CLAIM
A public information film on the coronavirus was released in the 1970s
DETAILS
Factually inaccurate: The 1970s coronavirus public information film shown on various social media posts is actually a parody published on 24 May 2020, shortly after COVID-19 was declared a pandemic.
KEY TAKE AWAY
A public information film offering tips to prevent coronavirus infection that allegedly dates to the 1970s is actually a parody of the public service films that the U.K. Central Office of Information produced and distributed nationally between 1946 and 2011.
The videos title and retro appearance resembled the public information short films that the U.K. Central Office of Information (COI) produced and distributed during television advertising breaks. The COI was created in 1946 to replace the British Ministry of Information, which was responsible for government publicity and propaganda during the Second World War, and was active until 2011.
Many of the COI short films involved public safety campaigns. One example is Smoking and You, a film released in 1963 and one of the first governmental anti-smoking campaigns ever produced. In others, a cartoon cat named Charley gave safety tips to children, for example by warning them against playing with matches or being aware of the dangers in water.
However, the video shared on social media isnt an actual public information film but a work of satire. It is also not from the 1970s.
While some posts correctly indicated that the video was a parody, others didnt, nor did they mention that the video wasnt an actual 1970s production. This could be potentially misleading, particularly for people who didnt watch the video in full and might interpret that the video was released in the 1970s.
Multiple social media posts attributed the film to CheeksProductions, which uploaded it on its YouTube channel on 4 May 2020, shortly after the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic. The video had accumulated over two million views at the time of writing.
The humorous nature of the video is made clear throughout its three minutes, for example, when talking about coronavirus carriers:
Even a car can be a carrier. If you cough on a car, that car becomes a carrier, which is why scientists now sometimes refer to the coronavirus as the car owner virus.
It goes on:
Carriers come in all shapes and sizes. So its important when you are out and about that you note down anyone you see coughing or wheezing[] When you return home, immediately call the police and notify them of any person youve seen who you think is or might be a carrier.
The film provided several other comical recommendations, like cut a hole in your favorite chair and stick a bucket underneath if you dont have an indoor toilet, or if you dont have chairs, dig a hole for yourself somewhere inside the house. CheeksProductions YouTube channel contains many other satirical videos, including one about lockdowns.
PolitiFact found that the narrator of the coronavirus video is actor and voiceover Charlie Tantam. Tantam, who joked about the film in a May 2020 tweet, listed it as one of his works on his website, under the section parody shorts.
Specialty
Please choose I'm not a medical professional. Allergy and Immunology Anatomy Anesthesiology Cardiac/Thoracic/Vascular Surgery Cardiology Critical Care Dentistry Dermatology Diabetes and Endocrinology Emergency Medicine Epidemiology and Public Health Family Medicine Forensic Medicine Gastroenterology General Practice Genetics Geriatrics Health Policy Hematology HIV/AIDS Hospital-based Medicine I'm not a medical professional. Infectious Disease Integrative/Complementary Medicine Internal Medicine Internal Medicine-Pediatrics Medical Education and Simulation Medical Physics Medical Student Nephrology Neurological Surgery Neurology Nuclear Medicine Nutrition Obstetrics and Gynecology Occupational Health Oncology Ophthalmology Optometry Oral Medicine Orthopaedics Osteopathic Medicine Otolaryngology Pain Management Palliative Care Pathology Pediatrics Pediatric Surgery Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Plastic Surgery Podiatry Preventive Medicine Psychiatry Psychology Pulmonology Radiation Oncology Radiology Rheumatology Substance Use and Addiction Surgery Therapeutics Trauma Urology Miscellaneous
MONDAY, Nov. 27, 2023 (HealthDay News) -- COVID-19 vaccination before infection is associated with a reduced risk for post-COVID-19-condition (PCC), according to a study published online Nov. 22 in The BMJ.
Lisa Lundberg-Morris, from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, and colleagues conducted a population-based cohort study to examine the effectiveness of primary COVID-19 vaccination (first two doses and first booster dose) against PCC. Data were included for all 589,722 adults with COVID-19 first registered between Dec. 27, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2022, in the two largest regions of Sweden.
Of the vaccinated individuals, 21,111; 205,650; and 72,931 received one two, and three or more doses, respectively. The researchers found that 0.4 percent of 299,692 vaccinated individuals with COVID-19 had a diagnosis of PCC during follow-up compared with 1.4 percent of 290,030 unvaccinated individuals. There was an association between COVID-19 vaccination with any number of doses before infection and a reduced risk for PCC (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.42), with vaccine effectiveness of 58 percent. Vaccine effectiveness was 21, 59, and 73 percent with one, two, and three or more doses, respectively.
"The results from this study highlight the importance of complete primary vaccination coverage against COVID-19, not only to reduce the risk of severe acute COVID-19 infection but also the burden of PCC in the population," the authors write.
Several authors disclosed ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
Abstract/Full Text
Editorial
Japans health ministry on Tuesday approved the first domestically developed COVID-19 vaccine that works against the currently circulating XBB.1.5 sublineage of the omicron variant.
The XBB-adapted version of Daiichi-Sankyos coronavirus vaccine, Daichirona, will be available as a booster under the nations free COVID-19 vaccination program beginning next week.
The government has already decided to procure a total of 1.4 million doses of the vaccine from the drugmaker, the first Japanese firm to have developed COVID-19 shots.
TUESDAY, Nov. 28, 2023 (HealthDay News) -- The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is warning of a highly mutated COVID-19 variant, the prevalence of which has tripled in the past two weeks. Now, nearly one in 10 new COVID-19 cases are fueled by the BA.2.86 variant.
The variant is spreading the fastest in the Northeast: Just over 13 percent of cases in the New York and New Jersey region have been attributed to BA.2.86. Scientists first warned of the highly mutated variant back in August, but it has since spread in several regions of the United States.
Until now, the vast majority of new COVID-19 cases have been blamed on the XBB variant and several of its descendants, including the HV.1 and EG.5 variants. But that may change. The CDC estimates carry wide margins of error around the prevalence of BA.2.86, but the latest estimate is triple what it was on Nov. 11, the data showed.
So far, preliminary data on the variant suggest it does not trigger more severe illness than previous variants, the World Health Organization said in a recent risk evaluation, but the international agency still noted a recent and "substantial rise" in BA.2.86 cases.
The CDC also noted that the BA.2.86 variant poses a "low" public health risk. But the agency data released Monday did show that emergency department visits linked to COVID-19 have begun to climb nationwide.
One particular descendant of BA.2.86 might be driving the increase, experts say. In recent weeks, scientists have been studying a steep increase in a BA.2.86 descendant called JN.1, which has become the fastest-growing subvariant worldwide.
More Information
In 2021, among 1,731,832 residents in Rome aged 1864, migrants from HMPCs were 55% less likely to uptake at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose than their Italian counterpart, independently of age and area deprivation index. Past SARS-CoV-2 infection reduced the difference between migrants and Italians to 27%, explained by an increase in vaccination uptake after the infection among migrants and a decrease among Italians. Among migrants from HMPCs, we observed a slight excess of vaccination uptake among females compared to males; while, focusing on geographical areas of origin we did observe that only females from central-western Asia were 9% less likely to uptake vaccination than males. The additional analysis showed comparable results.
Some limitations should be considered. Suppose there were different patterns of vaccination uptake, inside or outside the region, between migrants and Italians. In that case, the observed associations might be biased as we accessed only data from Lazio (the region of Rome). Mobility among migrants may be higher than among non-migrants, which would cause an underestimate of vaccination coverage and bias the observed hazard ratios toward the lower bound. Nevertheless, we studied the resident population, and resident migrants are likely less prone to mobility than non-resident migrants. In addition, due to pandemic restrictions, it is likely that during 2021 mobility was reduced. Another limitation may be related to the record-linkage procedures that could be less efficient among the migrant population than Italians. This would again yield an underestimation of vaccination uptake among migrants. Concerning the adjustment for the deprivation index, based on 2011 Census data, any change in the social tissue that occurred over ten years might imply misclassification. In relation to other sources of confounding, we could adjust only for major factors (age, DI), while other factors, like comorbidities, occupation, or marital status, might also play a role. Finally, contextual factors changing over time, such as fluctuating mobility restrictions, risk of infection, or policies oriented to mandatory vaccination, might directly or indirectly affect the associations. However, the interpretation of models that include calendar time, with cut-offs appropriate for each factor, would be complex. As such, we decided not to adjust or stratify for calendar time in the present study.
The results indicate the vulnerability of migrants residing in Rome concerning COVID-19 vaccination access in 2021 and suggest inequalities in health. Lower vaccination uptake has also been observed in an Italian study conducted in Lazio, the administrative region of Rome, which found that foreign residents have a triple probability of Italians not accessing the vaccine12, and in a study conducted in a Local Health Authority in Rome13. Furthermore, a lower vaccination coverage among foreigners has also been observed in a study conducted in Brescia Province, one of the most dramatically hit by COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic15. To interpret the findings, we should consider that COVID cases among migrants might have different characteristics affecting the risk of infection and the need to be vaccinated. Among these, later diagnoses and poorer outcomes in COVID cases among foreigners compared to Italians were reported10,11. In the study conducted by a Local Health Authority in Rome, HMPC citizens were younger than Italians, less likely to be frail and more likely to receive the less effective brand of vaccine (Janssen)13. However, we do not have striking evidence of different risks of infection among immigrants in Italy, though it is possible to argue that the lack of findings is the consequence of the lower access to diagnostic tests16,17. Concerning the young age structure of migrants, in our study, we selected 1864-year-olds, reducing the age gap between Italians and immigrants (mean age 43.8 vs 41.6, Table 1) and, as such, differences in frailty. At the international level, several studies analysed the association between ethnicity and vaccination uptake, using different study designs and measures from our own. For example, in a study conducted over 24 million adults in England, the first dose of COVID-19 vaccination was lower among all ethnic minority groups compared with white British adults18. Another study conducted in Denmark over 4.9 million individuals aged 12 years or more in 2021 found that non-vaccination was most pronounced among migrants or descendants19. In contrast, a study conducted in Switzerland did not find an association between Swiss-born and foreign-born individuals20. We also observed that women from central-western Asia showed lower vaccination coverage than men. In this area, the most prevalent origin countries of subjects living in Rome are Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan, and most subjects are males. Most central-western Asian women typically come to Italy for family reunification. They are often unemployed and have few social contacts21. All these aspects may partly explain the lower vaccination coverage among women in this subgroup of migrants.
Various factors in the literature have been identified as possible explanations for low vaccine uptake and hesitancy, for example, the delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite availability of vaccination services22 among migrants. A systematic review exploring barriers and facilitators of vaccine uptake has identified language, literacy, communication, practical, legal, and service barriers in the uptake of vaccines1. In our country, access barriers to health services have been identified for migrants23. These barriers also played a role in the vaccination uptake, especially at the beginning of the vaccination campaign. Later, on 15 October 2021, the vaccine became mandatory for all people over 50 years and for occupied people. Then, the possession of a green pass, a document certifying the vaccination, was imposed at work to demonstrate full vaccination coverage24. According to the 3C model on vaccine hesitancy developed by the SAGE Working Group, three main factors influence vaccine uptake: confidence, complacency, and convenience barriers22. In a recent systematic review performed to synthetise qualitative studies on the reasons for vaccine hesitancy among migrants, the Authors found the confidence dimension of the 3C model, that is, people are vaccine hesitant because they have low confidence in the vaccines effectiveness and safety and distrust scientists, policymakers and health professionals22, represents a disproportionately large barrier to vaccine uptake in ethnic minority groups25. We argue that the confidence dimension may explain vaccine hesitancy among the migrants in Italy because communication during the vaccination campaign was challenging due to linguistic barriers and the different health literacy of migrants compared to Italians, despite some communication strategies adopted in the country26. Health literacy may be associated with vaccination, although evidence is scarce27. In addition, the convenience dimension, that is people are vaccine hesitant because there are a number of barriers (physical, logistical or economical) that hinder them from getting a vaccine22, may have represented another important explanation for the vaccine hesitancy among migrants in Italy. In fact, it is already documented that migrants encounter, in Italy23,28 as in other European countries29, various barriers in accessing health services that during the pandemic may have represented a critical issue for COVID-19 prevention30,31. In addition, we argue that since migrants in Italy are often employed in temporary and precarious jobs32,33, their intention to be vaccinated may be undermined by the fear of possible vaccine collateral effects limiting their chance to work. The ECDC suggests various approaches to strengthening vaccine uptake in migrants. Some of them may be particularly relevant in Italy and adopted, such as the provision of simple, accurate culturally-relevant resources about the COVID-19 vaccine in a range of languages, literacy levels and formats and the provision of cultural mediators in primary care34. In addition, the availability of data stratified by origin country and other relevant factors, such as gender and socioeconomic status, is of paramount relevance as it allows the calculation of immunisation indicators across subgroups of the population35 and highlights the unmet prevention needs of vulnerable groups. For the generalizability of results, although our evaluation covers the population living in a single city only, the findings can, in part, be indicative of differences in vaccination coverage between Italians and migrants in our country, as the study was based on a vast city (2.7 million inhabitants), and a whole population, and access to vaccination was offered to all residents, both Italians and non-Italians, without restrictions in all the Italian regions.
In conclusion, migrants residing in Rome, Italy, showed a lower uptake of COVID-19 vaccination over the first year of the vaccination campaign, independently of socioeconomic factors. Vaccination uptake was lower among migrant women from central-western Asia than migrant males. Health communication strategies oriented to migrants and considering their different languages, cultures, and health literacy, as well as the possible interactions of the provenience country with gender, should be adopted to prevent and reduce inequalities, preferably before emergencies.
Study design and patients
The FLOSAN trial recruited patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 from 12 hospitals in China, 3 hospitals in Thailand, and one hospital each in Vietnam and the Philippines between February and December 2022 (Additional file 1: Table S1). The full version of study protocol has been published recently (See details in Online Supplement) [16]. Briefly, eligible patients were aged 18-70 years, had mild-to-moderate COVID-19 (according to World Health Organization criterion) [17], tested positive to either rapid antigen test (RAT) or nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT), had an interval between symptom onset and screening of within 4 days, and had at least three major symptoms (stuffy or runny nose, sore throat, cough, shortness of breath, low energy or tiredness, myalgia, headache, chills or shivering, feeling hot or feverish) occurring within 12 hours prior to screening. We excluded patients who had: (1) known co-morbidities of other infections; (2) poorly controlled systemic diseases; (3) alcohol or drug abuse within one year; (4) participated in other trials within one month; (5) become pregnant, breastfeeding or within two weeks of delivery. The FLOSAN trial was conducted in accordance with the Declarations of Helsinki. Ethics approval has been obtained the ethics committee of each participating site, based on Good Clinical Practice. All patients signed written informed consent.
We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to receive treatment with LHQW or matching placebo (manufactured by Shijiazhuang Yiling Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Shijiazhuang, China) based on the randomization numbers generated with the SAS package (SAS Inc., Cary, USA). The block size was 4 with no stratification. With competitive recruitment scheme, the sub-site investigators allocated patients in an ascending order. The study medications had an identical color, odor and appearance, except that the placebo did not contain any active ingredient of LHQW. Patients, the study investigators and other staff were masked to treatment allocation until database lock.
After randomization, patients took LHQW (4 capsules [0.35g/capsule], thrice daily) or matching placebo for 14 consecutive days following hospitalization in designated hospitals (in mainland China) and out-patient recruitment (in the Phillipines, Thailand and Viet Nam). Both groups received standard-of-care consisting of antipyretics, analgesic drugs, nutrition supplementation and fluid replacement. Acetaminophen, the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, could be applied for ameliorating fever if the temperature reached 38.5 degrees or higher. Antivirals or medications with core components of LHQW were prohibited. Sites could follow local guidelines and protocols in their countries and regions. Patients attended four in-hospital (in mainland China) or out-patient (in Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines) visits (days 3, 7, 10 and an end-of-study visit, typically scheduled at day 14). Patients who prematurely discontinued treatment due to accelerated symptom recovery or other reasons could attend all planned visits. During the study, patients were requested to fill out the diary card twice daily to evaluate the changes in symptoms.
The primary endpoint was evaluated at day 14 - the median time to sustained clinical improvement or resolution of the nine above-mentioned major symptoms, rated as being less than or equal to mild (scored 1 or 0) and remained stable for >24 hours (see Supplementary File for the symptom diary cards).
Pre-specified secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients with sustained improvement or resolution of nine major symptoms at day 14, the median time to sustained improvement or resolution of each of these individual symptoms, the median time to onset of antipyretic effect and return to normal temperature (axillary temperature 37.0C or oral temperature 37.3C for >24 hours), the median time to sustained improvement or resolution of gastrointestinal symptoms, anosmia and ageusia, the proportion of patients with sustained improvement or resolution of all symptoms, the time to negative conversion of NAAT findings, and the rate of NAAT negative conversion (days 0, 7, 10, 14), the proportion of patients with major improvement in chest imaging, the incidence of COVID-19-related severe/critical disease, COVID-19-related and all-cause mortality within day 14. A designated experienced radiologist (blinded to study allocation) reviewed chest X-ray or computed tomography (CT) images and rated the outcomes. An improvement in chest radiology denoted a decreased area of infiltration, a decreased area of any radiologic abnormality, or decreased density of ground-glass opacity or nodules [15].
Safety endpoints were evaluated from the first dosing to the end of follow-up, including vital signs, physical examination, major changes in laboratory test, abnormal twelve-lead electrocardiogram findings, and the adverse event (AE) and serious adverse event (SAE). See Online Supplement for details.
Assuming that the median time to sustained improvement or resolution was 12 days in control group and 9 days in LHQW group, 652 patients would be randomized to LHQW or placebo group (1:1) with a 95% power with a two-sided significance of 0.05 according to PASS software. In practice, patients were enrolled while taking into account RAT findings, and 344 patients per group would be needed when assuming that 95% of patients with positive RAT findings would yield positive NAAT findings. Recruitment of 860 patients would be needed while considering a 20% dropout rate.
We conducted statistical analyses with SAS 9.4 software (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina). All patients who had been randomized and taken at least one dose of study medication and had a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 based on NAAT were included in the full-analysis set. Patients who fully complied with the protocol (adherence: 80% or greater) were included in per-protocol set. We prioritized data presentation of the full-analysis set. The primary endpoint was analyzed by using the Log-rank test and displayed with Kaplan-Meier curve. The time to events was presented as the median duration and 95% confidence interval (95%CI). The hazards ratio (HR) of clinical events was demonstrated. We analyzed the following endpoints with chi-square test or Fishers exact probability model, including the proportion of patients with alleviation of symptoms, reduction in viral shedding (censored at day 14), major improvement in radiology, severe and critical diseases, death and all-cause death. We also analyzed the median time to sustained alleviation of single symptom, the alleviation of fever, digestive symptoms, ageusia or anosmia and all clinical symptoms, and the duration of viral shedding with the same analytical strategy with the primary endpoint. We conducted post-hoc subgroup analysis of the primary endpoint according to the strata of nationality, sex, age, vaccination status, concomitant antiviral drugs or other Traditional Chinese Medicine compounds, and the duration of symptom onset.
The FLOSAN trial was registered with Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (No.: ChiCTR2200056727). The CONSORT checklist can be found in the supplemental file.
The sponsor participated in the study design along with the principal investigators, study medication provision and data collection. An independent third party participated in data analysis. The first and corresponding authors had full access to the data and the corresponding author had the final decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
While the pandemic has been declared over, COVID-19 (coronavirus) remains a threat. Nebraska is seeing a recent uptick in COVID-19 cases, including Jefferson County. Lana Likens, Public Relations Director for Jefferson Community Health and Life (JCH&L), told FJN, The number of diagnosed cases of COVID has been rising in Jefferson County recently. Because of that, Gardenside is requiring all visitors and staff to mask when entering Gardenside, as of Nov. 17. Currently there are no COVID-related symptoms in Gardenside, but precautions are being taken because of cases of COVID in the surrounding community. JCH&L hospital and clinic are requiring masks only when a patient or visitor has cold or flu-like symptoms. With certain types of symptoms, the clinic may ask patients to use the negative pressure entrance on the south side of the building. According to the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC), there are currently more than 10,374 patients hospitalized in the United States per week, with 15 percent of those being ICU patients. The most recent data on the test positivity rate is from the week ending November 4, which was 8.5 percent. When test positivity is above 5 percent, transmission is considered uncontrolled. It should be noted that since many are using home tests that are not reported through public health or are not testing at all, the official case counts may underestimate the actual prevalence of COVID-19. There are multiple variants of the COVID-19 virus. Currently, the dominant variant nationwide is HV.1, with 29 percent of cases, followed by EG.5, with 21.7 percent of cases, and FL.1.5.1, with 9.3 percent of cases. The original omicron variant is gone now, said infectious diseases expert Dr. Mark Rupp. Currently subvariants of omicron are circulating, including EG.5, XBB.1.16.6, and XBB.1.16.11.
In a recent study published in eClinicalMedicine, researchers explored the impact of socioeconomic status and clinical variables on sepsis incidence and mortality during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic in England.
Study:Clinical and health inequality risk factors for non-COVID-related sepsis during the global COVID-19 pandemic: a national case-control and cohort study. Image Credit:Kateryna Kon/Shutterstock.com
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has significantly impacted global health, including the increasing prevalence of non-communicable diseases such as sepsis.
The pandemic has led to social restrictions, national lockdowns, and healthcare delivery changes, indirectly affecting the global prevalence of sepsis.
Understanding socioeconomic and clinical risk determinants is crucial to improving sepsis prevention and management. Studies indicate that sepsis is associated with socioeconomic discrepancies and pre-hospitalization clinical histories. Nevertheless, research exploring the interplay between these factors and sepsis unrelated to COVID-19 is limited.
In the present national-level, case-control, and cohort study, researchers evaluated the impact of socioeconomic discrepancies and clinical variables on sepsis incidence and 30-day death risk during COVID-19.
Primary care data were retrieved from the OpenSAFELY analytics platform for analysis. The records were linked to the United Kingdom (UK) Office for National Statistics (ONS), Second-Generation Surveillance System (SGSS), and Secondary Uses Services (SUS) data.
Sepsis was diagnosed from hospitalization records using the International Classification of Diseases, tenth revision (ICD-10) diagnostic codes with 248,767 cases (11%) of sepsis unrelated to COVID-19 among 22 million individuals between January 1 2019, and June 30 2022.
The case-cohort included individuals diagnosed with sepsis without a SARS-CoV-2 infection record in health databases six weeks before sepsis diagnosis. The control group included individuals who did not receive a sepsis diagnosis, matched by gender, calendar month, and age in a 1:6 ratio.
The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) assessed socioeconomic deprivation based on variables such as education, employment, income, and living environment.Sepsis was classified into cases acquired from the community or hospitals based on a diagnosis received within 2.0 days of hospitalization or later, respectively.
The team defined three time periods: (i) pre-COVID-19: between January 1, 2019, and March 25, 2020; (ii) COVID-19-related lockdown: between March 26, 2020, and March 8, 2021; and (iii) post-national lockdown: March 9, 2021, and June 30, 2022.
Logistic regression modeling was performed to determine the odds ratio (OR) values for the relationships between potential indicators and sepsis unrelated to COVID-19 and associated death within 30 days.
The team excluded individuals not registered at a primary care practice for 1.0 years before the sepsis diagnosis date and cases without IMD and regional records.
In total, 224,361 cases with 1,346,166 controls were analyzed. Among the cases, 80% were community-acquired, and 20% were hospital-acquired. A higher percentage of them were white, overweight or obese, belonged to the most socioeconomically deprived quintile, smoked, and consumed alcohol in hazardous quantities.
The incidence of sepsis unrelated to COVID-19 was higher among babies and low among those aged 3.0 to 17 years, steeply increasing with advancing age.
In addition, a higher incidence was observed among males in the pre-COVID-19 and post-lockdown periods, with values reducing to similar levels during the lockdown. The monthly incidence of sepsis unrelated to COVID-19 decreased from 0.3 per 1,000 individuals in February 2020 to 0.1 in April 2020, compared to 0.4 to 0.35 per 1,000 individuals in 2019.
The rate fluctuated till April 2021 and remained stable until the end of the study period. The most socioeconomically deprived statistical quintile was related to increased odds of non-SARS-CoV-2-related sepsis development compared to the least socioeconomically deprived statistical quintile (crude odds ratio, 1.8).
Other risk determinants (post-comorbidity adjustment) included chronic hepatic disease (adjusted odds ratio, 3.1), learning disability (adjusted odds ratio, 3.5), chronic renal disease (the adjusted ORs in the fourth and fifth stages were 2.6 and 6.2, respectively), neurological disease, cancer, and immunocompromised conditions.
Individuals prescribed antimicrobials during the previous year had an adjusted OR of 3.4 (crude OR, 5.1) for community-acquired sepsis unrelated to COVID-19. The incidence of sepsis unrelated to COVID-19 decreased during COVID-19 and bounced back to pre-COVID-19 levels post-lockdown upliftment.
Death risk within 30 days in the case cohort was higher among the most socioeconomically deprived white individuals aged 80 years.
The adjusted OR of mortality for individuals with the highest socioeconomic deprivation was 1.3 before COVID-19, 1.2 during the national lockdown, and 1.1 post-national lockdown. Sensitivity analyses analyzing adults separately, applying multiple imputations, and completing case assessments yielded similar findings.
Overall, the study findings showed that socioeconomic deprivation and comorbidities such as chronic kidney and liver disease increase the risk of incidence of and mortality from sepsis unrelated to COVID-19.
Sepsis incidence decreased during lockdown but returned to pre-COVID-19 levels after April 2021; however, COVID-19 did not significantly moderate the relationship between risk factors and sepsis development. Increasing antibiotic targeting accuracy could improve sepsis prevention without increasing antibiotic resistance risk.
Parents who send their children to child care can breathe a little easier research published in JAMA Network Open from experts at Michigan Medicine, the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, and UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh shows that children in daycare were not significant spreaders of COVID-19.
The study found that transmission rates of SARS-CoV-2 within child care centers was only about 2% to 3%, suggesting that children and caregivers were not spreading COVID at significant rates to others in the centers.
The study also found low rates of infection among households that had kids attending child care centers, as only 17% of household infections resulted from children who caught COVID at their centers.
Overall, the study found that only 1 in 20 symptomatic children attending child care centers tested positive for the virus.
In contrast, once someone in a household tested positive for the coronavirus, transmission to other household members was high, at 50% for children and 67% for adults.
Young children frequently contracted COVID-19 from individuals outside their child care center.
Despite the low rates of transmission in child care centers, experts still highly recommend that families get themselves and their children vaccinated against COVID-19, as additional research shows that vaccines are a safe and effective way of preventing against serious infection.
We strongly recommend the COVID-19 vaccine for young children to disrupt the high rates of transmission that we saw occur in households that can lead to missed work and school."
Andrew Hashikawa, M.D., clinical professor of emergency medicine
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently advises that kids with congestion, runny noses or other respiratory symptoms get tested for COVID and stay home if positive.
The findings suggest that these recommendations could be revised to align with those of other serious respiratory viruses, like influenza and respiratory syncytial virus, commonly known as RSV.
"While it's crucial to remain vigilant in our efforts to manage the spread of SARS-CoV-2, it seems that prioritizing testing and extended exclusion periods for children in child care centers may not be the most practical approach, as it can place undue financial burden on families from frequent testing, result in missed work, and hinder children's critical access to quality care and education," said Hashikawa.
This study was supported by Merck Investigator Studies Program grant 60418, the Henry L. Hillman Foundation and Flu Lab.
Source:
Journal reference:
Shope, T. R., et al. (2023). Incidence and Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in US Child Care Centers After COVID-19 Vaccines. JAMA Network Open. doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.39355.
