[The different periods of COVID-19 in Germany: a descriptive analysis from January 2020 to February 2021]. / Die verschiedenen Phasen der COVID-19-Pandemie in Deutschland: Eine deskriptive Analyse von Januar 2020 bis Februar 2021.

The first case of coronavirus SARS-CoV­2 infection in Germany was diagnosed on 27 January 2020. To describe the pandemic course in 2020, we regarded four epidemiologically different periods and used data on COVID-19 cases from the mandatory reporting system as well as hospitalized COVID-19 cases with severe acute respiratory infection from the syndromic hospital surveillance.Period 0 covers weeks 5 to 9 of 2020, where mainly sporadic cases of younger age were observed and few regional outbreaks emerged. In total, 167 cases with mostly mild outcomes were reported. Subsequently, the first COVID-19 wave occurred in period 1 (weeks 10 to 20 of 2020) with a total of 175,013 cases throughout Germany. Increasingly, outbreaks in hospitals and nursing homes were registered. Moreover, elderly cases and severe outcomes were observed more frequently. Period 2 (weeks 21 to 39 of 2020) was an interim period with more mild cases, where many cases were younger and often travel-associated. Additionally, larger trans-regional outbreaks in business settings were reported. Among the 111,790 cases, severe outcomes were less frequent than in period 1. In period 3 (week 40 of 2020 to week 8 of 2021), the second COVID-19 wave started and peaked at the end of 2020. With 2,158,013 reported cases and considerably more severe outcomes in all age groups, the second wave was substantially stronger than the first wave.Irrespective of the different periods, more elderly persons and more men were affected by severe outcomes.

[Measures to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany: nonpharmaceutical and pharmaceutical interventions]. / Maßnahmen zur Bewältigung der COVID-19-Pandemie in Deutschland: nichtpharmakologische und pharmakologische Ansätze.

When the emerging novel SARS-CoV­2 virus first appeared in December 2019, neither specific therapeutic options nor vaccinations were available. The role of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) became of central importance. At the Robert Koch Institute, a multilayer strategy consisting of population-based and individual preventive measures to control the pandemic was developed, which built upon existing influenza pandemic plans as well as generic plans. This paper explains the recommended NPIs and illustrates the pharmaceutical approaches developed in parallel.Among others, general contact bans, providing material for infection prevention and control, ban of events, closing educational institutions, and restricting travel are counted among population-based measures. Additional individual preventive measures are necessary, e.g., keeping a minimum distance, reducing contacts, and wearing a mouth-nose covering as well as quarantine and isolation. Measures within the health system are based on recommendations of the Commission on Hospital Hygiene and Infection Protection (Kommission für Krankenhaushygiene und Infektionsprävention (KRINKO)) and specified and implemented by professional societies. Since November 2020, an antiviral therapy with remdesivir and treatment with the glucocorticoid dexamethasone have been available as pharmaceutical interventions. Monoclonal antibodies are at this time not approved. Therapeutic anticoagulation is recommended.Recommendations are constantly adapted to the increasing knowledge on the pathogen and its means of transmission. A challenge is to strengthen the trust of the population. Many measures have to be applied on an individual basis in order to work together.

[Crisis management at the Robert Koch Institute during the COVID-19 pandemic and the exchange between federal and state governments]. / Das Lagemanagement des Robert Koch-Instituts während der COVID-19-Pandemie und der Austausch zwischen Bund und Ländern.

The Robert Koch Institute (RKI) plays a central role in Germany in the management of health hazards of biological origin. The RKI's crisis management aims to contribute to protecting the health of the population in Germany in significant epidemic situations and to maintain the RKI's working ability over a long period of time even under high load. This article illustrates the crisis management of the RKI in general as well as during the COVID-19 pandemic. The generic RKI crisis management structures and the setup of the RKI emergency operations centre (EOC), their operationalisation in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting challenges as of 31 October 2020 are described in this paper. The exchange between the federal and state governments during the pandemic is also described.The COVID-19 pandemic has led to extraordinary circumstances. During the epidemic situation, good communication and coordination has been essential, both within the RKI and with other federal or state authorities and expert groups. Under great pressure, the RKI produces and regularly updates recommendations, statements and assessments on various topics. To provide operational support for all COVID-19 related activities, an EOC was activated at the RKI. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there are various challenges regarding personnel and structures. It became apparent that good preparation (e.g. existing task descriptions and premises) has an important positive impact on crisis management.

COVID-19 in the Greater Mekong Subregion: how resilient are rural households?

In this paper we submit some thoughts on the possible implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for rural people in the countries of the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS). We base our observations and conclusions on our long-term research experience in the region. The paper focuses on the economics of rural households during this crisis period and its aftermath. We conclude that country differences clearly exist due to their different stages of development. However, while rural households belong to the Corona risk groups, they are also resilient to such a shock. We submit that Governments in the GMS should strengthen policies that conserve the safety-net function of rural villages.