Search

Background: Researchers conducting cohort studies may wish to investigate the effect of episodes of COVID-19 illness on participants. A definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 is not always available, so studies have to rely on proxy indicators. This paper seeks to contribute evidence that may assist the use and interpretation of these COVID-indicators.Methods: We described five potential COVID-indicators: self-reported core symptoms, a symptom algorithm; self-reported suspicion of COVID-19; self-reported external results; and home antibody testing based on a 'lateral flow' antibody (IgG/IgM) test cassette. Included were staff and postgraduate research students at a large London university who volunteered for the study and were living in the UK in June 2020. Excluded were those who did not return a valid antibody test result. We provide descriptive statistics of prevalence and overlap of the five indicators.Results: Core symptoms were the most common COVID-indicator (770/1882 participants positive, 41%), followed by suspicion of COVID-19 (n = 509/1882, 27%), a positive symptom algorithm (n = 298/1882, 16%), study antibody lateral flow positive (n = 124/1882, 7%) and a positive external test result (n = 39/1882, 2%), thus a 20-fold difference between least and most common. Meeting any one indicator increased the likelihood of all others, with concordance between 65 and 94%. Report of a low suspicion of having had COVID-19 predicted a negative antibody test in 98%, but positive suspicion predicted a positive antibody test in only 20%. Those who reported previous external antibody tests were more likely to have received a positive result from the external test (24%) than the study test (15%).Conclusions: Our results support the use of proxy indicators of past COVID-19, with the caveat that none is perfect. Differences from previous antibody studies, most significantly in lower proportions of participants positive for antibodies, may be partly due to a decline in antibody detection over time. Subsequent to our study, vaccination may have further complicated the interpretation of COVID-indicators, only strengthening the need to critically evaluate what criteria should be used to define COVID-19 cases when designing studies and interpreting study results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic has paralyzed entire social levels. Organized religion is one of those levels, having suffered a lot due to the closing of churches and the automatic physical cessation of religious services. Both the weekly practitioners and those attending church minimally (say at Easter and Christmas) felt the shock of the closing of the churches. As such, the online environment was the saving option during the pandemic. However, not all churches embraced the move of liturgical services to online from the start, and at the same time, not all churches had a rich history of using digital technologies or the Internet for religious purposes. In this context, I investigate how religious communities succeeded in dealing with the imposed governmental regulations on social distance. I follow the specific religious rituals that have suffered the most by moving liturgy online, rituals such as baptism, Eucharist, burial, etc. Because different Christian churches understand rituals and liturgical practices in different ways, I focus specifically on a succinct comparison between the Romanian Orthodox Church and the neo-Protestant environment, especially the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In addition, I briefly extend the comparison to Adventist communities from the diaspora—especially those from London, the United Kingdom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic has presented modern healthcare with an unprecedented challenge. At the peak of the pandemic, trauma and orthopaedic services at our institutions undertook internal restructuring, diverting resources to frontline medical care. Consequently, we sought to assess the impact on the elderly and comorbid patients presenting with femoral neck fractures, with a particular focus on 30-day mortality, length of stay, multidisciplinary team involvement and departmental structuring. Method: A retrospective analysis of patients presenting with femoral neck fractures at three separate West London NHS Trusts was undertaken between March 11, 2020, to April 30, 2020. Length of stay, 30-day mortality and adherence to parameters constituting the best care evidence-based practice tariffs were compared between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive and negative patients. A similar comparison was also conducted between our cohort and the equivalent period in 2018 using data from the National Hip Fracture Database. Results: A total of 68 patients presenting with femoral neck fractures were identified, mean age 81 (range 38–98), 73% female. There were 10 confirmed/suspected cases of COVID-19 on admission and a further seven confirmed as inpatients. The 30-day mortality within our cohort was 11.76% compared to 6% nationally in 2018 (p = 0.045). Orthogeriatric reviews occurred within 72 h in 71% of cases compared to 88% in the equivalent 2018 period. Within the cohort, mean length of stay was 17.13 days (SD 5.6, range 8-27 days) for SARS-CoV-2 positive patients compared to 10 days (SD 8.7, range 1–53 days) for negative patients (p < 0.05). Thirty-two patients (47%) required increased packages of care on discharge or rehabilitation. Conclusions: The increase in 30-day mortality for SARS-CoV-2 positive patients presenting with femoral neck fractures is multifactorial, resulting from a combination of the direct effects of COVID-19 pneumonia as well as changes to the delivery of orthopaedic services. The provision of multidisciplinary care was directly affected by staff redeployment, particularly reorganisation of orthogeriatric services and lack of continuity of ward based clinical care. Our experiences have re-directed efforts towards the management of theatre teams, patient services and staffing, should we be faced with either a resurgence of COVID-19 or a future pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We report changes in surface nitrogen dioxide (NO2) across the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic when large and rapid emission reductions accompanied a nationwide lockdown (23 March–31 May 2020, inclusively), and compare them with values from an equivalent period over the previous 5 years. Data are from the Automatic Urban and Rural Network (AURN), which forms the basis of checking nationwide compliance with ambient air quality directives. We calculate that NO2 reduced by 42%±9.8% on average across all 126 urban AURN sites, with a slightly larger (48%±9.5%) reduction at sites close to the roadside (urban traffic). We also find that ozone (O3) increased by 11 % on average across the urban background network during the lockdown period. Total oxidant levels (Ox=NO2+O3) increased only slightly on average (3.2%±0.2%), suggesting the majority of this change can be attributed to photochemical repartitioning due to the reduction in NOx. Generally, we find larger, positive Ox changes in southern UK cities, which we attribute to increased UV radiation and temperature in 2020 compared to previous years. The net effect of the NO2 and O3 changes is a sharp decrease in exceedances of the NO2 air quality objective limit for the UK, with only one exceedance in London in 2020 up until the end of May. Concurrent increases in O3 exceedances in London emphasize the potential for O3 to become an air pollutant of concern as NOx emissions are reduced in the next 10–20 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]