacity to ensure international health security is starkly apparent. Public health “blind spotting,” promulgation of pseudoscience, and academic dishonesty emerged as significant threats to population health and stability during the pandemic. The goal of this consensus statement is to provide a focused summary of such “blind spots” identified during an expert group intense analysis of “missed opportunities” during the initial wave of the pandemic.

          Related collections

          Most cited references255

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science

          Summary The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a profound effect on all aspects of society, including mental health and physical health. We explore the psychological, social, and neuroscientific effects of COVID-19 and set out the immediate priorities and longer-term strategies for mental health science research. These priorities were informed by surveys of the public and an expert panel convened by the UK Academy of Medical Sciences and the mental health research charity, MQ: Transforming Mental Health, in the first weeks of the pandemic in the UK in March, 2020. We urge UK research funding agencies to work with researchers, people with lived experience, and others to establish a high level coordination group to ensure that these research priorities are addressed, and to allow new ones to be identified over time. The need to maintain high-quality research standards is imperative. International collaboration and a global perspective will be beneficial. An immediate priority is collecting high-quality data on the mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic across the whole population and vulnerable groups, and on brain function, cognition, and mental health of patients with COVID-19. There is an urgent need for research to address how mental health consequences for vulnerable groups can be mitigated under pandemic conditions, and on the impact of repeated media consumption and health messaging around COVID-19. Discovery, evaluation, and refinement of mechanistically driven interventions to address the psychological, social, and neuroscientific aspects of the pandemic are required. Rising to this challenge will require integration across disciplines and sectors, and should be done together with people with lived experience. New funding will be required to meet these priorities, and it can be efficiently leveraged by the UK's world-leading infrastructure. This Position Paper provides a strategy that may be both adapted for, and integrated with, research efforts in other countries.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe

            Following the detection of the new coronavirus1 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its spread outside of China, Europe has experienced large epidemics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In response, many European countries have implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as the closure of schools and national lockdowns. Here we study the effect of major interventions across 11 European countries for the period from the start of the COVID-19 epidemics in February 2020 until 4 May 2020, when lockdowns started to be lifted. Our model calculates backwards from observed deaths to estimate transmission that occurred several weeks previously, allowing for the time lag between infection and death. We use partial pooling of information between countries, with both individual and shared effects on the time-varying reproduction number (Rt). Pooling allows for more information to be used, helps to overcome idiosyncrasies in the data and enables more-timely estimates. Our model relies on fixed estimates of some epidemiological parameters (such as the infection fatality rate), does not include importation or subnational variation and assumes that changes in Rt are an immediate response to interventions rather than gradual changes in behaviour. Amidst the ongoing pandemic, we rely on death data that are incomplete, show systematic biases in reporting and are subject to future consolidation. We estimate that-for all of the countries we consider here-current interventions have been sufficient to drive Rt below 1 (probability Rt < 1.0 is greater than 99%) and achieve control of the epidemic. We estimate that across all 11 countries combined, between 12 and 15 million individuals were infected with SARS-CoV-2 up to 4 May 2020, representing between 3.2% and 4.0% of the population. Our results show that major non-pharmaceutical interventions-and lockdowns in particular-have had a large effect on reducing transmission. Continued intervention should be considered to keep transmission of SARS-CoV-2 under control.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers and the general community: a prospective cohort study

              Summary Background Data for front-line health-care workers and risk of COVID-19 are limited. We sought to assess risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers compared with the general community and the effect of personal protective equipment (PPE) on risk. Methods We did a prospective, observational cohort study in the UK and the USA of the general community, including front-line health-care workers, using self-reported data from the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application (app) from March 24 (UK) and March 29 (USA) to April 23, 2020. Participants were voluntary users of the app and at first use provided information on demographic factors (including age, sex, race or ethnic background, height and weight, and occupation) and medical history, and subsequently reported any COVID-19 symptoms. We used Cox proportional hazards modelling to estimate multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of our primary outcome, which was a positive COVID-19 test. The COVID Symptom Study app is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04331509. Findings Among 2 035 395 community individuals and 99 795 front-line health-care workers, we recorded 5545 incident reports of a positive COVID-19 test over 34 435 272 person-days. Compared with the general community, front-line health-care workers were at increased risk for reporting a positive COVID-19 test (adjusted HR 11·61, 95% CI 10·93–12·33). To account for differences in testing frequency between front-line health-care workers and the general community and possible selection bias, an inverse probability-weighted model was used to adjust for the likelihood of receiving a COVID-19 test (adjusted HR 3·40, 95% CI 3·37–3·43). Secondary and post-hoc analyses suggested adequacy of PPE, clinical setting, and ethnic background were also important factors. Interpretation In the UK and the USA, risk of reporting a positive test for COVID-19 was increased among front-line health-care workers. Health-care systems should ensure adequate availability of PPE and develop additional strategies to protect health-care workers from COVID-19, particularly those from Black, Asian, and minority ethnic backgrounds. Additional follow-up of these observational findings is needed. Funding Zoe Global, Wellcome Trust, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institutes of Health Research, UK Research and Innovation, Alzheimer's Society, National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Glob Infect Dis
                J Glob Infect Dis
                JGID
                Journal of Global Infectious Diseases
                Wolters Kluwer - Medknow (India )
                0974-777X
                0974-8245
                Oct-Dec 2020
                30 November 2020
                : 12
                : 4
                : 167-190
                Affiliations
                [1]On Behalf of the Multidisciplinary ACAIM-WACEM COVID-19 Consensus Group, Bethlehem, PA, USA
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence: Prof. Stanislaw P. Stawicki, Department of Research and Innovation, St. Luke's University Health Network, 801 Ostrum Street, Bethlehem, PA 18015, USA. E-mail: stawicki.ace@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                JGID-12-167
                10.4103/jgid.jgid_397_20
                8045535
                9e43ff3d-5e02-4b05-a253-9087d3332451
                Copyright: © 2020 Journal of Global Infectious Diseases

                This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

                History
                : 30 October 2020
                : 11 November 2020
                : 25 November 2020
                Categories
                Consensus Paper

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                blind spots,covid-19,international health security,lessons learned,pandemic response,public health,public services,risk management,supply chains

                Comments

                Comment on this article