Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 88
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 17(3): e0265346, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1745309

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite substantial evidence on the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), there is still limited evidence on the individual effects of different types of NPIs on social distancing, especially in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We used panel data analysis to evaluate the effects of mandatory social distancing rules on social distancing. We obtained data on six different categories of mandatory restrictions implemented in Brazil, by date and state, from state government gazettes (diários oficiais). We then defined a social distancing rules index (SDI) to measure the strictness of social distancing rules, assigning each a value of 2, 1, or 0 depending on whether restrictions were full, partial, or very limited/non-existent at every given time. A separate variable was defined for masking mandates. We tested whether the following variables were associated to social distancing: SDI, masking mandates, COVID-19 incidence, population socioeconomic status, and political orientation. Data is for each day between March 11th and November 10th, 2020 in the 27 Brazilian states (N = 6615). FINDINGS: Social distancing increased when social distancing rules were stricter, and decreased when the use of face masks became mandatory. The effects of different types of restrictions varied: suspending in-person classes and gatherings, religious/sport/cultural activities had a greater effect than other types of restrictions. Also, the effect of social distancing rules on people's behaviour decreased over time, especially when rules were stricter. INTERPRETATION: Mandatory social distancing rules must be adopted to increase social distancing. Stricter rules have a higher impact, but result in decreased compliance over time. Policymakers should prioritize more targeted policies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Physical Distancing , Brazil/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Mandatory Programs/statistics & numerical data , Models, Statistical , Politics , Socioeconomic Factors
6.
South Med J ; 115(3): 175-180, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1718124

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in unprecedented hospitalizations, ventilator use, and deaths. Because of concerns for resource utilization and surges in hospital capacity use, Texas Executive Order GA-29 required statewide mask wear beginning July 3, 2020. Our objective was to compare COVID-19 case load, hospital bed use, and deaths before and after implementation of this mask order. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study using publicly reported statewide data to perform a mixed-methods interrupted time series analysis. We compared outcomes before and after the statewide mask wear mandate per Executive Order GA-29. The preorder period was from June 19 to July 2, 2020. The postorder period was July 17 to September 17, 2020. Outcomes included daily COVID-19 case load, hospitalizations, and mortality. RESULTS: The daily case load before the mask order per 100,000 individuals was 187.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] 157.0-217.0) versus 200.7 (95% CI 179.8-221.6) after GA-29. The number of daily hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was 171.4 (95% CI 143.8-199.0) before GA-29 versus 225.1 (95% CI 202.9-247.3) after. Daily mortality was 2.4 (95% CI 1.9-2.9) before GA-29 versus 5.2 (95% CI 4.6-5.8). There was no material impact on our results after controlling for economic activity. CONCLUSIONS: In both adjusted and unadjusted analyses, we were unable to detect a reduction in case load, hospitalization rates, or mortality associated with the implementation of an executive order requiring a statewide mask order. These results suggest that during a period of rapid virus spread, additional public health measures may be necessary to mitigate transmission at the population level.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Mandatory Programs , Masks , Workload/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/prevention & control , Facilities and Services Utilization , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Interrupted Time Series Analysis , Retrospective Studies , Survival Rate , Texas
7.
Anesth Analg ; 134(3): 524-531, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1709740

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases continue to surge in the United States with the emergence of new variants. Statewide variability and inconsistency in implementing risk mitigation strategies are widespread, particularly in regards to enforcing mask mandates and encouraging the public to become fully vaccinated. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study conducted on July 31, 2021, utilizing publicly available data from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services. The authors abstracted data on total COVID-19-related cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the state of Wisconsin. The primary objective was comparison of total COVID-19-related cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in vaccinated versus unvaccinated people in the state of Wisconsin over a 31-day period (July 2021). Furthermore, we also performed a narrative review of the literature on COVID-19-related outcomes based on mask use and vaccination status. RESULTS: In the state of Wisconsin during July 2021, total COVID-19 cases was 125.4 per 100,000 fully vaccinated people versus 369.2 per 100,000 not fully vaccinated people (odds ratio [OR] = 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33-0.35; P < .001). Total COVID-19 hospitalizations was 4.9 per 100,000 fully vaccinated people versus 18.2 per 100,000 not fully vaccinated people (OR = 0.27, 98% CI, 0.22-0.32; P < .001). Total COVID-19 deaths was 0.1 per 100,000 fully vaccinated people versus 1.1 per 100,000 not fully vaccinated people (OR = 0.09, 95% CI, 0.03-0.29; P < .001). Narrative review of the literature demonstrated high vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection prevention (79%-100% among fully vaccinated people), COVID-19-related hospitalization (87%-98% among fully vaccinated people), and COVID-19-related death (96.7%-98% among fully vaccinated people). Studies have also generally reported that mask use was associated with increased effectiveness in preventing COVID-19 infection ≤70%. CONCLUSIONS: Strict adherence to public mask use and fully vaccinated status are associated with improved COVID-19-related outcomes and can mitigate the spread, morbidity, and mortality of COVID-19. Anesthesiologists and intensivists should adhere to evidence-based guidelines in their approach and management of patients to help mitigate spread.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Cost of Illness , Hospitalization/trends , Mandatory Programs/trends , Masks/trends , Vaccination/trends , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Data Interpretation, Statistical , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Mandatory Programs/statistics & numerical data , Masks/statistics & numerical data , Mortality/trends , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Wisconsin/epidemiology
12.
Intern Med J ; 52(1): 11-13, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1642671
15.
Lancet Public Health ; 7(1): e15-e22, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1586157

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Mandatory COVID-19 certification (showing vaccination, recent negative test, or proof of recovery) has been introduced in some countries. We aimed to investigate the effect of certification on vaccine uptake. METHODS: We designed a synthetic control model comparing six countries (Denmark, Israel, Italy, France, Germany, and Switzerland) that introduced certification (April-August, 2021), with 19 control countries. Using daily data on cases, deaths, vaccinations, and country-specific information, we produced a counterfactual trend estimating what might have happened in similar circumstances if certificates were not introduced. The main outcome was daily COVID-19 vaccine doses. FINDINGS: COVID-19 certification led to increased vaccinations 20 days before implementation in anticipation, with a lasting effect up to 40 days after. Countries with pre-intervention uptake that was below average had a more pronounced increase in daily vaccinations compared with those where uptake was already average or higher. In France, doses exceeded 55 672 (95% CI 49 668-73 707) vaccines per million population or, in absolute terms, 3 761 440 (3 355 761-4 979 952) doses before mandatory certification and 72 151 (37 940-114 140) per million population after certification (4 874 857 [2 563 396-7 711 769] doses). We found no effect in countries that already had average uptake (Germany), or an unclear effect when certificates were introduced during a period of limited vaccine supply (Denmark). Increase in uptake was highest for people younger than 30 years after the introduction of certification. Access restrictions linked to certain settings (nightclubs and events with >1000 people) were associated with increased uptake in those younger than 20 years. When certification was extended to broader settings, uptake remained high in the youngest group, but increases were also observed in those aged 30-49 years. INTERPRETATION: Mandatory COVID-19 certification could increase vaccine uptake, but interpretation and transferability of findings need to be considered in the context of pre-existing levels of vaccine uptake and hesitancy, eligibility changes, and the pandemic trajectory. FUNDING: Leverhulme Trust and European Research Council.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Certification , Mandatory Programs , Vaccination Coverage/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination Coverage/trends , Adolescent , Adult , Child , Denmark , Empirical Research , France , Germany , Humans , Israel , Italy , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Switzerland , Young Adult
17.
Int J Cancer ; 150(3): 431-439, 2022 Feb 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1561555

ABSTRACT

We retrospectively analyzed the epidemiological characteristics of cancer patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and their correlations with publicly available mobility data. Between 19 October 2020 and 28 February 2021, 4754 patient visits were carried out, and 1454 treatments have been applied at the Haemato-Oncology Day Hospital Merano. Additional measures to prevent local SARS-CoV-2 transmission included a specific questionnaire for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms as well as a SARS-CoV-2 real-time polymerase-chain reaction (RT-PCR) 2 days prior to any intravenous or subcutaneous therapy. Community mobility was assessed through publicly available mobile phone tracking data from Google; 106/719 (14.7%) cancer patients have been tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR during the second wave compared to 5/640 (0.8%) within the first wave (P < .001); 66/106 (62%) had solid tumors, and 40/106 (38%) had hematological malignancies; 90/106 (85%) patients received ongoing antitumor therapies. Mortality rate of COVID-19 positive cancer patients (7/106; 6.6%) was higher compared to the overall population (731/46 421; 1.6%; P < .001). Strict control measures at our department led to a significantly lower test positivity rate compared to the general population, resulting in a reduction of 58.5% of new SARS-CoV-2 cases. Over time, infection rates and community mobility correlated in the first and second wave after initiating and lifting restrictions. Our findings underscore the importance of strict preventive control measures including testing and contact tracing in vulnerable subpopulations such as cancer patients, particularly if social restriction policies are being lifted. Smartphone-based mobility data may help to guide policy makers to prevent a vulnerable population like cancer patients from virus transmission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Mandatory Programs , Neoplasms/complications , Quarantine , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/virology , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Travel
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL