Search

In December 2019, a working group of the European Academy of Microbiology assembled to discuss various aspects of vaccines and vaccinations. The meeting was organised by Jörg Hacker and Eliora Z. Ron and took place in the offices of the Leopoldina (German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina). Several important issues were addressed and a major part of the discussion focused on the need to develop new vaccines, especially to protect against pathogens that constitute a pandemic threat. Following the rapid and unpredicted spread of COVID-19 in the first seven months of 2020, the need to develop vaccines for pandemic viruses rapidly has been clearly established. Thus, this paper will concentrate on points that were highlighted by the recent COVID-19 pandemic and lessons learnt therefrom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The outbreak and pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 in 2019 has caused a severe public health burden and will challenge global health for the future. The discovery and mechanistic investigation of drugs against Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is in deadly demand. The paper published by Li and colleagues proposed the hypothesis that vitamin C combined with glycyrrhizic acid in treating COVID-19 and its mechanistic investigation was performed by a database-based network pharmacology. In this letter, we present critical comments on the limitations and insufficiencies involved, from both the perspective of network pharmacology and current evidence on COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The issue was particularly relevant in the management of the reception centres (RCs) due to the linguistic, cultural and social differences linked to the heterogeneity of the migrants hosted. DepartmentofPublicHealthandInfectiousDiseases,SapienzaUniversityofRome,Vialedel Policlinico155,Rome00161,Italy.Tel:0039-06-49970905;Email:giancarlo.ceccarelli@uniroma1.it Submitted17August2020; Revised3September2020; Accepted10September2020 We read the paper by Greenaway exploring the peculiarities of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) management in migrant communities. [Extracted from the article]

The COVID-19 pandemic and the associated policy responses to it were highly disruptive of supply chains throughout the economy in 2020 - disruptive on an unprecedented scale. Massive shocks on both the demand and supply sides of the market presented particular challenges in agricultural product markets. These were arguably most pronounced in the protein sector. This paper will examine these protein sector supply chain shocks, exploring the nature and causes of the market disruptions during the height of the pandemic, evaluating the effects of these shocks from an economic perspective, and identifying potential market and policy responses that could mitigate the adverse effects of similar events in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This paper examined how mental health practitioners adjusted their practices during COVID-19. The authors hypothesized that practitioners would transition services to telehealth but that this would differ by provider type. Method: English-speaking adult mental health practitioners (N = 910) were recruited via professional listservs, personal emails, and social media. Data were collected 03/30/2020–04/10/2020 via an online Qualtrics survey asking about demographics and practice adjustments in response to COVID-19. Most practitioners were psychologists/doctoral-level therapists (41%), social workers/masters-level therapists (17%), and neuropsychologists (16%). The majority was employed in an academic medical center (19%) or private practice (22%). Differences among provider types were examined using chi-square tests with Bonferroni corrections and one-way ANOVAs with post-hoc Tukey tests. Preliminary Results (see Table 1): Most mental health practitioners adjusted their practices, primarily by transitioning to telehealth. The majority reported having easy access to information technology (IT) services. Although telehealth implementation was neutral to somewhat difficult, participants were neutral to somewhat likely to provide telehealth in the future. Compared to other practitioners, neuropsychologists saw fewer patients; were more likely to cancel, reschedule, or restrict appointments; were less likely to implement telehealth; and reported greater difficulty doing so. Findings related to other group differences (e.g., between settings) will also be presented. Conclusions: During the COVID-19 outbreak, mental health practitioners rapidly shifted to telehealth, but neuropsychologists were less likely to do so and reported greater difficulty doing so. This may be related to the difficulty of administering neuropsychological tests remotely and has implications for neuropsychologists' ability to meet patients' needs during COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]