Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Dose, Infection, and Disease Outcomes for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Review.

The relationship between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) dose, infection, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes remains poorly understood. This review summarizes the existing literature regarding this issue, identifies gaps in current knowledge, and suggests opportunities for future research. In humans, host characteristics, including age, sex, comorbidities, smoking, and pregnancy, are associated with severe COVID-19. Similarly, in animals, host factors are strong determinants of disease severity, although most animal infection models manifest clinically with mild to moderate respiratory disease. The influence of variants of concern as it relates to infectious dose, consequence of overall pathogenicity, and disease outcome in dose-response remains unknown. Epidemiologic data suggest a dose-response relationship for infection contrasting with limited and inconsistent surrogate-based evidence between dose and disease severity. Recommendations include the design of future infection studies in animal models to investigate inoculating dose on outcomes and the use of better proxies for dose in human epidemiology studies.

COVID-19 false dichotomies and a comprehensive review of the evidence regarding public health, COVID-19 symptomatology, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, mask wearing, and reinfection.

Scientists across disciplines, policymakers, and journalists have voiced frustration at the unprecedented polarization and misinformation around coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Several false dichotomies have been used to polarize debates while oversimplifying complex issues. In this comprehensive narrative review, we deconstruct six common COVID-19 false dichotomies, address the evidence on these topics, identify insights relevant to effective pandemic responses, and highlight knowledge gaps and uncertainties. The topics of this review are: 1) Health and lives vs. economy and livelihoods, 2) Indefinite lockdown vs. unlimited reopening, 3) Symptomatic vs. asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, 4) Droplet vs. aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2, 5) Masks for all vs. no masking, and 6) SARS-CoV-2 reinfection vs. no reinfection. We discuss the importance of multidisciplinary integration (health, social, and physical sciences), multilayered approaches to reducing risk ("Emmentaler cheese model"), harm reduction, smart masking, relaxation of interventions, and context-sensitive policymaking for COVID-19 response plans. We also address the challenges in understanding the broad clinical presentation of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. These key issues of science and public health policy have been presented as false dichotomies during the pandemic. However, they are hardly binary, simple, or uniform, and therefore should not be framed as polar extremes. We urge a nuanced understanding of the science and caution against black-or-white messaging, all-or-nothing guidance, and one-size-fits-all approaches. There is a need for meaningful public health communication and science-informed policies that recognize shades of gray, uncertainties, local context, and social determinants of health.

Prevention of COVID-19: Preventive Strategies for General Population, Healthcare Setting, and Various Professions.

The disease 2019 (COVID-19) made a public health emergency in early 2020. Despite attempts for the development of therapeutic modalities, there is no effective treatment yet. Therefore, preventive measures in various settings could help reduce the burden of disease. In this chapter, the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing COVID-19, non-pharmaceutical approaches at individual and population level, chemoprevention, immunoprevention, preventive measures in different healthcare settings and other professions, special considerations in high-risk groups, and the role of organizations to hamper the psychosocial effects will be discussed.

Establishing a Pre-COVID-19 Hospital Biopreparedness Initiative.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)/coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has amplified the role of hospitals in infectious disease response and capacity building. In efforts to respond to the growing volume of cases, hospitals have become a microcosm for US pandemic response. The COVID-19 outbreak has highlighted that hospital preparedness for biological events, such as a pandemic, are often inadequate and dependent on leadership investment in biopreparedness. This article discusses the proactive decision, before COVID-19, that a Phoenix-based hospital system made to invest in high-consequence disease (HCD) preparedness. Within these efforts, a gap analysis was performed, which led to creation of an HCD subcommittee and corresponding efforts to address vulnerabilities and opportunities for improvement. From establishing enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) and infectious disease training for frontline staff, to building an outbreak tracking mechanism for travel alerts within the electronic medical record, the HCD efforts of this hospital system created a stronger foundation to respond to biological events like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Roadblocks to Infection Prevention Efforts in Health Care: SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 Response.

The outbreak of a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, is challenging international public health and health care efforts. As hospitals work to acquire enough personal protective equipment and brace for potential cases, the role of infection prevention efforts and programs has become increasingly important. Lessons from the 2003 SARS-CoV outbreak in Toronto and 2015 MERS-CoV outbreak in South Korea have unveiled the critical role that hospitals play in outbreaks, especially of novel coronaviruses. Their ability to amplify the spread of disease can rapidly fuel transmission of the disease, and often those failures in infection prevention and general hospital practices contribute to such events. While efforts to enhance infection prevention measures and hospital readiness are underway in the United States, it is important to understand why these programs were not able to maintain continued, sustainable levels of readiness. History has shown that infection prevention programs are primarily responsible for preparing hospitals and responding to biological events but face understaffing and focused efforts defined by administrators. The current US health care system, though, is built upon a series of priorities that often view biopreparedness as a costly endeavor. Awareness of these competing priorities and the challenges that infection prevention programs face when working to maintain biopreparedness is critical in adequately addressing this critical infrastructure in the face of an international outbreak.

A Canary in a COVID Coal Mine: Building Better Healthcare Biopreparedness Policy.

The SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic has been devastating to the U.S. health-care system and sheds light on gaps in preparedness and response to biological threats. From limited personal protective equipment to staffing issues, hospitals are struggling to respond to the novel coronavirus outbreak. Unfortunately, hospital biopreparedness is a product of prioritization for hospital leadership and either exists or is neglected. Federal efforts to enhance health-care readiness have done little to drive true change across the U.S. health-care infrastructure. From optional efforts like the tiered hospital approach to special pathogens to the regulatory rule from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, federal efforts to build a resilient health-care infrastructure against biological threats are woefully inadequate and dependent upon hospital leadership priorities. The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed a need to implement regulatory requirements on health-care facilities to invest in continued preparedness for biological events.

Interdisciplinary Information for Infectious Disease Response: Exercising for Improved Medical/Public Health Communication and Collaboration.

Infectious disease threats like the novel coronavirus that emerged in late 2019 continue to demand an increase in preparedness and response capabilities. One capability that is both essential and consistently challenging is information sharing between responding organizations, particularly between public health agencies and health care providers. This policy analysis reviews the threat that infectious diseases continue to pose to the United States, and the role that the Hospital Preparedness Program can play in countering such threats. Current strategies for preparing for, and responding to, infectious disease outbreaks are also reviewed, noting some gaps that need to be addressed. Particular attention is given to challenges in information sharing that continue to hinder effective surveillance and response, despite advances in technology. The study looks at recommendations from biodefense organizations and experts in the field. It concludes with our recommendation that regulatory requirements and funding opportunities for health care institutions emphasize the importance of communication and training in relation to high consequence pathogens. We further recommend that providers in Ebola treatment hospitals be employed to train and educate providers in frontline hospitals in a 'train-the-trainer' model.