ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused nations to adopt unprecedented control measures in order to curb its spread. As the first nation to respond, China's aggressive control measures appeared to have been effective in suppressing the first wave and keeping new cases under control. Here, we provide the historical context and details of China's public health response to COVID-19. We highlight the lessons and impact of the 2002-2003 SARS outbreak, which demonstrated the importance of transparency, surveillance and testing laboratories during an outbreak. We provide an overview of China's response strategy that was based on the principles of early detection, isolation, management and treatment and involved not only the large-scale coordination of multiple governmental bodies but also grass-root community participation throughout the country. These community-based organizations conducted active surveillance for febrile cases and provided support for those in quarantine and communities in lockdown. Importantly, these broader measures were supported by digital technology, including the extensive use of internet-based platforms and mobile applications (APPs). While there have been no significant increases in case numbers since April, there is still much concern over a second wave, considering the resumption of work and school, the lifting of travel restrictions and the outbreaks occurring globally. Control measures has since been implemented by provincial authorities, which includes continued surveillance and rapid testing. Although China's strict control measures may not suit every nation, the principles of early detection and isolation continue to hold true and have been a cornerstone of the initial and ongoing response to the COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Severe COVID-19 patients typically test positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA for extended periods of time, even after recovery from severe disease. Due to the timeframe involved, these patients may have developed humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2 while still testing positive for viral RNA in swabs. Data are lacking on exposure risks in these situations. Here, we studied SARS-CoV-2 environmental contamination in an ICU and an isolation ward caring for such COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We collected air and surface samples in a hospital caring for critical and severe COVID-19 cases from common areas and areas proximal to patients. RESULTS: Of the 218 ICU samples, an air sample contained SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Of the 182 isolation ward samples, nine contained SARS-CoV-2 RNA. These were collected from a facemask, the floor, mobile phones, and the air in the patient room and bathroom. Serum antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in these patients at the beginning of the study. CONCLUSIONS: While there is a perception of increased risk in the ICU, our study demonstrates that isolation wards may pose greater risks to healthcare workers and exposure risks remain with clinically improved patients, weeks after their initial diagnoses. As these patients had serum antibodies, further studies may be warranted to study the utility of serum antibodies as a surrogate of viral clearance in allowing people to return to work. We recommend continued vigilance even with patients who appear to have recovered from COVID-19.