Differentiating impacts of non-pharmaceutical interventions on non-coronavirus disease-2019 respiratory viral infections: Hospital-based retrospective observational study in Taiwan.

BACKGROUND: Physical distancing and facemask use are worldwide recognized as effective non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) against the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Since January 2020, Taiwan has introduced both NPIs but their effectiveness on non-COVID-19 respiratory viruses (NCRVs) remain underexplored. METHODS: This retrospective observational study examined electronic records at a tertiary hospital in northern Taiwan from pre-COVID (January-December 2019) to post-COVID period (January-May 2020). Patients with respiratory syndromes were tested for both enveloped (eg, influenza virus and seasonal coronavirus) and non-enveloped RVs (eg, enterovirus and rhinovirus) using multiplex reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assays. Monthly positivity rates of NCRVs among adult and pediatric patients were analyzed with comparison between pre- and post-COVID periods. RESULTS: A total of 9693 patients underwent 12 127 multiplex RT-PCR tests. The average positivity rate of NCRVs reduced by 11.2% (25.6% to 14.4%) after nationwide PHIs. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the most commonly identified enveloped and non-enveloped viruses were influenza virus and enterovirus/rhinovirus, respectively. Observed reduction in NCRV incidence was predominantly contributed by enveloped NCRVs including influenza viruses. We did not observe epidemiological impacts of NPIs on non-enveloped viruses but an increasing trend in enterovirus/rhinovirus test positivity rate among pediatric patients. Our data were validated using Taiwan's national notification database. CONCLUSIONS: Our frontline investigation suggests that the current NPIs in Taiwan might not effectively control the transmission of non-enveloped respiratory viruses, despite their protective effects against influenza and seasonal coronavirus. Health authorities may consider using hydrogen peroxide or chloride-based disinfectants as additional preventative strategies against non-enveloped respiratory viruses in the post-COVID-19 era.

Social consequences of mass quarantine during epidemics: a systematic review with implications for the COVID-19 response.

Four billion people worldwide have experienced coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) confinement. Such unprecedented extent of mobility restriction to curb the COVID-19 pandemic may have profound impacts on how individuals live, travel and retain well-being. This systematic review aims to identify (i) the social consequences of mass quarantine-community-wide movement restrictions-during previous and current infectious disease outbreaks and (ii) recommended strategies to mitigate the negative social implications of COVID-19 lockdowns. Considering social determinants of health, we conducted a systematic review by searching five databases (Ovid-MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and the World Health Organization COVID-19 database) for publications from inception to 9 April 2020. No limitation was set on language, location or study type. Studies that (i) contained peer-reviewed original empirical evidence and (ii) focussed on non-epidemiological implications of mass quarantine were included. We thematically synthesized and reported data due to heterogeneous disease and country context. Of 3067 publications found, 15 original peer-reviewed articles were selected for full-text extraction. Psychological distress, heightened communication inequalities, food insecurity, economic challenges, diminished access to health care, alternative delivery of education and gender-based violence were identified as negative social consequences of community-based quarantine in six infectious disease epidemics, including the current COVID-19 pandemic. In contrast, altruistic attitudes were identified as a positive consequence during previous quarantines. Diverse psychological and social consequences of mass quarantine in previous and current epidemics were evident, but individual country policies had been highly varied in how well they addressed the needs of affected individuals, especially those who are socially marginalized. Policymakers should balance the pros and cons of movement restrictions, facilitate multisectoral action to tackle social inequalities, provide clear and coherent guidance to the public and undertake time-bound policy evaluations to mitigate the negative impact of COVID-19 lockdowns and to establish preparedness strategies for future epidemics.