Search

COVID-19 is the highly communicable disease which is being announced as pandemic by WHO. The disease has already impacted the economies of big nations like China, Italy, United states etc and now this disease is hitting our developing country i.e. India too. COVID-19 or Corona virus is human to human spread disease and thus social distancing is the only measure which everyone can take to minimize its spread. National lockdown is the measure taken by Government to create distance among people. But what will be the probable impact of this lockdown on different sectors of our country. This paper aims to analyze impact of COVID-19 on the educational sector of India. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The global impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unprecedented, and many control and prevention measures have been implemented to test for and trace COVID-19. However, invisible-spreaders, who are associated with nucleic acid detection and asymptomatic infections, have received insufficient attention in the current COVID-19 control efforts. In this paper, we analyze the time series infection data for Italy, Germany, Brazil, India and Sweden since the first wave outbreak to address the following issues through a series of experiments. We conclude that: 1) As of June 1, 2020, the proportion of invisible-spreaders is close to 0.4% in Sweden, 0.8% in early Italy and Germany, and 0.4% in the middle and late stages. However, in Brazil and India, the proportion still shows a gradual upward trend; 2) During the spread of this pandemic, even a slight increase in the proportion of invisible-spreaders could have large implications for the health of the community; and 3) On resuming work, the pandemic intervention measures will be relaxed, and invisible-spreaders will cause a new round of outbreaks., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

This paper studies the interplay between social distancing and the spread of the COVID-19 disease-a global pandemic that has affected most of the world's population. Our goals are to (1) to observe the correlation between the strictness of social distancing policies and the spread of disease and (2) to determine the optimal adoption level of social distancing policies. The earliest instances of the virus were found in China, and the virus has reached the United States with devastating consequences. Other countries severely affected by the pandemic are Brazil, Russia, the United Kingdom, Spain, India, Italy, and France. Although it is impossible to stop it, it is possible to slow down its spread to reduce its impact on the society and economy. Governments around the world have deployed various policies to reduce the virus spread in response to the pandemic. To assess the effectiveness of these policies, the system's dynamics of the society needs to be analyzed, which is generally not possible with mathematical linear equations or Monte Carlo methods because human society is a complex adaptive system with continuous feedback loops. Because of the challenges with the other methods, we chose agent-based methods to conduct our study. Moreover, recent agent-based modeling studies for the COVID-19 pandemic show significant promise in assisting decision-makers in managing the crisis by applying policies such as social distancing, disease testing, contact tracing, home isolation, emergency hospitalization, and travel prevention to reduce infection rates. Based on modeling studies conducted in Imperial College, increasing levels of interventions could slow the spread of disease and infection. We ran the model with six different percentages of social distancing while keeping the other parameters constant. The results show that social distancing affects the spread of COVID-19 significantly, in turn decreasing the spread of disease and infection rates when implemented at higher levels. We also validated these results by using the behavior space tool with ten experiments with varying social distancing levels. We conclude that applying and increasing social distancing policy levels leads to a significant reduction in infection spread and the number of deaths. Both experiments show that infection rates are reduced drastically when social distancing intervention is implemented between 80% to 100%.

Background: Since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, a large number of COVID-19-related papers have been published. However, concerns about the risk of expedited science have been raised. We aimed at reviewing and categorizing COVID-19-related medical research and to critically appraise peer-reviewed original articles., Methods: The data sources were Pubmed, Cochrane COVID-19 register study, arXiv, medRxiv and bioRxiv, from 01/11/2019 to 01/05/2020. Peer-reviewed and preprints publications related to COVID-19 were included, written in English or Chinese. No limitations were placed on study design. Reviewers screened and categorized studies according to i) publication type, ii) country of publication, and iii) topics covered. Original articles were critically appraised using validated quality assessment tools., Results: Among the 11,452 publications identified, 10,516 met the inclusion criteria, among which 7468 (71.0%) were peer-reviewed articles. Among these, 4190 publications (56.1%) did not include any data or analytics (comprising expert opinion pieces). Overall, the most represented topics were infectious disease (n = 2326, 22.1%), epidemiology (n = 1802, 17.1%), and global health (n = 1602, 15.2%). The top five publishing countries were China (25.8%), United States (22.3%), United Kingdom (8.8%), Italy (8.1%) and India (3.4%). The dynamic of publication showed that the exponential growth of COVID-19 peer-reviewed articles was mainly driven by publications without original data (mean 261.5 articles ± 51.1 per week) as compared with original articles (mean of 69.3 ± 22.3 articles per week). Original articles including patient data accounted for 713 (9.5%) of peer-reviewed studies. A total of 576 original articles (80.8%) showed intermediate to high risk of bias. Last, except for simulation studies that mainly used large-scale open data, the median number of patients enrolled was of 102 (IQR = 37-337)., Conclusions: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of research is composed by publications without original data. Peer-reviewed original articles with data showed a high risk of bias and included a limited number of patients. Together, these findings underscore the urgent need to strike a balance between the velocity and quality of research, and to cautiously consider medical information and clinical applicability in a pressing, pandemic context. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/5zjyx/.

(1) Purpose: This study aimed to analyze coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine policies and their effectiveness in Italy, India, and South Africa to provide empirical experience for vaccination and COVID-19 pandemic control. (2) Methods: The study systematically summarized the COVID-19 vaccine policies in Italy, India, and South Africa through public information available on the official websites of the World Health Organization and the ministries of health in these three countries. Total vaccinations, COVID-19 vaccination rates, rates of fully vaccinated, rates of booster-vaccinated, and total confirmed cases were selected for cross-sectional comparison of COVID-19 vaccination in these three countries. Daily cases per million, daily deaths per million, and the effective reproduction rate were calculated to measure the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine policies implementation in each of these three countries. (3) Results: Italy, India, and South Africa differ in the start date of COVID-19 vaccination, vaccine types, vaccine appointments, and whether vaccinations are free. The COVID-19 vaccination rates in these three countries varied widely, with Italy having the highest and South Africa the lowest. COVID-19 vaccination has had a positive effect on reducing daily deaths and stabilizing the effective reproduction rate. The three countries had experienced more than one outbreak spike due to the spread of new mutated strains since the start of COVID-19 vaccination. (4) Conclusions: This study concluded that responding to the COVID-19 pandemic requires active promotion of basic and booster vaccinations to comprehensively build up the population immune barrier. Promoting equitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccine internationally and solidarity and cooperation among countries maximizes global common interests. By combining vaccination with non-pharmaceutical interventions, the pandemic can be prevented and controlled comprehensively and systematically in three aspects: detection of the source of infection, reduction of transmission routes, and protection of susceptible populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of the combination of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and standard personal protective equipment (PPE) compared to the use of standard personal protective equipment alone on the proportion of laboratory confirmed COVID-19 infections among frontline healthcare workers(HCWs) in India TRIAL DESIGN: HOPE is an investigator initiated multi-centre open-label parallel group randomized controlled trial.Participants: All HCWs currently working in an environment with direct exposure to patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection are eligible to participate in the trial. The trial aims to be conducted across 20-30 centres (public and private hospitals) in India. HCWs who decline consent, who have a confirmed COVID-19 infection, those who are already on chloroquine/HCQ for any indication, or if pregnant or breast-feeding, or have known QT prolongation or are on medications that when taken with HCQ can prolong the QTc will be excluded.Intervention and Comparator: The interventions to be compared in this trial are standard practice (use of recommended PPE) and HCQ plus standard practice. In the standard practice arm, HCWs will use recommended PPE as per institutional guidelines and based on their roles. They will be discouraged from taking HCQ to prevent contamination and contacted every week for the duration of the study to ascertain if they have taken any HCQ. Any such use will be reported as a protocol violation. In the intervention arm, HCWs will be administered 800mg of HCQ as a loading dose on the day of randomization (as two 400mg doses 12hrs apart) and subsequently continued on 400mg once a week for 12 weeks. This will be in addition to the use of recommended PPE as per institutional guidelines and based on their roles. HCWs will collect the drug once every week from designated research and pharmacy staff at site. A weekly phone reminder will be provided to participants in this arm to ensure compliance. An ECG will be performed between 4-6 weeks in this arm and if the QTc is prolonged (greater than 450milliseconds), the drug will be stopped. Follow-up will however continue. Participants in both arms will receive a weekly phone call for evaluation of the primary outcome, to monitor protocol compliance and development of any adverse events (in the HCQ group).Main Outcomes: Participants will be followed on a weekly basis. The primary outcome is the proportion of HCWs developing laboratory confirmed COVID-19 infection within 6 months of randomization. We will also evaluate a number of secondary outcomes, including hospitalization related to suspected/confirmed COVID-19 infection, intensive care unit or high-dependency unit admission due to suspected/confirmed COVID-19 infection, all-cause mortality, need for organ support ( non-invasive or invasive ventilation, vasopressors and renal replacement therapy), ICU and hospital length of stay, readmission, days off work and treatment-related adverse events.Randomisation: Randomisation will be conducted through a password-protected, secure website using a central, computer-based randomisation program. Randomisation will be stratified by participating institutions and by the role of HCW - nursing, medical and other. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to either standard practice only or HCQ plus standard practice. Allocation concealment is maintained by central web-based randomisation BLINDING (MASKING): This is an unblinded study: study assigned treatment will be known to the research team and participant. Bias will be mitigated through an objective end point (laboratory confirmed COVID-19 infection).Numbers To Be Randomised (sample Size): A total of 6,950 HCWs will be enrolled (3475 to the intervention) and (3475 to the standard practice group) to detect a 25% relative reduction, or 2.5% absolute reduction, in the infection rate from an estimated baseline infection rate of 10%, with 80% statistical power using a two-sided test at 5% level of significance. Available data from China and Italy indicate that the rate of infection among frontline healthcare workers varies between 4% to 12%. We therefore assumed a baseline infection rate of 10% among HCWs. This sample size allows for a potential loss to follow-up rate of 10% and a potential non-compliance rate of 10% in both the treatment and control arms.Trial Status: HOPE protocol version 3.0 dated June 3rd 2020. Recruitment started on 29th June 2020 and currently 56 participants have been enrolled. Planned completion of enrolment is January 31st 2021.Trial Registration: Clinical Trials Registry of India: CTRI/2020/05/025067 (prospectively registered) Date of registration: 6th May 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expedited dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]