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]