A Friend in Need May Not Be a Friend Indeed: Anti-Coronavirus Aid and China's Soft Power in Europe

Is foreign aid an effective soft power tool to bolster the international image of donor states? This article explores this question in the context of China's humanitarian assistance to Europe amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Anti-coronavirus aid generated affinity for Beijing in some receiver countries while backfired in others. Borrowing insights from social psychology, this study presents an explanation for this heterogeneous effect. It argues that beneficiaries' initial views of China predispose Beijing's image to a confirmation bias, leading the perceptions of pandemic aid intent to be aligned with pre-existing assessments. Specifically, receiver states with predominantly favorable views of China tend to appreciate the transfer of resources as an act of goodwill. However, recipient countries which lean towards a negative belief of the PRC are inclined to interpret the assistance as a faulty mask diplomacy to manipulate narratives and to expand geopolitical influence. The theory suggests that foreign aid cannot alter donors' global standing, but rather, it merely reinforces their established images. © 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Qualitative fit test outcomes for N95 filtering facepiece respirators in health care workers.

BACKGROUND: We analyzed the qualitative fit test results of the filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) used at our institution to determine their performance and utility. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 12,582 qualitative fit testing results for several FFR models among 8,809 health care workers (HCWs). RESULTS: The overall failure rate for HCWs was 15.2%. Nearly one-third (2933/8809, 33.3%) had multiple FFRs fit tested. HCW sex was a statistically significant indicator of fit testing failure (χ2 = 29.9, df = 1, P < .001), with women having a 44% higher likelihood (OR, 1.4; 95% CI: 1.27-1.65) than men. There were statistically significant differences in the failure rate across FFRs (Fig 4, F[5, 12475] = 8.4, P < .001). Fluidshield 46867S had a significantly higher failure rate (49%) than the 3M 1860 (P = .012), 3M 1860S (P < .001), 3M 8210 (P < .001), and Safelife (P < .001) FFRs. CONCLUSIONS: There was a large degree of variation in fit testing results for the FFRs tested. Although we were unable to find an FFR that fit more than 95% of the HCWs successfully, we identified poorly functioning FFRs that can help our institution with decision-making and budgeting for acquisition and stocking appropriate FFRs.

Are patients with immune mediated inflammatory diseases (imid) more likely to receive COVID-19 tests and test positive for SARS-CoV-2 a matched population-based study

Background: Population-based data about the COVID-19 risk in patients with IMID remain scarce. Objectives: To investigate the cumulative incidence and risk factors for laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection and SARS-CoV2 testing in patients with IMID compared with matched non-IMID patients from the general population. Methods: A population-based, matched cohort study was conducted using health administrative data from adults living in Ontario, Canada from January to December 2020. Cohorts for each of the following IMID were assembled: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (including lupus, systemic sclerosis, Sjogren's, inflammatory myositis), multiple sclerosis (MS), iritis, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) and vasculitis. Each patient was matched with 5 non-IMID comparators based on age, sex, area of residence and living in long term care (LTC). Standardized cumulative rates of testing for SARS-CoV2, and for receiving a positive test between IMID and non-IMID were compared between IMID and non-IMID patients. Multivariable logistic regression analyses assessed sociodemographic factors associated with COVID-19 testing and positivity. Results: A total of 493,499 IMID patients and 2,466,946 non-IMID comparators were assessed. Significantly more IMID patients versus non-IMID were tested for SARS-CoV2 (27.4% vs. 22.7%), while the proportions of those positive for COVID-19 were identical (0.9% of all patients in both groups). Overall, IMID patients were more likely to undergo SARS-CoV2 testing (odds ratio (OR) 1.28, 95% CI 1.27, 1.29), but their overall risk of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 was not elevated (OR 0.97 (95% CI 0.93, 1)). However, the risk of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection was lower in IBD (OR 0.75), MS (OR 0.77) and psoriasis (OR 0.94) and marginally higher in RA (OR 1.07) and iritis (OR 1.13) compared with non-IMID comparators (Figure 1A). The highest standardized rates of COVID-19 infection were found in vasculitis (115 per 10,000 patients) and iritis (109 per 10,000 patients) (Figure 1B). Risk factors for COVID-19 infection included younger age, living in LTC, multimorbidity, urban living and lower income (Table 1). Conclusion: Patients across all IMID were more likely to be tested for COVID-19 versus non-IMID patients. IMID patients were not at higher risk for testing positive for COVID-19 as an overall group, yet risk varied across disease subgroups.

Paediatric dental-oral medicine clinic: Management during COVID 19

Introduction: Minimising spread of the COVID-19 infection through reducing face-to-face consults is essential. In doing so, alternative assessment and communication methods for management of patients with oral conditions should be considered. Material and methods: Patients on the waiting list for the joint oral medicine-paediatric dental clinic between March and June 2020 were prioritised based on a criteria including relevant medical history, diagnosis and clinical need and current management-monitoring, topical therapy or systemic therapy. A telephone consult method was chosen to assess and follow up patients and a parental satisfaction questionnaire was conducted following telephone consult. Results: Recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) was the most common diagnosis of patients reviewed on the telephone clinic. Overall, the patient satisfaction questionnaire revealed that 100% of respondents would prefer a telephone consult during COVID-19 rather than face-to-face appointments. 74% opted for a video consult in preference to a telephone consult. Conclusion: This service evaluation has found telephone consults to be a valuable alternative to face-to-face consults in the management of patients with chronic oral mucosal diseases. Telephone consultations have high parental satisfaction and are an effective, convenient method to assess and follow up patients whilst maintaining their safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. © 2020 The authors.