Misperceptions of COVID-19 illness risk and preferences for business and school closures in the United States.

Misperceptions about COVID-19 health risks may be associated with preferences for school and business closures and fear of becoming seriously ill. We analyzed data from the Franklin Templeton-Gallup Economic of Recovery Study (July-December 2020, N = 35,068). Primary outcomes were whether a respondent favored closure of businesses or in-person schooling for elementary/secondary students. We also assessed respondents' fear of COVID-19 illness. We assessed risk misperceptions using respondents' estimates of the proportion of deaths from COVID-19 that occurred in persons under 55 years-old, the proportion of hospitalizations for COVID-19 that occurred in persons under 55 years-old, the mortality rate among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, and the rate of hospitalization for patients infected with COVID-19. The proportion of respondents who favored business closures ranged from 37% to 53%, and the proportion of respondents who favored school closures ranged from 38% to 44%. Most participants reported beliefs about COVID-19 health risks that were inaccurate, and overestimation of health risk was most common. For example, while deaths in persons younger than 55 years-old accounted for 7% of total U.S. deaths, respondents estimated that this population represented 43% of deaths. Overestimating COVID-19 health harms was associated with increased likelihood of fear of serious illness if infected, preferences for business closures, and preferences for school closures. U.S. survey respondents overestimated several COVID-19 risks, and overestimation was associated with increased fear of serious illness and stronger preferences for business/school lockdowns.

Revisiting COVID-19 policies: 10 evidence-based recommendations for where to go from here.

BACKGROUND: Strategies to control coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) have often been based on preliminary and limited data and have tended to be slow to evolve as new evidence emerges. Yet knowledge about COVID-19 has grown exponentially, and the expanding rollout of vaccines presents further opportunity to reassess the response to the pandemic more broadly. MAIN TEXT: We review the latest evidence concerning 10 key COVID-19 policy and strategic areas, specifically addressing: 1) the expansion of equitable vaccine distribution, 2) the need to ease restrictions as hospitalization and mortality rates eventually fall, 3) the advantages of emphasizing educational and harm reduction approaches over coercive and punitive measures, 4) the need to encourage outdoor activities, 5) the imperative to reopen schools, 6) the far-reaching and long-term economic and psychosocial consequences of sustained lockdowns, 7) the excessive focus on surface disinfection and other ineffective measures, 8) the importance of reassessing testing policies and practices, 9) the need for increasing access to outpatient therapies and prophylactics, and 10) the necessity to better prepare for future pandemics. CONCLUSIONS: While remarkably effective vaccines have engendered great hope, some widely held assumptions underlying current policy approaches call for an evidence-based reassessment. COVID-19 will require ongoing mitigation for the foreseeable future as it transforms from a pandemic into an endemic infection, but maintaining a constant state of emergency is not viable. A more realistic public health approach is to adjust current mitigation goals to be more data-driven and to minimize unintended harms associated with unfocused or ineffective control efforts. Based on the latest evidence, we therefore present recommendations for refining 10 key policy areas, and for applying lessons learned from COVID-19 to prevent and prepare for future pandemics.

Association of COVID-19 Risk Misperceptions With Household Isolation in the United States: Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Adverse mental and emotional health outcomes are increasingly recognized as a public health challenge associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to examine the association of COVID-19 risk misperceptions with self-reported household isolation, a potential risk factor for social isolation and loneliness. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Franklin Templeton-Gallup Economics of Recovery Study (July to December 2020) of 24,649 US adults. We also analyzed data from the Gallup Panel (March 2020 to February 2021), which included 123,516 observations about loneliness. The primary outcome was self-reported household isolation, which we defined as a respondent having no contact or very little contact with people outside their household, analogous to quarantining. RESULTS: From July to December 2020, 53% to 57% of respondents reported living in household isolation. Most participants reported beliefs about COVID-19 health risks that were inaccurate, and overestimation of health risk was most common. For example, while deaths in persons younger than 55 years old accounted for 7% of total US deaths, respondents estimated that this population represented 43% of deaths. Overestimating COVID-19 health risks was associated with increased self-reported household isolation, with percentage differences ranging from 5.6 to 11.8 (P<.001 at each time point). Characteristics associated with self-reported household isolation from the July and August 2020 surveys and persisting in the December 2020 survey included younger age (18 to 39 years), having a serious medical condition, having a household member with a serious medical condition, and identifying as a Democrat. In the Gallup Panel, self-reported household isolation was associated with a higher prevalence of loneliness. CONCLUSIONS: Pandemic-related harms to emotional and mental well-being may be attenuated by reducing risk overestimation and household isolation preferences that exceed public health guidelines.

Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19).

The SARS-CoV-2 virus spreading across the world has led to surges of COVID-19 illness, hospitalizations, and death. The complex and multifaceted pathophysiology of life-threatening COVID-19 illness including viral mediated organ damage, cytokine storm, and thrombosis warrants early interventions to address all components of the devastating illness. In countries where therapeutic nihilism is prevalent, patients endure escalating symptoms and without early treatment can succumb to delayed in-hospital care and death. Prompt early initiation of sequenced multidrug therapy (SMDT) is a widely and currently available solution to stem the tide of hospitalizations and death. A multipronged therapeutic approach includes 1) adjuvant nutraceuticals, 2) combination intracellular anti-infective therapy, 3) inhaled/oral corticosteroids, 4) antiplatelet agents/anticoagulants, 5) supportive care including supplemental oxygen, monitoring, and telemedicine. Randomized trials of individual, novel oral therapies have not delivered tools for physicians to combat the pandemic in practice. No single therapeutic option thus far has been entirely effective and therefore a combination is required at this time. An urgent immediate pivot from single drug to SMDT regimens should be employed as a critical strategy to deal with the large numbers of acute COVID-19 patients with the aim of reducing the intensity and duration of symptoms and avoiding hospitalization and death.