Aging and the COVID-19 pandemic: The inter-related roles of biology, physical wellbeing, social norms and global health systems.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a devastating and disproportionate impact on the elderly population. As the virus has swept through the world, already vulnerable elderly populations worldwide have faced a far greater burden of deaths and severe disease, crippling isolation, widespread societal stigma, and wide-ranging practical difficulties in maintaining access to basic health care and social services - all of which have had significant detrimental effects on their mental and physical wellbeing. In this paper, we present an overview of aging and COVID-19 from the interrelated perspectives of underlying biological mechanisms, physical manifestations, societal aspects, and health services related to the excess risk observed among the elderly population. We conclude that to tackle future pandemics in an efficient manner, it is essential to reform national health systems and response strategies from an age perspective. As the global population continues to age, elderly-focused health services should be integrated into the global health systems and global strategies, especially in low- and middle-income countries with historically underfunded public health infrastructure and insufficient gerontological care.

A novel index-based decision support toolkit for safe reopening following a generalized lockdown in low and middle-income countries.

While the effectiveness of lockdowns to reduce Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) transmission is well established, uncertainties remain on the lifting principles of these restrictive interventions. World Health Organization recommends case positive rate of 5% or lower as a threshold for safe reopening. However, inadequate testing capacity limits the applicability of this recommendation, especially in the low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). To develop a practical reopening strategy for LMICs, in this study, we first identify the optimal timing of safe reopening by exploring accessible epidemiological data of 24 countries during the initial COVID-19 surge. We find that a safe opening can occur two weeks after the crossover of daily infection and recovery rates while maintaining a negative trend in daily new cases. Epidemiologic SIRM model-based example simulation supports our findings. Finally, we develop an easily interpretable large-scale reopening (LSR) index, which is an evidence-based toolkit-to guide/inform reopening decision for LMICs.

An adaptive governance and health system response for the COVID-19 emergency.

In the absence of an efficacious and affordable vaccine, the current crisis of COVID-19 is likely to be a long drawn one for many developing countries. In Bangladesh, where the entire population is susceptible and strict lockdown has been relaxed (as of May 31st 2020) due to concerns over saving livelihoods, the best available resources and capacities in the country have to be mobilized for an integrated and adaptive response strategy. In this paper we argue that a suitable response strategy for a country with highly constrained health system, must consider how response components will be delivered at scale, along with what can be delivered. In order to save maximum number of lives, an optimal strategy will be one that is able to iteratively select the most feasible set of health response and the network of organizations that can deliver most effectively at scale. This might require thinking outside of the conventional vertical network of public health system. Given its history of high-capacity non-government organizations in Bangladesh, it is likely that there are multiple alternative horizontal network options for delivering any set of response interventions. In fact many horizontal networks are already actively engaged in COVID-19 response work. The goal should be to identify and coordinate these networks, create new networks, and embed mechanisms for scaling up what works and scaling down what does not work. For a rapidly escalating and unpredictable crisis such as COVID-19, an adaptive response strategy is needed which allows for old and new networks of organizations to align and work collectively with minimum loss of lives.

Cardiometabolic Health: Key in Reducing Adverse COVID-19 Outcomes.

Whilst current public health measures focused on good hygiene practices and limiting person-to-person transmission contribute effectively in managing the COVID-19 pandemic, they will not prevent all individuals from becoming infected. Thus, it is of importance to explore what individuals could do to mitigate adverse outcomes. The value of beneficial health behaviours and a healthy lifestyle to improve immune functioning and lower adverse consequences of COVID-19 are increasingly being emphasized. Here we discuss seven key health behaviours and corresponding recommendations that may assist in reducing unfavourable COVID-19 outcomes.

Long-term strategies to control COVID-19 in low and middle-income countries: an options overview of community-based, non-pharmacological interventions.

In low and middle-income countries (LMICs), strict social distancing measures (e.g., nationwide lockdown) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic are unsustainable in the long-term due to knock-on socioeconomic and psychological effects. However, an optimal epidemiology-focused strategy for 'safe-reopening' (i.e., balancing between the economic and health consequences) remain unclear, particularly given the suboptimal disease surveillance and diagnostic infrastructure in these settings. As the lockdown is now being relaxed in many LMICs, in this paper, we have (1) conducted an epidemiology-based "options appraisal" of various available non-pharmacological intervention options that can be employed to safely lift the lockdowns (namely, sustained mitigation, zonal lockdown and rolling lockdown strategies), and (2) propose suitable application, pre-requisites, and inherent limitations for each measure. Among these, a sustained mitigation-only approach (adopted in many high-income countries) may not be feasible in most LMIC settings given the absence of nationwide population surveillance, generalised testing, contact tracing and critical care infrastructure needed to tackle the likely resurgence of infections. By contrast, zonal or local lockdowns may be suitable for some countries where systematic identification of new outbreak clusters in real-time would be feasible. This requires a generalised testing and surveillance structure, and a well-thought out (and executed) zone management plan. Finally, an intermittent, rolling lockdown strategy has recently been suggested by the World Health Organization as a potential strategy to get the epidemic under control in some LMI settings, where generalised mitigation and zonal containment is unfeasible. This strategy, however, needs to be carefully considered for economic costs and necessary supply chain reforms. In conclusion, while we propose three community-based, non-pharmacological options for LMICs, a suitable measure should be context-specific and based on: (1) epidemiological considerations, (2) social and economic costs, (3) existing health systems capabilities and (4) future-proof plans to implement and sustain the strategy.

Dynamic interventions to control COVID-19 pandemic: a multivariate prediction modelling study comparing 16 worldwide countries

To date, non-pharmacological interventions (NPI) have been the mainstay for controlling the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While NPIs are effective in preventing health systems overload, these long-term measures are likely to have significant adverse economic consequences. Therefore, many countries are currently considering to lift the NPIs—increasing the likelihood of disease resurgence. In this regard, dynamic NPIs, with intervals of relaxed social distancing, may provide a more suitable alternative. However, the ideal frequency and duration of intermittent NPIs, and the ideal “break” when interventions can be temporarily relaxed, remain uncertain, especially in resource-poor settings. We employed a multivariate prediction model, based on up-to-date transmission and clinical parameters, to simulate outbreak trajectories in 16 countries, from diverse regions and economic categories. In each country, we then modelled the impacts on intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and deaths over an 18-month period for following scenarios: (1) no intervention, (2) consecutive cycles of mitigation measures followed by a relaxation period, and (3) consecutive cycles of suppression measures followed by a relaxation period. We defined these dynamic interventions based on reduction of the mean reproduction number during each cycle, assuming a basic reproduction number (R0) of 2.2 for no intervention, and subsequent effective reproduction numbers (R) of 0.8 and 0.5 for illustrative dynamic mitigation and suppression interventions, respectively. We found that dynamic cycles of 50-day mitigation followed by a 30-day relaxation reduced transmission, however, were unsuccessful in lowering ICU hospitalizations below manageable limits. By contrast, dynamic cycles of 50-day suppression followed by a 30-day relaxation kept the ICU demands below the national capacities. Additionally, we estimated that a significant number of new infections and deaths, especially in resource-poor countries, would be averted if these dynamic suppression measures were kept in place over an 18-month period. This multi-country analysis demonstrates that intermittent reductions of R below 1 through a potential combination of suppression interventions and relaxation can be an effective strategy for COVID-19 pandemic control. Such a “schedule” of social distancing might be particularly relevant to low-income countries, where a single, prolonged suppression intervention is unsustainable. Efficient implementation of dynamic suppression interventions, therefore, confers a pragmatic option to: (1) prevent critical care overload and deaths, (2) gain time to develop preventive and clinical measures, and (3) reduce economic hardship globally.