11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Stigma related to COVID-19 infection: Are the Health Care Workers stigmatizing their own colleagues?

      letter
      * , , ,
      Asian Journal of Psychiatry
      Elsevier B.V.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          1 Introduction Stigma is understood as a process of negative discrimination against people with certain physical, behavioral or social attributes (Goffman, 1963). In the context of health, stigma is described as labeling, stereotyping, and discriminating against people because of a particular disease or illness. Epidemics and pandemics of various infectious diseases have almost always given rise to the stigma against the sufferers (Barrett and Brown, 2008). The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is probably the first instance when the stigma against healthcare workers (HCWs) is being discussed at length and has been reported from the many places in the world (Bagcchi, 2020; “Stop the coronavirus stigma now,” 2020). Stigma can force people to hide the illness to avoid discrimination and prevent them from choosing healthy behaviors. During the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic, stigma has been mostly discussed in the context of general population discriminating HCWs and those with the infection (Bagcchi, 2020; Ng, 2020; Singh and Subedi, 2020) and stigmatizing behaviors towards specific communities (Chinese/Asian) (Kahambing and Edilo, 2020; Rzymski and Nowicki, 2020). However, stigma has not been discussed in the context of one HCW discriminating against the other. Here we describe 2 cases of stigma and discrimination faced by the HCWs in the hand of other HCWs. The first case describes a grim instance where a HCW was stigmatized (because of opting to undergo a COVID-19 RT-PCR test) by her colleagues despite being tested negative for COVID infection. The extent of stigma was so severe that it ultimately led to severe psychological distress and psychiatric consultation. The second case describes the experience of another HCW, working with patients with COVID-19. 2 Case Description-1 A 35 year old female HCW presented to the psychiatric services with severe psychological distress. On evaluation, she was found to have symptoms amounting to Adjustment Disorder. Her medical history revealed that she was suffering from hypothyroidism. Further exploration of the history revealed that about 3 weeks prior to presentation, she developed symptoms of fatigue, aches and pain. Although she had not come in contact with any known high-risk contact for COVID-19, she decided to get herself tested for COVID-19. Just prior to getting herself tested, she informed her supervisors about her going for the testing. However, immediately, after getting herself tested, she started receiving messages and phone calls from the colleagues about the rumors of her being tested positive. Everyone at her workplace was informed that she is positive for COVID-19. She felt very bad and helpless about the same. Next day her COVD-19 test came out to be negative, but she had to undergo a quarantine/self-isolation for 2 weeks. Throughout these 2 weeks she would hear about the rumors of her being COVID-19 positive and people blaming her for carrying the infection to the workplace. Due to this, she started remaining distressed, would often break into tears, had difficulty in falling asleep and maintaining asleep, her appetite reduced, was not able to concentrate on her work, would feel helpless, would be worried about the reaction of others in the future. During the self-isolation, she found that other HCWs living close to her accommodation, who were earlier friendly with her had started to avoid her, would walk in the corridor in such a way, as if trying to avoid physical contact with her. This would make her more distressed; make her feel an outcast and being ridiculed at. After the completion of the self-isolation, when she went to meet her supervisor to discuss her ongoing work, she was ridiculed and shouted at, was blamed for entering the premises with high-grade fever and putting everyone else at risk of infection. She was asked to leave the workplace, not to come to the workplace and to seek supervision electronically. This led to further worsening of her psychological distress and she developed ideas of self-harm. This also led to a further reduction in her sleep. This was when she was referred to the crisis helpline services and was seen by the psychiatry services. She was managed with supportive psychotherapy and low dose clonazepam. Additionally, efforts were made to address the issues she was facing at the workplace by liaising with the concerned colleagues. Over the period of next 2 weeks her symptoms reduced and the benzodiazepines were tapered off and the supportive psychotherapy sessions were continued. 3 Case-2 A 28 year old female HCW was evaluated as part of the routine mental health screening after the duty in the COVID-19 ward. When asked about the experience of doing duty in the COVID-19 area, she broke down and discussed her experience about how she was ill treated by her colleagues who were directly not in contact with the COVID-19 patients. According to her, when she finished her COVID-19 duty and approached the colleagues for some work, she was again and again reminded of working with patients with COVID-19 in a derogatory tone, was asked to maintain a distance, was asked not to come in person to discuss the relevant issues, rather, should use electronic modes of communication. All this made her feel humiliated. She felt that doing duties in the COVID-19 ward was not of any worth, if she had to face such stigma and discrimination. No specific psychiatric diagnosis was considered for her. She was managed with supportive psychotherapy. 4 Discussion Stigma has emerged as an important social issue associated with COVID-19 infection (Bagcchi, 2020; Ng, 2020) and had changed the social perspectives of human life (Tandon, 2020). World Health Organization and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India and many other organizations, have released guides to address stigma associated with COVID (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Government of India, 2020; World Health Organization, 2020). These information guides in general advise that people should not stigmatize people undergoing quarantine, those with travel history, those who are diagnosed with COVID-19, and those who have recovered from the COVID-19 infection. However, it is still rampantly prevalent. In general stigma has been reported from the perspective of general population and the HCWs are considered to be at the receiving end. There are reports of HCWs being not allowed to enter their rented accommodations, being not given house on rent, not allowed to use public transport and hence have to use bicycles and being attacked while on duty (Bagcchi, 2020). There are also reports from India of HCWs being denied a dignified funeral (Lobo, 2020). The stigma associated with COVID-19 is attributed to the fear of being getting infected in the general population (Sahoo et al., 2020). However, little is known about the stigma expressed by one group of HCWs towards others. These cases beg the question whether there is more stigma than that meets the eye. Healthcare professionals are expected to be empowered with the facts and not give in to the fear related to the pandemic. However, the panic created by the huge infectivity of the virus as well as the social implications of being infected seemingly can grip even the HCWs. This case report highlights the fact that even the HCWs are behaving the way, as others who are less knowledgeable about the mode of transmission. HCWs are at a greater risk of exposure and may face several work-related dilemmas on a day to day basis leading to increased stress or anxiety. As the number of cases is increasing in India, the risk of HCWs coming in contact with high risk contact, needing to undergo testing and being tested positive is going to increase. In such a scenario, it is important that all the HCWs need to understand that undergoing testing for COVID-19 should not be equated with the COVID-19 positive status and people should avoid stigmatizing their own colleagues. Further, if any of the colleagues is positive for COVID-19, they should be supported in this hour of crisis in all possible ways. In terms of dissemination of information, the training programs which are focusing on the HCWs, should target to disseminate appropriate information about mode of transmission, type of contacts (high risk, low risk, secondary contact), the importance of testing negative, etc, to the HCWs so that they don't end up discriminating and stigmatizing their own colleagues (Grover et al., 2020). Informed Consent Informed consent was taken from the patients for this manuscript. Financial disclosure We have no financial disclosure to make. Declaration of Competing Interest The authors report no declarations of interest.

          Related collections

          Most cited references10

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

          Stigma during the COVID-19 pandemic

          Healthcare workers and patients who have survived COVID-19 are facing stigma and discrimination all over the world. Sanjeet Bagcchi reports. Stigma associated with COVID-19 poses a serious threat to the lives of healthcare workers, patients, and survivors of the disease. In May 2020, a community of advocates comprising of 13 medical and humanitarian organisations including, among others, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the the International Hospital Federation, and World Medical Association issued a declaration that condemned more than 200 incidents of COVID-19 related attacks on healthcare workers and health facilities during the ongoing pandemic. According to the declaration, “The recent displays of public support for COVID-19 responders are heartwarming, but many responders are nevertheless experiencing harassment, stigmatization and physical violence.” In a Mar 18, 2020 statement, WHO also unveiled that “some healthcare workers may unfortunately experience avoidance by their family or community owing to stigma or fear. This can make an already challenging situation far more difficult.” Several incidents of stigmatization of healthcare workers, COVID-19 patients, and survivors have come up during this pandemic across the world. For instance, in Mexico, doctors and nurses were found to use bicycles, as they were reportedly denied access to public transport and were subjected to physical assaults. Similarly, in Malawi, healthcare workers were reportedly disallowed from using public transport, insulted in the street, and evicted from rented apartments. In India, media reports revealed that doctors and medical staff dealing with COVID-19 patients faced substantial social ostracism; they were asked to vacate the rented homes, and were even attacked while carrying out their duties. With respect to social stigma of COVID-19 patients, there was an incident where a pregnant woman was reportedly abandoned by her family in India, after she gave birth to a child at a hospital in Maharashtra state, and was found positive for SARS-CoV-2. In some cases, COVID-19 survivors in India were stalked in social media. A COVID-19 survivor in Harare, Zimbabwe, got surprised, according to a media report, when the road in front of his house was named as “corona road” and some people even preferred to avoid the road fearing the possibilities of infection. “COVID-19 pandemic has created an unprecedented panic in the minds of people in India and several other countries”, says Diptendra Kumar Sarkar, a professor of surgery and Covid-19 strategist affiliated to the Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education Research (Kolkata, India). According to him, healthcare workers in India have become a natural target in the society, which is why they are suffering mental stress. Many of them faced social isolation, because of their job, and some had even faced near lynching situations, he points out. “Such a situation of social isolation may be linked to the high infectivity of the virus”, he suggests. Rahuldeb Sarkar, a respiratory medicine consultant at the Medway Maritime Hospital (Kent, UK) adds that, in countries such as India and Mexico, healthcare workers have to face substantial stigma during the pandemic as a result of the fear (about the infection) of the general public. “People do not have clear idea about modes of transmission of the virus”, he says. “Social stigma in COVID-19 pandemic is attributable to unscientific belief and improper understanding of common masses”, says Asis Manna, a professor of microbiology at the Infectious Diseases and Beliaghata General Hospital (Kolkata, India). According to him, some people believe that healthcare staff working in a hospital are a potential source of infection. This baseless belief extends to drivers of ambulances, family members of COVID-19 patients, and also patients discharged from the hospital after cure, he notes. However, in USA and UK, the doctors' experience of COVID-19 related stigma is different. “In the USA, we have had several instances where healthcare workers have faced harassment at public places because they have been perceived as at higher risk of transmission”, says Anish Ray, a consultant pediatrician at the Cook Children's Medical Center (TX, USA). However, according to Sarkar put, “In the UK, we were fortunate not to have stigma around healthcare workers' possibility of catching COVID. Instead of turning on against us, our neighbors truly appreciated the work we have been doing”. To tackle social stigma derived from COVID-19, WHO speaks of creating an environment where open discussion among people and healthcare workers is possible. “How we communicate about COVID-19 is critical in supporting people to take effective action to help combat the disease and to avoid fuelling fear and stigma”, WHO says, in a statement. “All efforts must be taken to scientifically destigmatise COVID-19 instead of statutory sermons by law makers”, urges Sarkar. “Proper health education targeting the public appears to be the most effective method to prevent social harassments of both healthcare workers and COVID-19 survivors”, says Ray. “It would also help create a proper environment to work as a team to contain this pandemic”, he stresses. © 2020 Flickr - Harsha K R 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

            COVID-19 and Stigma: Social discrimination towards frontline healthcare providers and COVID-19 recovered patients in Nepal

            The outbreak of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) was declared as a public health emergency of international concern on 30th January 2020 by World Health Organization. With this, by 7th June 2020, there have been 3448 infected cases including 13 deaths and 467 recovered cases as per the data of the Ministry of Health and Population in Nepal. As the number of cases increases, the number of healthcare providers involved in managing the COVID-19 crisis is increasing accordingly. Considering the key players for fighting this crisis, the frontline healthcare providers are facing challenges including stigma and discrimination at workplace and surroundings (World Health Organization, 2020a). Increasing cases and mortality during the outbreak pushes frontline healthcare providers towards extreme pressure due to multiple factors including social isolation, stigma and discrimination; and put them at higher risk of psychological problems (Xiong and Peng, 2020). The psychological problems in turn may alter their attention and decisioning capability which is not only limited to affect their mental wellbeing but can also affect in managing the ongoing crisis. The stigma, discrimination and social isolation, therefore, need to be root out from the society. However, in the current situation these healthcare providers have been victims of the societal disapproval. Several frontline healthcare providers working in hospitals and laboratories are discriminated by staffs at hotels and are facing difficulties finding food and shelter (Poudel, 2020). Further, people and even some healthcare workers involved in non-COVID responses have been showing discrimination towards the frontline healthcare providers through behaviors such as refusal to talk to them and depicting disapproval to eat in the same cafeterias. In addition, neighbors and people in the community have been showing a kind of displeasure to allow the frontline healthcare providers reside in their home despite of the fact that healthcare workers are working with all necessary precautions. Even healthcare professional in the field of psychiatry was found to have faced difficulty at workplace initially due to incomplete information and fear associated towards COVID-19 (Tandon, 2020). There have been similar incidences with reports from news headlining attacks to healthcare providers in other countries as well including India, the USA, Australia; where they are even being beaten, threatened and evicted from their homes (Withnall, 2020; The Economist, 2020). Additionally, anyone who has been involved in providing healthcare facility in a setting with a large number of COVID-19 cases is treated as an untouchable. Unfortunately, the healthcare providers are being labelled, set apart and are facing loss of status and discrimination because of stigma attached with COVID-19. Additionally, while there are several effects of COVID-19 on mental health of the general population, the healthcare providers are too facing mental health challenges (Tandon, R). Once white coat, considered as an honored cloth, has now been tagged a symbol of infected and profane stuff. Moreover, not only active cases of COVID-19 and healthcare providers, but also those who have recovered from the disease are facing discrimination. Many of the recovered patients have been denied to enter in the community with the perception that they may be re-infected and transmit the virus to others. This attitude and stigma shown by the community has been creating a non-supportive environment to control this crisis and is adding burden on the healthcare providers and the administrators. The non-supportive environment, in turn has created more difficulty on tracing contact of the COVID-19 infected people. Over and above that, to avoid discrimination due to the stigma attached to the disease, people may be driven towards behaviors including hiding their illness and not seeking healthcare which could ultimately lead them to more severe health problems. These behaviors evolved against the stigma, further, may lead to increased cases and deaths due to COVID-19. In order to thwart stigma attached to COVID-19, it is imperative to disseminate precise information related to COVID-19 to the people. Moreover, accurate information plays a key role to enabling environment to make an appropriate decision-making towards fighting this public health crisis (Tandon, 2020). Whilst it is not clear as to how many cycles of COVID-19 a country may face, it is important to understand and learn from each other (Tandon, 2020). In this line, a research published by the South Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has shown that the recovered COVID-19 patients aren’t infectious and cannot transmit virus to the others (WHO, 2020b) even after they are tested positive again. Furthermore, the study also revealed that the recovered patients did shed viral material (i.e. dead lung parts) which was found to be not capable of infecting others (WHO, 2020b). Moreover, it is recommended that these recovered patients no longer required being isolated (WHO, 2020b). It is important to emphasize on public health measures including use of personal protective equipment; physical distancing; isolation and/or quarantine and testing; enhancing body’s immune system by eating foods rich in vitamins and minerals; sanitation and hygiene; and rooting out attached stigma to flatten the curve of COVID-19. Apart from these measures, it is also significant for people to understand the R0 (pronounced ‘r naught’) of this virus. It may be generally perceived by the people that if they come in contact with the COVID-19 infected person they might get the infection; suffer from discrimination and may die in absence of treatment. However, the R0 of this novel virus is estimated to be 3 (Beech, 2020; Rajbhandari et al., 2020). R refers to the effective reproduction number and measures the capacity of an infectious disease to spread; meaning that COVID-19 infected person on an average can transmit this virus to three other individuals (Beech, 2020; Rajbhandari et al., 2020). However, the susceptibility of the disease also depends on viral load, severity of the condition from which the virus is spread, and one’s own immunity. The intention of public health measures at large scale should be to shrink down the value of R0 to lesser than 1 where subsequently the disease ceases to be a public health crisis (Beech, 2020; Rajbhandari et al., 2020). Nevertheless, this value is not constant and may either creep or get lower which basically depends on the immunity of the people and how they behave while all public health measures are at action. Disseminating accurate information may not only help to counteract COVID-19 stigma in people but also root out social discrimination the frontline healthcare providers are facing which in turn will protect their mental wellbeing and help in controlling this public health crisis effectively. In conclusion, emphasis on providing comprehensive support to the frontline healthcare providers both from the administrators and the society are required to create an enabling environment to improve the mental health of the patients, recovered patients and the frontline healthcare providers during the COVID-19 crisis. Declaration of Competing Interest None. Funding None.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              COVID-19 and Human Mental Health Preserving Humanity: Maintaining Sanity, and Promoting Health

              In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity- Sun Tzu As the COVID-19 pandemic rages on, the enormous magnitude of the devastation that it has wreaked across the world is becoming apparent. There are over 5 million confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection and over 325,000 deaths attributed to COVID-19 distributed across 213 countries/territories and the world economy has plummeted into a deep recession. As nations around the world begin to slowly reopen their economies and gradually emerge from lockdowns/shelter in place, there is a stark realization that SARS-CoV-2 continues to attack us and that we are, at best, nearing the end of the first quarter of this war against the virus. Thus far, most of our efforts at containing the direct health effects of the virus have been directed at flattening the curve. We are slowly beginning to come to terms with the scale of the “collateral damage” to all aspects of our life caused both by the pandemic and our response to it (school closures, workplace closures, stay-at-home restrictions, cancellation of public events, restrictions on socialization and public gatherings, restrictions on international and internal travel, etc.). Experts are now predicting a “tsunami of psychiatric illness”, with the Secretary-General of the United Nations (Guterres, 2020), the Director-General of the World Health Organization (Ghebreyesus, 2020), and the President-Elect of the World Psychiatry Association (DeSousa et al., 2020) calling attention to this impending mental health crisis. Although definitive information is lacking, rates of suicide, substance use disorders, domestic abuse, anxiety and depressive disorders are already reported to be increasing around the world In my last editorial (Tandon, 2020), I had committed that the Asian Journal of Psychiatry would strive to play its role in the dissemination of good information relevant to COVID-19 and mental health. At that time (early March, 2020), we had received 10 articles and published four on the topic. When in the editorial, I invited additional articles with the promise of an expeditious review, little did I realize that we would receive over 550 submissions related to COVID-19 over a 6-week period. We publish 52 articles on the subject in this issue (Volume 51). I want to thank all the authors for their work on the topic, including those whose manuscripts were not accepted for publication and the many reviewers who enabled a fair and rapid review process. In the interests of full transparency, I wish to apprise you about the decision-making process and some key considerations/challenges in this endeavor. 1 The Editor’s Challenge Scientific Journals are a medium of communication between authors and readers. The editorial process serves an intermediary function with the objectives of facilitating transmission of valid, useful knowledge while screening out poor quality or irrelevant material (Tandon, 2014). In an international healthcare crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic, real-time dissemination of accurate information becomes critical in order to enable healthcare and policy decision-making in a situation of urgency with substantial uncertainty. This compels the Editor to adjust the balance between comprehensive and speedy manuscript processing in order to make valid information available expeditiously (Rankupalli and Tandon, 2010). 2 Modifications in Review Process In order to facilitate an expeditious, yet rigorous and fair process, I initially sent copies of each manuscript to two reviewers who were asked to peruse the manuscript and provide cursory feedback within two days- grade articles from i-iv: (i) definitely publish/(ii) probably publishable/(iii) marginal/(iv) do not publish based on their assessment of relevance, originality, and quality. I read each of these manuscripts and limited my initial editorial decision to (a) accept as is; (b) needs minor revisions without a more detailed review; (c) obtain formal extensive reviews; (d) reject with invitation to resubmit in a more concise format; or (e) desk reject. I based this determination on the input from the two reviewers who perused the manuscript along with my own assessment of the article with the additional consideration of breadth of coverage. If the initial decision was (b) minor revisions without review, I immediately sent a decision letter to the authors with specifics about recommended revisions. If the initial decision was (c) need for formal extensive review, reviewers were promptly identified and asked to submit their reviews within a week. Within two days of receipt of revised versions, an editorial decision was made (accept, revise, reject). Next steps in article processing were promptly initiated. This process worked well for the first 400 articles with initial editorial decisions for all being made within a week of submission. The median time for the 52 accepted articles in this volume to be on line from their date of submission was 10 days. I was unable to maintain this pace for about the past two weeks, but we have now resumed our ability to make initial editorial decisions within a week. An additional editorial challenge was the receipt of a large number of manuscripts of variable quality and relevance. Authors understandably responded to the opportunity and sense of urgency of the situation by seeking to share preliminary experiences, hastily gathered data, or partially developed ideas with the field at large. In addition to the review process outlined above, authors of potentially useful but preliminary or opinion-laden submissions were asked to condense their manuscripts into a more concise format such as Correspondence – along with content, the format helps readers recognize the less definitive nature of the contribution. While publishing a large number of Letters to the Editor has downstream effects such as lowering our Impact Factor, we believe that this was the right course of action. Finally, there appears to be an increased risk of duplicate publication- one of the accepted manuscripts had to be retracted from this volume for this reason. While this form of self-plagiarism is uncommon (Mohapatra and Samal, 2014), authors are reminded that ethical standards of scientific publishing do not become any less rigorous during global healthcare emergencies and this Journal remains vigilant in guarding against any form of scientific misconduct. One downside of our revised editorial process was the increase in the proportion of desk rejections of articles (after preliminary reviewer input) with the inability to provide their authors with detailed reviewer comments- though unavoidable in the context of rapid processing of such a large volume of manuscripts, I do want to acknowledge this shortcoming. 3 Journal Innovations and Looking Ahead We considered a special issue exclusively on COVID-19 and mental health but decided against it for two reasons. COVID-19 is still raging and its mental health consequences will unfold over time, and this necessitates not one-time but continuing coverage of the topic. Of greater import, other mental health problems have not gone away and our relative inattention to them in the context of our almost single-minded attention to the COVID-19 pandemic may worsen morbidity and mortality associated with them. In this volume, the Journal introduces a new article format called Perspectives. Experts are solicited to author a commentary on a topic of high import and relevance. In volume 51, three eminent physician-scientists (Jenson, 2020; Keshavan, 2020; and Patel, 2020) present their outlook on three different topics relevant to COVID-19 and mental health. With distinct points of view, they share their thinking about the mental health impact of the pandemic, our response, the challenges, and opportunities. In the next volume, there will be several reviews and perspective pieces on a range of topics relevant to COVID-19 including: (i) opportunities and challenges of telepsychiatry and mental health apps; (ii) learnings from previous viral outbreaks- what we can and cannot learn from history; (iii) experience of residency training during this time and risks of moral injury and resilience; (iv) impact of the pandemic on people in Asia, differences in national response and their effects across the 50+ nations across Asia (Tandon and Nathani, 2018); (v) misguided dichotomization of health versus economy; (vi) neurobiological and mental health effects of SARS-CoV-2 and the body’s response to the infection; (vii) bioethical considerations in addressing mental health challenges in the context of COVID-19; (viii) mental health problems and appropriate interventions for the general population and vulnerable groups- healthcare workers, persons with significant medical comorbidities, the elderly, and those with pre-existing serious mental illness. 4 Learning from Data (with its limitations!) Although pandemics are not new, COVID-19 is unique in terms of the breadth, magnitude, and rapidity of its impact on mankind. People across 200+ countries across the world have simultaneously been impacted over a short period of time with over half the world in a lockdown and all national economies plummeting into a recession. As of today, there have been over 5 million confirmed cases and 325,000 deaths associated with COVID-19 across the world. Although the pandemic originated in Asia (Wuhan, the capital city of the Hubei province in China), it appears to have disproportionately impacted countries in Western Europe and North America. With 60 percent of the world’s population, Asia accounts for 17% of the confirmed cases and 8% of the worldwide mortality associated with COVID-19. There is significant variation in the confirmed occurrence of COVID-19 and associated mortality across countries in Asia (Table 1 ). Table 1 Confirmed Cases of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Confirmed Deaths due to COVID across Asia- May 20, 2020. Table 1 COUNTRY Confirmed CasesMay 20, 2020 Reported Deaths May 20, 2020 Deaths per 1 million population COUNTRIES FULLY IN ASIA Afghanistan 8,145 187 5 Bahrain 7,886 12 7 Bangladesh 26,738 386 2.3 Bhutan 21 0 - Brunei Darussalam 141 1 2 Cambodia 122 0 - China 82,965 4,634 3.2 India 112,028 3,434 2.5 Indonesia 19,189 1,242 4.8 Iran 126,949 7,183 86 Iraq 3,724 134 3.3 Israel 16,667 279 32 Japan 16,367 768 6 Jordan 672 9 0.9 Kazakhstan 6,969 35 2 Kuwait 17,568 124 29 Kyrgystan 1,270 14 2.2 Laos 19 0 - Lebanon 961 26 4 Malaysia 7,009 114 3.7 Maldives 1,186 4 7.4 Mongolia 140 0 - Myanmar 193 6 0.1 Nepal 427 2 0.1 North Korea 0* 0* -* Oman 6,043 30 5.9 Pakistan 45,898 985 4.5 Palestine 398 2 0.4 Philippines 13,221 842 7.8 Qatar 37,097 16 6 Saudi Arabia 62,545 339 10 Singapore 29,364 22 4 South Korea 11,110 263 5 Sri Lanka 1,028 9 0.4 Syria 58 3 0.2 Taiwan 440 7 0.3 Tajikistan 2,140 41 4.3 Thailand 3,034 56 0.8 Timor-Leste 24 0 - Turkmenistan 0* 0* --* United Arab Emirates 26,004 233 24 Uzbekistan 2,939 13 0.4 Vietnam 324 0 - Yemen 184 30 1 COUNTRIES PARTLY IN ASIA & EUROPE/AFRICA Armenia 5,271 67 23 Azerbaijan 3,631 43 4 Cyprus 922 17 14 Egypt 14,229 680 7 Georgia 713 12 3 Russia 308,705 2,972 20 Turkey 152,587 4,222 50 Comparison of these statistics across countries is problematic because of the many differences in methods of ascribing deaths to COVID-19, significant differences in rates of testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection, varying quality of data collection and aggregation, and questions about the accuracy of official reporting across countries. Additionally, relative numbers continue to change across the world as the viral pandemic is at different stages of evolution. But these are the only numbers we have and with the caveat of the need for extremely cautious interpretation, some trends are worth noting: a) Iran is the only nation fully in Asia that is among the top 10 countries with the highest number of confirmed cases (#10). Russia and Turkey (two countries partly in Asia) are #2 and #9 when countries are ranked in order of the number of confirmed cases. The other countries are in Western Europe and the Americas. b) In terms of COVID-19 associated per-capita mortality, countries in Western Europe (Spain, Italy, United Kingdom, France, and Germany in that order) and North America (United States of America and Canada) have the highest rates that exceed those in any country in Asia- Iran has the highest mortality rate in Asia followed by three other countries in West Asia (Israel, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates). c) The manner in which the SARS-CoV-2 infection spread into and across various countries and their approach to managing the COVID-19 pandemic has differed substantially. Within the significant constraints of the data, available information suggests: (i) An early aggressive containment strategy (in East Asia as in South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan; perhaps China after initial delays in Wuhan) or an early aggressive mitigation strategy (as in South Asia) may have reduced infection rates and mortality related to COVID-19; (ii) The younger average age of populations in most Asian countries compared to Western Europe likely was an important factor in observed lower mortality rates in Asia. The average age in Japan, however, is comparably high and yet mortality rates there were low; (iii) Colder temperatures (higher latitude) may have been a factor in the different outcomes in Asia versus Western Europe and North America, although Beijing in China has the same latitude as New York in the USA; (iv) South-East Asia (via ASEAN) and South Asia (via SAARC) attempted regional cross-national approaches to supplement national containment/mitigation strategies and this may have contributed to better outcomes in those groups of countries thus far; (v) As in all countries, the elderly and those with comorbid chronic medical illnesses had the worst outcomes and the highest mortality; (vi) In Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, a disproportionate number of confirmed cases and COVID-19 associated deaths have occurred among migrant workers. Migrant workers in other Asian countries have also experienced relatively worse outcomes than indigenous or non-migrant populations, suggesting that they also constitute a more vulnerable group. While it is imperative that we do not over-interpret or read too much into the data, we can begin learning some lessons relevant to addressing mental health needs of different affected populations. 5 The Opportunity Amidst Tragedy and Uncertainty The pandemic has exposed weaknesses in our public health preparedness and structure of our healthcare systems. The paradoxically worse outcomes in better developed countries with seemingly stronger healthcare systems (Western Europe and North America) warrants careful examination. At a minimum, we have learned that we are all vulnerable and must share the global responsibility of addressing the worldwide shared vulnerability to infectious diseases with pandemic potential. It is notable that we have thus far failed to learn from the previous viral outbreaks of this century (H1N1 and SARS influenza; Ebola, MERS, etc.) - common vulnerability, our weak existing global outbreak surveillance system, and the virtues of an integrated global response. In contrast to the better coordinated international response to the Ebola outbreak, for example, there has been a glaring absence of effective global leadership during this pandemic and this has been extremely costly. Instead of collective problem-solving, nations are engaging in punitive blame games. While mistakes have certainly been made by several parties, a global pandemic calls for a global solution and global collaboration. We are in this together. Additionally, there is a lot of misinformation which increases distrust and fear, adds to the uncertainty, and further clouds decision-making. As clinicians and scientists, we have an important responsibility to combat conspiracy theories and rumors while promoting dissemination of accurate information of what we know, what we don’t know, and what this information means. As societies begin to reopen from their lockdowns, we must make decisions that minimize lives lost (from all causes) and also recognize that there is no dichotomy between protecting lives and protecting our economy. The pandemic has also exposed glaring health disparities and this should provide an impetus for reducing such inequities. As we get ready to be inundated by the short-term and long-term mental health impact of the continuing COVID-19 pandemic, let us be guided by the best data and learn to apply it with grace, humility and diligence. We owe our patients and our profession no less. The Asian Journal will play its small part. We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them- Albert Einstein
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Asian J Psychiatr
                Asian J Psychiatr
                Asian Journal of Psychiatry
                Elsevier B.V.
                1876-2018
                1876-2026
                27 August 2020
                27 August 2020
                : 102381
                Affiliations
                [0005]Department of Psychiatry, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. drsandeepg2002@ 123456yahoo.com
                Article
                S1876-2018(20)30494-9 102381
                10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102381
                7451190
                32882670
                b0e6b23b-7b78-4597-9266-77b8688fa51c
                © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

                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.

                History
                : 1 August 2020
                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article