Category: Covid-19

Editors note: The Economist is making some of its most important coverage of the covid-19 pandemic freely available to readers of The Economist Today, our daily newsletter. To receive it, register here.

CHILDREN USUALLY rejoice in a break from school, assuming it will be a chance to slack off. Not Ryu, a nine-year-old in Tokyo. As the new coronavirus spread across Japan, schools throughout the country closed on March 2nd. His parents have enforced a strict schedule every day. It includes Japanese, science and physical education. He does mathematics on his abacus every morning. On weekdays he is allowed to play in a park for 90 minutes. I wish I could take him to the park more, but we have limited time as we work from home, frets his mother, Fujimaki Natsuko.

Ryu is one of almost 1bn students around the world whose schooling has been interrupted as a result of covid-19 (see map). As The Economist went to press, just over 100 countries including China, Italy and South Korea had closed their schools, as had 43 states in America, as part of efforts to contain covid-19. Britain will close all schools on March 20th. Schools, where sticky-fingered children gather every day, sharing toys and sucking on pencils, are an obvious place for diseases to flourish. In 2013 Britains Health Protection Agency looked at flu outbreaks that coincided with school closures. It found that shutting them slowed the transmission of the virus, even if it also slowed the transmission of knowledge.

The data on whether school closures will curb covid-19 are limited. Children may not be the main routes of transmission, says Michael Head, who studies global health at the University of Southampton. And the economic, social and educational costs are heavy. On March 12th Bill de Blasio, the mayor of New York, said there were many, many reasons not to close the citys 1,800 schools (though on March 16th it did just that, shuttering Americas largest school system for at least four weeks). For all governments, deciding whether or not to close schools is a choice between two bad options.

A study in 2009 modelling the effects of closing all schools and formal day-care centres in America for a month put the cost at 0.1-0.3% of GDP. Some countries seem better prepared to deal with the economic impact. In China the nationwide closures came with government-mandated work-from-home policies and subsidies for companies to enable their employees to do so. But in Japan not all parents are entitled to work from home or to take paid sick leave. In Italy one-fifth of workers are self-employed and so do not qualify for sick pay. People in precarious work may lose their jobs altogether if they have to stay at home to look after children.

For poor children, schools may provide the most nutritious meal of the day. Around 26m children in American schoolsroughly half of all studentsqualify for free or reduced-price lunches. In New York City 22,000 children sleep in municipal shelters. Some school districts in New York are setting up pickup points so that the hard-up can still get free meals. Britain has said it will continue to provide those children who ordinarily get free school meals with food.

Officials must always take such costs into account. But in the middle of a pandemic there is an extra consideration. The study in 2009 estimated that, if schools are closed for a month, between 6% and 19% of key health-care workers would have to stay at home to take care of their offspring. Britain will keep schools running for vulnerable children and those whose parents are key workers.

For most parents, however, the immediate worry is how prolonged school closures will affect their childrens education. Those preparing to take crucial exams are particularly jittery. The gaokao, Chinas single university-entrance exam, is usually held in June. This year it will probably be delayed, says Xu Liangdi of China Policy, a think-tank, although the government has so far made no announcement.

Around 245,000 students in Britain were expecting in May and June to sit their A-levels, the exams that determine which universityif anywill grant them a place. On March 18th the government announced that those exams would be cancelled. Boris Johnson, the prime minister, said that the government would make sure that children still got the qualifications they need and deserve for their academic career. That may go some way to assuaging fears that children whose parents lack the cash or knowledge to compensate for schools closing would be worst affected.

For American students the stakes are lower, in part because their transcriptbased on their academic performance throughout the yearis the most important part of their university application, but also because they can take SATs, the exams used in college admissions, all year round. Most sit them in the spring. For those hoping to start university in 2021, the March and May tests have been cancelled. They will be rescheduled, however, and students may be able to take them at home.

Nonetheless universities may have to be more accommodating. Covid-19 will absolutely affect the admissions procedure for Miami University in Ohio, says Bethany Perkins, the director of admissionsparticularly the deadlines. Students with offers from American universities have to choose which to accept by May 1st. But students worry that they will have to make an important decision without being able to visit any campuses. Along with their parents, some are calling for the date to be pushed back to June 1st. Colleges have yet to react. Harvard says it is not changing its application process.

The disruption has lent ammunition to those who disapprove of high-stakes exams, which some education theorists want to scrap. Some institutions have already made SATs optional. Others, including Miami University, were considering doing so. The upheaval caused by covid-19 might accelerate that process, says Ms Perkins. But the flaws of other kinds of assessment may become clear in the coming months, bolstering those who believe that SATs and other high-stakes exams, which offer a relatively objective and transparent measure of ability, are the least unfair way to decide who gets into university.

The pandemic wont change this. But it will highlight the strengths and weaknesses of teaching online. Online resources are increasingly popular but few countries boast a developed digital infrastructure for all students. A survey by Teacher Tapp, an app, of over 6,000 teachers in Britain found that only 40% of those in state schools would be able to broadcast a video lesson, compared with 69% of teachers at independent schools. Elena Silva of New America, a think-tank, says that few American states have adequate kit for teaching online. Most states are not that prepared. This is a moment of forced opportunity.

Teachers have little choice but to seize it. Since Italy closed its schools and universities on March 5th, teachers forums have filled with discussions on the relative merits of Zoom, Moodle and virtual classrooms. Some teachers had been trained to use such technology, but many have faced a steep learning curve. Carla Crosato, a teacher in Treviso, in northern Italy, has been uploading videos in which she explains the novels of Italo Svevo and Luigi Pirandello to her students. I never thought Id become a YouTuber at 56, she says.

Even if teachers manage to broadcast their lessons, students may struggle to join them. Not everyone can get online (see chart). In America 7m school-age children cannot access the internet at home. Lin Kengying of 21st Century Education Research Institute, a think-tank in China, says that the closure of schools since the Lunar new year holiday, which began at the end of January, has led his organisation to reconsider the potential of e-learning. It hasnt been smooth, he says, citing problems such as internet access, scheduling classes, teachers unfamiliar with online tuition, and subjects such as physical education being awkward to teach remotely. In China teachers have to submit lesson plans for review by censors, which has led to delays. Students have been spamming the main online teaching app with one-star reviews in an effort to get it removed from the app store. And Xue Hua, a mother of two in Jiangxi province, has been printing out all the learning materials for her 16-year-old son, Guo Guo, because she worries about too much screen-time.

Even done properly, online learning is a poor substitute for the kind that happens in a classroom. On average, students fare worse working online, especially those with less strong academic backgrounds, says Susanna Loeb of Brown University. Online courses can be an asset when students cannot be in school, but she reckons that they are suboptimal for most and argues that long periods of time spent away from actual schools will probably lead to childrens education suffering.

Online learning has clear potential. Educational technology powered by artificial intelligence can help children in poor countries with iffy schoolssupposing they have internet access. In 2018 researchers found that after four and a half months of using an Indian app called Mindspark, which tests basic language and maths skills, children made more progress in these areas than those in the control group. But the success of such initiatives relies on preparation and organisation, not sudden scrambles to teach existing curriculums to entire populations of students in the midst of a pandemic.

Dig deeper:For our latest coverage of the covid-19 pandemic, register for The Economist Today, our daily newsletter, or visit our coronavirus hub

This article appeared in the International section of the print edition under the headline "Mid-term break"

Read more:

How covid-19 is interrupting childrens education - The Economist

At another unnerving White House briefing on Friday, Donald Trump publicly disagreed with the governments most senior immunologist, Dr. Anthony Fauci, on the likelihood that the anti-malarial drug chloroquine could be an effective treatment for Covid-19, the pandemic coronavirus respiratory illness.

Fauci was asked about the drug because the president had called it a potential game-changer on Thursday and claimed, incorrectly, that the FDA had already approved its use and the government would make that drug available almost immediately.

Moments after the doctor had made it clear that there were anecdotal reports but no clinical evidence that chloroquine might be effective or safe for patients with Covid-19, or could be used as a prophylaxis, as Trump had suggested, the president said, I think, without seeing too much, Im probably more of a fan of that, maybe than anybody.

When Peter Alexander of NBC News then noted that Fauci had made it clear that there is no magic drug for coronavirus, Trump said: I disagree. Maybe and maybe not.

I will say that I am a man that comes from a very positive school when it comes to in particular one of these drugs, and well see how it works out, Trump added. Im not saying it will, but I think people may be surprised. By the way, that would be a game-changer.

Trump, of course, has made a career out of marketing products of little value with unmerited hype, and seems unable to turn off that instinct, even in a time when accurate scientific information is at a premium.

Is it possible that your impulse to put a positive spin on things may be giving Americans a false sense of hope? Alexander asked him. Are you misrepresenting our preparedness right now?

After sarcastically deriding the question, Trump seemed to illustrate its premise by saying, I agree with the doctor, what he said: may work; may not work. I feel good about it. Thats all it is, just a feeling. Im, you know, a smart guy. I feel good about it. And were going to see, youre going to see soon enough.

Obviously, Trump added, I think I can speak from a lot of experience, because its been out there for 20 years, so its not a drug that you have a huge amount of danger with. Its not like a brand new drug thats just been created that may have an unbelievable, monumental effect, like kill you.

I sure as hell think we ought to give it a try, Trump concluded. I mean theres been some interesting things happened and some good, very good things. Lets see what happens, we have nothing to lose. You know the expression, What the hell do you have to lose?

When Alexander tried to follow up by asking Trump what message he had for millions of Americans who are scared, citing the latest death toll, the president replied: I say that youre a terrible reporter, thats what I say.

For the second day running, the president then used a briefing about a global public health emergency to attack the credibility of news organizations that have accurately reported on the slowness of his administration to tackle the threat he had spent weeks dismissing as no more dangerous than the flu.

I think its a very nasty question, Trump said, applying the label he now uses to dismiss any perceived criticism of his handling of the crisis. The American people are looking for answers and theyre looking for hope, and youre doing sensationalism, the president added, before launching into a tirade against Comcast, NBCs parent company. I dont call it Comcast, I call it Concast, Trump said. Lets see if it works. It might and it might not. I happen to feel good about it, but who knows. Ive been right a lot.

In response to a follow up question about the drug, Fauci was then forced to explain, delicately, that what the president had just said about its safety was not true. While chloroquine was only rarely dangerous for people with malaria, Fauci said, what we dont know, is when you put it in the context of another disease, whether its safe.

I think it probably is going to be safe, but I like to prove things first, Fauci added. Its the hope that it will work, versus proving that it will work.

On Saturday morning, Trump upped the ante by tweeting: Hydrocholoroquine and Azithromycin, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine, and urging his own government health agencies to put the drugs in use IMMEDIATELY.

Fauci was again forced to explain that there remains no clinical proof that the drugs would be safe and effective for those infected with covid-19. The president is talking about hope for people, Fauci said at another briefing on Saturday.

The question, he added, is, are you going to use a drug that someone says from an anecdotal standpoint, not completely proven, but might have some effect? There are those who lean to the point of giving hope and saying, Give that person the option of having access to that drug. And then you have the other group, which is my job as a scientist, to say, My job is to ultimately prove, without a doubt, that a drug is not only safe by that it actually works.'

On Friday, Trump also responded poorly to being asked about his governments most glaring failure, the ongoing lack of testing for the virus, which has been a key part of South Koreas far more successful effort to slow its spread. Two weeks after Trump claimed, falsely, that anybody that needs a test, gets a test, Yamiche Alcindor of PBS Newshour asked When will every American who needs a test, get a test be able to get a test?

Well, youre hearing very positive things about testing, Trump began, trying to change the subject to his administrations constant claims that testing capability was improving. Then he attacked the reporter for raising a failing he has tried hard distract attention from. Were well into this, he said, and nobodys even talking about it, except for you, which doesnt surprise me.

When Alcindor pressed him, saying There are Americans, though, who say they have symptoms and cant get tested, Trump suggested the problem was minor. Yeah, well, okay, Im not hearing it, he said.

Earlier in the briefing, however, Fauci had admitted that testing was still not meeting demand. That is a reality that is happening now, he said. We are not there yet, because otherwise people would be never calling up saying they cant get a test.

As Trump then directed Vice President Mike Pence to take the podium and repeat the administrations talking point I just cant emphasize enough about the incredible progress that we have made on testing Fauci and his fellow scientific expert, Dr. Deborah Birx, had a brief, whispered exchange behind the politicians.

Fauci, the veteran government scientist, also earned sympathy from many observers at another stage of the briefing, when Trump tossed in a gratuitous swipe at the nations career diplomats, referring to The Deep State Department, and the doctor was forced to conceal his response by hiding his face in his hand.

Updated: Saturday, March 21, 4:30 pm EDTThis article was updated to add comments from Donald Trump and Dr. Anthony Fauci on Saturday.

See the article here:

Trump Disagrees With Top Immunologist Over Untested Drug Treatment for Covid-19 - The Intercept

Three months into the novel coronavirus pandemic, its still unclear which drugs could combat the viral disease and which wont despite public figures like President Donald Trump extolling the unproven promise of some medications. With public health on the line, the scientific community is searching for answers faster than ever.

When the novel coronavirus tore through China in January and February, researchers and doctors quickly launched dozens of clinical trials to test existing medications against COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. But the research done so far in China hasnt generated enough data for conclusive answers.

We commend the researchers around the world who have come together to systemically evaluate experimental therapeutics, said Tedros Adhanom, director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO), in a press briefing. Multiple small trials with different methodologies may not give us the clear, strong evidence we need about which treatments help to save lives.

In their fight for clear, strong evidence, the WHO is launching a multicountry clinical trial to test four drug regimens as COIVD-19 therapies: an experimental antiviral drug called remdesivir, the antimalarial drug chloroquine (or the related hydroxychloroquine), a combination of two HIV drugs, and those same two HIV drugs along with the anti-inflammatory interferon beta.

The trial will be flexible and could add or drop additional treatment approaches or locations over time. In that way, it appears to be similar to the adaptive trial that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases started in the US in February, which initially set out to test remdesivir but could expand to other drugs. The US is not currently involved in the WHO trial.

Hundreds of other clinical trials are underway, and other groups also continue to test the medications that the WHO selected heres a breakdown of some of the drugs that researchers are zeroing in on.

Studies found that hydroxychloroquine and the related chloroquine can stop the novel coronavirus from infecting in cells in the lab, and anecdotal evidence suggests that it may help patients with COVID-19. Because the drug has been around for decades as an antimalarial treatment, scientists have experience with it.

Its a known medicine, says Caleb Skipper, an infectious disease postdoctoral fellow at the University of Minnesota whos working on a smaller trial of the drug. Little blips of lab data over the last several years show this drug has activity against viruses.

Skippers trial is looking to see if hydroxychloroquine can prevent people who are exposed to the virus from developing severe disease. Theyre hoping to recruit health care workers, who are at a high risk of exposure to the virus, to participate in the trial.

The goal, Skipper says, is to get the drug in peoples systems early. Particularly with viruses, the earlier you inhibit their ability to replicate the better off youre going to be. If a drug is going to work, it is more likely to work early on in disease, he says. If you catch someone really early and provide treatment early virus will have replicated a lot less.

The existing evidence on hydroxychloroquine points in the right direction, Skipper says, but all of the research on the drug is still in very early stages. Its a long ways from being proven effective, he says.

Despite the limited evidence available, public figures, including Elon Musk and Trump, are pushing the message that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are the solutions to the outbreaks. I feel good about it. Thats all it is, just a feeling, you know, smart guy. I feel good about it, Trump said in a press conference on Friday.

As a result of the hype, demand for the drug has spiked, and manufacturers are increasing production. In Nigeria, two people overdosed on the medication after Trump said it could cure COVID-19. People who take it for other conditions, like lupus, are struggling to access their usual supply.

To be very clear, there is still no conclusive evidence that chloroquine will treat COVID-19. And treatments that appear promising based on anecdotal reports or feelings often dont end up working, which scientists know well: the majority of clinical trials fail, and theyre seeing that reinforced in coronavirus treatment efforts.

In February, doctors in Thailand said they saw their COVID-19 patients improve on the combination of two HIV drugs, lopinavirritonavir. The WHO is testing the drug combination in their trial, along with anti-inflammatory interferon beta, which the body produces naturally to ward off viruses. The drug combination was used in patients during the SARS and MERS outbreaks, and it appeared to help.

But a clinical trial of those two drugs in China just found that patients with COVID-19 who were given the drugs did not improve more quickly than patients who didnt receive it.

The study, which was published this week, focused on a group of 199 severely ill patients, which may be why the drug wasnt effective the patients were already too sick. But Timothy Sheahan, a coronavirus expert and assistant professor at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, says he wasnt surprised the drug didnt work. Weve done work on that particular drug cocktail, he says. The fact it failed is totally in step with everything weve done in the past.

The antiviral drug remdesivir was first developed to treat Ebola, but research later showed that it could also block MERS and SARS in cells. Lab tests have shown that it can inhibit the novel coronavirus in cells as well.

Theres also anecdotal evidence that remdesivir helps treat COVID-19 patients, but thats also no guarantee that a clinical trial will show that it works better than a placebo. Thats why the data collected on the drug through the WHO trial, the US adaptive trial, and the other studies is so important: before giving it to sick people en mass, doctors have to be sure that it actually works.

Though not a part of the WHO trial, Chinese officials also reported that the Japanese anti-flu drug favipiravir, which it tested in clinical trials, was effective in treating COVID-19 patients. Japan is studying the drug more closely, though data from those trials on the drug has not yet been published. Based on the drugs antiviral activity in cells, Sheahan says hed be surprised if this drug ultimately ended up being effective. It doesnt work against MERS in cells, he says, and MERS is similar to the novel coronavirus.

In addition, some pharmaceutical companies are looking to repurpose anti-inflammatory drugs to try to calm lung inflammation in people with severe cases of COIVD-19; others are identifying the protective antibodies that people develop after theyre infected with the virus in an effort to manufacture a treatment.

Clinical trials take time to collect data properly, so there likely wont be concrete evidence until next month or later. Patients are already receiving these drugs through compassionate use programs, which allows doctors to order experimental medications in certain cases, and under off-label use, where doctors prescribe drugs outside of what theyre approved for. But ensuring the clinical trial process takes place alongside that, before jumping to conclusions about the best course of action, ensures patients can be treated based on evidence.

The sheer number of trials going on around the world for each particular treatment approach will give researchers more data to work with and data from different groups of people. The more populations you can show a particular intervention works or does not work for, the more valuable that is, Skipper says. The bigger amount of data available, the better.

Read the original post:

Scientists are racing to find the best drugs to treat COVID-19 - The Verge

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) works closely with a number of federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of State, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) at the Department of Labor to provide updated information to Federal agencies and employees as it becomes available.

The following guidance has been shared with Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCOs) on HR flexibilities and authorities related to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Employees should contact the human resources office at their employing agency if they have further questions on specific authorities and flexibilities.

Read more:

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

COVID-19 is a disease caused by new respiratory virus first identified in China and is now spreading worldwide. This disease can lead to fever, cough and shortness of breath. There are thousands of confirmed cases in a growing number of countries internationally and the virus is now spreading in the United States.

Visit link:

Coronavirus | Erie County, NY Department of Health

Our country, Singapore, has managed to contain the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus within its borders, as have mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and South Korea. Commonalities of these successful responses include extensive preparation in the wake of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2003, aggressive testing and transparent case reporting to both domestic and international stakeholders, swift and decisive interventions to promote or impose social distancing, and frequent and consistent public health communications.

Singapore was one of the earliest countries to detect Covid-19 and in early February was near the top of the confirmed cases list by territory. Yet there has been no exponential rise in cases to date. Some of the reasons for these are unique to the Singapore system, which invested heavily in outbreak preparation and building health care infrastructure capacity building after the SARS wake-up call. Others, however, offer more broadly generalizable lessons that we have learned at the disease level as well as at the community, health system, and national levels.

As doctors who served as frontline physicians at Singapores Communicable Disease Center during the SARS outbreak and are now involved in responding to the Covid-19 challenge in the country, in the spirit of international cooperation we are sharing our experiences and observations that may be of benefit to other countries, systems, and individuals during this global challenge.

advertisement

Beginning in 2003, Singapore built a task force across multiple government agencies to coordinate interventions and messaging during any future pandemics. This task force was tested in 2009 during the H1N1 pandemic and again in 2016 during the Zika outbreak. It was reassembled by January 2020 for SARS-CoV-2.

One clear example of essential inter-agency cooperation was between the contact tracing teams of the Ministry of Health and the Singapore Police Force for the purposes of rapidly determining links between individuals with confirmed Covid-19 and their contacts.

advertisement

Singapores biomedical research and laboratory community was similarly mobilized. Over the years, the Singapore government has consistently prioritized the development of innovative clinical diagnostics, with the creation of a national Diagnostics Development Hub in 2014. With this integration between researchers, technology transfer offices, and industry, a test kit was successfully created through this avenue for clinical service by Feb. 9.

Testing every citizen may not be feasible and can overwhelm labs. Finding a way for the health system to manage its volume to quickly identify and triage the highest risk patients is vital.

Singapore did this primarily through designated public health preparedness clinics. These private clinics there are approximately 1,000 of them across the country provided primary care physicians with additional training and preparation for outbreaks. Patients displaying respiratory symptoms receive government-subsidized treatment and medication at these clinics, including up to five days of medical leave for them to stay home and avoid transmission to others.

High-risk Singapore residents with suspected Covid-19 undergo diagnostic testing at no cost to them. All health care costs for Singapore residents with confirmed cases of Covid-19, including hospitalization, are borne by the government, which reduces barriers for individuals seeking help.

Quarantining close contacts of those diagnosed with Covid-19 and the use of stay home notices for workers returning from countries with community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 have limited or broken viral chains of transmission. These targeted actions have helped reduce the pressure on the health care system.

Stay home notices are unique to Singapore. They are similar to quarantine orders, in that they are legally enforceable, but are used as a precautionary measure for residents of Singapore who have returned from territories with active community spread of the virus, rather than those who are close contacts of an infected person. People who flout these notices may be prosecuted under the law, although the penalties are not as severe as for those flouting quarantine orders. To relieve the financial impact of quarantine, the government provides a daily SGD 100 ($75 US) allowance to self-employed individuals. For employees, quarantine is classified as paid hospitalization leave.

Public health communication has been rational, transparent, and frequent, with uncertainties and gaps in knowledge specifically acknowledged. Multiple communication approaches have been adopted in both traditional and social media channels.

There is ongoing engagement between the public and leaders of civic society. With a national level WhatsApp group for one-way messaging, the government delivers trusted information frequently and consistently to the citizens of Singapore. Other instant-messaging groups have been created allowing two-way discussion between frontline clinicians and Ministry of Health senior officials.

When public anxiety and panic buying peaked on Feb. 7 after the announcement of a heightened state of alert regarding SARS-CoV-2, the prime minister gave a televised address to the nation that was calm, analytical, and reassuring without pulling any punches. This quickly allayed public anxiety.

During an epidemic, we fight a war against disease, and health care workers are the soldiers. Everyone must rally around their efforts.

As physicians, the two of us directly witnessed the impact of SARS on the health care community in 2003. Health care workers were initially shunned by the public as possible carriers of SARS. But as health care workers became infected, and some died, public sentiment changed and generous donations post-SARS led to the creation of the Courage Fund, which was aimed at providing relief to SARS victims and health care workers.

In the Covid-19 pandemic, the public has rallied around health care workers from the beginning, with an outpouring of gratitude and encouragement via social media and physical gifts (including food and thank-you cards). The Courage Fund has also been substantially topped up by corporate and individual donations.

The most likely scenario is that SARS-CoV-2 will continue to spread around the world for the foreseeable future, perhaps eventually becoming endemic. Its threat will not be completely eliminated, even in the optimistic scenario where a safe and effective vaccine eventually becomes commercially available. Sustainability over the long term is crucial, as fatigue is inevitable.

Even in Singapore, the current efforts are an adaptive response that will need further calibration as the pandemic evolves.

Li Yang Hsu, M.B.B.S., is the program leader for infectious diseases at the Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health of the National University of Singapore. He is the former clinical director of the National Centre for Infectious Diseases and former director of the Singapore Infectious Diseases Initiative, and published the first SARS case series from Singapore in 2003. Min-Han Tan, M.B.B.S., is the founding CEO and medical director of Lucence, a molecular diagnostics company headquartered in Singapore and Palo Alto, Calif.

Read the original:

What Singapore can teach the US about responding to Covid-19 - STAT

The effort to combat the spread of the coronavirus pandemic globally relies on testing as a core component of the current strategy, which primarily focuses on isolating individuals to slow the transmission of COVID-19 and give researchers time to develop potential treatments and vaccines. The availability and amount of testing can help chart how the virus is moving through a population, to inform and direct necessary quarantine and contact tracing measures, but one key data point might be the spread and availability of testing sites.

A new group of volunteer coders and medical professionals, including Air Force software organization Kessel Runs Chief Data Officer Andrew Kemendo, and data-driven doctor and researcher Jorge A. Caballero, have created a new findcovidtesting.com website, which aims to provide up-to date location info for all testing sites in the U.S.

Immediately, please note that a resource like this is not meant as a directory for private individuals who are looking to show up at a test site, expecting to receive diagnostics. Health officials and experts are attempting to roll out testing as far and wide theyre able, but for the safety of frontline workers, and in order to allocate limited supply of testing materials as effectively as possible, you should always only consult with a medical professional via telehealth, or use one of the various official online screening tools in order to get a test. Just showing up somewhere wont get you a test, and could put a lot of other people in danger.

That said, this database, which was built by a team of around 15 developers working remotely one the course of just one week, should be viewed as a potential resource to inform those working on the countrys emergency response and COVID-19 mitigation strategy, or efforts to ensure that testing is available across the country in a way that accurately addresses population needs, and that can provide a full picture of the extent of the actual virus spread.

It also could be very useful for individuals provided its used in tandem with screening and telehealth guidance to make sure that people are getting tested based on case prioritization, and according to all possible safety guidelines for the health of those doing the testing.

Kemendo also says that the plan is to potentially scale this to cover countries outside the U.S., provided the group can find a scalable way to populate the location data. Right now, the site info is being scraped and validated manually, while the team works on some kind of infrastructure that might help automate the process as more test sites come online.

The effort and its resulting data will not be monetized at all, Kemendo says, and while it has no single sponsor, the company is working with credits from both Google Cloud Platform and AWS for running the backend. The team is currently looking for suggestions on how best to scale, and reduce the manual workload involved with maintaining an up-to-date listing, and their GitHub project is available here.

Read this article:

Volunteer group develops a COVID-19 testing location database for the U.S. - TechCrunch

The UK, US, EU and many other countries are currently in some degree of lockdown, with restaurants and bars, shops, schools and gyms closed, and citizens required, or at least strongly encouraged, to stay home to avoid catching or spreading COVID-19, the respiratory illness caused by the novel coronavirus.

Researchers are well on their way to discovering vaccines and treatments for the virus, but even in a best-case scenario, these are likely to be 12-18 months away.

Until then, extreme social distancing is pretty much the only intervention available to help individuals stay healthy, and to break the chain of transmission - giving more vulnerable populations a fighting chance of surviving this pandemic.

But how exactly does a lockdown work? And why is it important for even younger and healthier people, who face a lower risk of severe illness, to remain in their homes as much as possible?

The purpose of a lockdown, explains a new study from the Imperial College London COVID-19 Response Team, is to reduce reproduction in other words, to reduce the number of people each confirmed case infects.

The goal is to keep reproduction, or R, below one (R<1) with each case infecting fewer than one other person, on average.

The authors of the study say there are two routes to try to get there:

The studys models show that, painful as lockdown may be for many of us, it works.

Without any lockdown or social distancing measures, we can expect peak mortality in approximately three months. In this scenario, 81% of the UK and US populations would be infected, with 510,000 dying in the UK and 2.2 million dying in the US.

Projected COVID-19-related deaths in the UK and US without any interventions

Image: Imperial College London

In contrast, isolating confirmed and suspected cases and social distancing the elderly and vulnerable would reduce peak critical care demand by two-thirds and halve the number of deaths.

To get closer to the goal of R<1, they say, a combination of case isolation, social distancing of the entire population and either household quarantine or school and university closure are required."

The study finds this "intensive policy is predicted to result in a reduction in critical care requirements from a peak approximately three weeks after the interventions are introduced and a decline thereafter while the intervention policies remain in place."

The impact of various social distancing or lockdown measures on ICU bed requirements

Image: Imperial College London

While the word indefinitely isnt one we want to hear, its possible long-term suppression could be the best way to reduce infections and deaths at least until a vaccine is available.

A new strain of Coronavirus, COVID 19, is spreading around the world, causing deaths and major disruption to the global economy.

Responding to this crisis requires global cooperation among governments, international organizations and the business community, which is at the centre of the World Economic Forums mission as the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation.

The Forum has created the COVID Action Platform, a global platform to convene the business community for collective action, protect peoples livelihoods and facilitate business continuity, and mobilize support for the COVID-19 response. The platform is created with the support of the World Health Organization and is open to all businesses and industry groups, as well as other stakeholders, aiming to integrate and inform joint action.

As an organization, the Forum has a track record of supporting efforts to contain epidemics. In 2017, at our Annual Meeting, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) was launched bringing together experts from government, business, health, academia and civil society to accelerate the development of vaccines. CEPI is currently supporting the race to develop a vaccine against this strand of the coronavirus.

So, have the lockdowns worked?

Starting 23 January 2020, the Chinese government locked down Hubei Province, including Wuhan, the city of 11 million where the outbreak started. They halted transportation in and out and barred tens of millions of people from working or going to school and closed all shops except those selling food or medicine. In some areas, residents were even forced to limit trips to the store, or order supplies for delivery.

This unprecedented lockdown of tens of millions of people was considered a vast experiment but it may have worked. Following the lockdown, cases began to slow. On 19 March, Chinas National Health Commission reported no new confirmed infections in Hubei.

Following the lockdown, new COVID-19 cases in China slowed.

Image: BBC

Italy and Spain have been under similarly intense nationwide lockdowns, from 9 March and 15 March, respectively, with citizens required to stay in their homes except for work, food shopping or medical appointments.

In parts of Italy where lockdowns started earlier, however, we're already seeing a "flattening of the curve". Lodi, for example, locked down on 23 February, but Bergamo did not lock down until 8 March. Now, cases seem to be leveling off in Lodi.

COVID-19 cases in Bergamo and Lodi, Italy

Image: Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science, University of Oxford & Nuffield College, UK

This week, both Italy and Spain reported their largest daily increases in COVID-19-related deaths. But if the lockdown models, hypothetical and real, are correct, the peaks could be approaching.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

See the rest here:

Why lockdowns can halt the spread of COVID-19 - World Economic Forum

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is moving much more quickly to grant special emergency use authorization to equipment and tests that could help increase testing for the novel coronavirus in the U.S., which lags behind most countries in the world when it comes to tests conducted relative to the size of its population. One type of test just approved for use could help expand the availability of frontline testing in hospitals and at clinics where patients are receiving care without requiring round-tripping to a dedicated diagnostics lab.

Cepheids COVID-19 test, which the agency approved this week, also has the advantage of being able to be run either with or without use of a nasal swab, which is key because supplies of nasal swabs are taxed globally in light of the need for testing. Its also a molecular, PCR-based test, with high rates of accuracy just like the lab-based testing thats already in place across facilities in the U.S., but it uses the companys GeneXpert machine (basically a diagnostics kit the size of an inkjet printer cartdrige lab in a box roughly the size of an inkjet printer) to produce results on-site.

Cepheid says that around 23,000 of its GeneXpert micro-labs are already in use around the world, with around 5,000 of those located in the U.S. The companys hardware has been running tests for the flu for years already, with high reliability rates. The new COVID-19 tests for the system will begin to be shipped out by the Sunnyvale-based molecular diagnostics company starting next week.

Testing in the U.S. has increased over the past week, thanks in large part to widespread efforts to expand availability especially in hard-hit regions like New York State. But the need for more tests is still pressing, as the limits of availability mean that essentially only the most severe cases, often requiring confirmed contact tracing or proof of elevated risk, are being tested.

Solutions like Cepheids, as well as other potential alternative test methods than can be done entirely at home, like Scanwells forthcoming test that looks for antibodies in a persons blood, are much-needed if we hope to truly expand testing to a degree that it can properly inform any coronavirus mitigation strategy.

Continued here:

A new type of COVID-19 test now approved for use could help with frontline diagnostics - TechCrunch

After Mr. Moran reported his Sunday morning encounter with the senator, Mr. Pauls staff posted on Twitter that he had left the Senate IMMEDIATELY upon learning of his diagnosis.

He had zero contact with anyone & went into quarantine, they added, sidestepping why the senator had been in the gym in the first place.

Mr. Paul, an ophthalmologist by training, was a practicing doctor before joining the Senate. Like his father, Ron Paul, a former member of Congress, he considers himself a libertarian. Last week, he was one of only three senators to vote against a multibillion-dollar rescue bill to help fight the coronavirus because its costs had not been paid for and would contribute to the national debt.

Mr. Paul could be at elevated risk for adverse effects from the novel coronavirus, which can cause pneumonia, sometimes severe. In November 2017, Mr. Paul was violently attacked by his neighbor in Kentucky during a dispute and had to be hospitalized. As a result of the ensuing injuries, Mr. Paul had to undergo surgery in August to have part of his lung removed.

Two other members of Congress Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, Republican of Florida, and Representative Ben McAdams, Democrat of Utah have also tested positive for Covid-19. Mr. McAdams said in a statement on Sunday that he had been hospitalized and given oxygen over the weekend, but that his condition had stabilized.

When a half dozen other senators were exposed to individuals who had tested positive for the virus, they voluntarily self-isolated, as top health officials have advised. They also made sure to communicate with constituents that following the guidelines was an important matter of life and death, even for their elected leaders. Senator Cory Gardner, Republican of Colorado, has been absent from the Senate for much of the week for that reason.

Privately, some lawmakers were incensed that Mr. Paul had continued to circulate among colleagues when he knew he might have the virus.

Read the original post:

Rand Paul Tests Positive for Covid-19, Fueling Anxiety in the Capitol - The New York Times