Explore the vast range of titles available.

Collects first-hand experiences from around the world of people creating their own networks of solidarity and mutual aid in the time of Covid-19.

A versatile portfolio of diagnostic tests is essential for the containment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Besides nucleic acid-based test systems and point-of-care (POCT) antigen (Ag) tests, quantitative, laboratory-based nucleocapsid Ag tests for SARS-CoV-2 have recently been launched. Here, we evaluated four commercial Ag tests on automated platforms and one POCT to detect SARS-CoV-2. We evaluated PCR-positive ( n  = 107) and PCR-negative ( n  = 303) respiratory swabs from asymptomatic and symptomatic patients at the end of the second pandemic wave in Germany (February–March 2021) as well as clinical isolates EU1 (B.1.117), variant of concern (VOC) Alpha (B.1.1.7) or Beta (B.1.351), which had been expanded in a biosafety level 3 laboratory. The specificities of automated SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests ranged between 97.0 and 99.7% (Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Fujirebio): 97.03%, Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Roche Diagnostics): 97.69%; LIAISON ® SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Diasorin) and SARS-CoV-2 Ag ELISA (Euroimmun): 99.67%). In this study cohort of hospitalized patients, the clinical sensitivities of tests were low, ranging from 17.76 to 52.34%, and analytical sensitivities ranged from 420,000 to 25,000,000 Geq/ml. In comparison, the detection limit of the Roche Rapid Ag Test (RAT) was 9,300,000 Geq/ml, detecting 23.58% of respiratory samples. Receiver-operating-characteristics (ROCs) and Youden’s index analyses were performed to further characterize the assays’ overall performance and determine optimal assay cutoffs for sensitivity and specificity. VOCs carrying up to four amino acid mutations in nucleocapsid were detected by all five assays with characteristics comparable to non-VOCs. In summary, automated, quantitative SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests show variable performance and are not necessarily superior to a standard POCT. The efficacy of any alternative testing strategies to complement nucleic acid-based assays must be carefully evaluated by independent laboratories prior to widespread implementation.

\"We are living in a strange world--Salmon calls it \"the New Not Normal.\" The Phoenix Economy explores the ramifications of the pandemic years, many of which are surprisingly positive. In doing so, Salmon makes sense of one of the most disorienting and devastating events of our lifetimes. He examines the critical aspects of our lives that have been transformed in three parts: Time and Space, Mind and Body, and Business and Pleasure. Salmon's keen observations, on everything from meme stocks to lobster rolls, are backed by a deep understanding of financial markets and the quirks of human behavior. His clear-eyed perspective on human and economic events, combined with his considerable analytical and observational skills, make The Phoenix Economy an insightful, fast-paced read. This book is essential for anyone wanting a better understanding of the near- and long-term effects of this new era and what they portend for our lives. It's a penetrating insight into what happened--and, more important, what lies ahead\"--Dust jacket front flap.

Objectives In this cluster-randomised controlled study (CoV-Surv Study), four different “active” SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies for general population surveillance are evaluated for their effectiveness in determining and predicting the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infections in a given population. In addition, the costs and cost-effectiveness of the four surveillance strategies will be assessed. Further, this trial is supplemented by a qualitative component to determine the acceptability of each strategy. Findings will inform the choice of the most effective, acceptable and affordable strategy for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance, with the most effective and cost-effective strategy becoming part of the local public health department’s current routine health surveillance activities. Investigating its everyday performance will allow us to examine the strategy’s applicability to real time prevalence prediction and the usefulness of the resulting information for local policy makers to implement countermeasures that effectively prevent future nationwide lockdowns. The authors would like to emphasize the importance and relevance of this study and its expected findings in the context of population-based disease surveillance, especially in respect to the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In Germany, but also in many other countries, COVID-19 surveillance has so far largely relied on passive surveillance strategies that identify individuals with clinical symptoms, monitor those cases who then tested positive for the virus, followed by tracing of individuals in close contact to those positive cases. To achieve higher effectiveness in population surveillance and to reliably predict the course of an outbreak, screening and monitoring of infected individuals without major symptoms (about 40% of the population) will be necessary. While current testing capacities are also used to identify such asymptomatic cases, this rather passive approach is not suitable in generating reliable population-based estimates of the prevalence of asymptomatic carriers to allow any dependable predictions on the course of the pandemic. To better control and manage the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, current strategies therefore need to be complemented by an active surveillance of the wider population, i.e. routinely conducted testing and monitoring activities to identify and isolate infected individuals regardless of their clinical symptoms. Such active surveillance strategies will enable more effective prevention of the spread of the virus as they can generate more precise population-based parameters during a pandemic. This essential information will be required in order to determine the best strategic and targeted short-term countermeasures to limit infection spread locally. Trial design This trial implements a cluster-randomised, two-factorial controlled, prospective, interventional, single-blinded design with four study arms, each representing a different SARS-CoV-2 testing and surveillance strategy. Participants Eligible are individuals age 7 years or older living in Germany’s Rhein-Neckar Region who consent to provide a saliva sample (all four arms) after completion of a brief questionnaire (two arms only). For the qualitative component, different samples of study participants and non-participants (i.e. eligible for study, but refuse to participate) will be identified for additional interviews. For these interviews, only individuals age 18 years or older are eligible. Intervention and comparator Of the four surveillance strategies to be assessed and compared, Strategy A1 is considered the gold standard for prevalence estimation and used to determine bias in other arms. To determine the cost-effectiveness, each strategy is compared to status quo, defined as the currently practiced passive surveillance approach. Strategy A1: Individuals (one per household) receive information and study material by mail with instructions on how to produce a saliva sample and how to return the sample by mail. Once received by the laboratory, the sample is tested for SARS-CoV-2 using Reverse Transcription Loop-mediated Isothermal Amplification (RT-LAMP). Strategy A2: Individuals (one per household) receive information and study material by mail with instructions on how to produce their own as well as saliva samples from each household member and how to return these samples by mail. Once received by the laboratory, the samples are tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-LAMP. Strategy B1: Individuals (one per household) receive information by mail on how to complete a brief pre-screening questionnaire which asks about COVID-19 related clinical symptoms and risk exposures. Only individuals whose pre-screening score crosses a defined threshold, will then receive additional study material by mail with instructions on how to produce a saliva sample and how to return the sample by mail. Once received by the laboratory, the saliva sample is tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-LAMP. Strategy B2: Individuals (one per household) receive information by mail on how to complete a brief pre-screening questionnaire which asks about COVID-19 related clinical symptoms. Only individuals whose pre-screening score crosses a defined threshold, will then receive additional study material by mail with instructions how to produce their own as well as saliva samples from each household member and how to return these samples by mail. Once received by the laboratory, the samples are tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-LAMP. In each strategy, RT-LAMP positive samples are additionally analyzed with qPCR in order to minimize the number of false positives. Main outcomes The identification of the one best strategy will be determined by a set of parameters. Primary outcomes include costs per correctly screened person, costs per positive case, positive detection rate, and precision of positive detection rate. Secondary outcomes include participation rate, costs per asymptomatic case, prevalence estimates, number of asymptomatic cases per study arm, ratio of symptomatic to asymptomatic cases per study arm, participant satisfaction. Additional study components (not part of the trial) include cost effectiveness of each of the four surveillance strategies compared to passive monitoring (i.e. status quo), development of a prognostic model to predict hospital utilization caused by SARS-CoV-2, time from test shipment to test application and time from test shipment to test result, and perception and preferences of the persons to be tested with regard to test strategies. Randomisation Samples are drawn in three batches of three continuous weeks. Randomisation follows a two-stage process. First, a total of 220 sampling points have been allocated to the three different batches. To obtain an integer solution, the Cox-algorithm for controlled rounding has been used. Afterwards, sample points have been drawn separately per batch, following a probability proportional to size (PPS) random sample. Second, for each cluster the same number of residential addresses is randomly sampled from the municipal registries (self-weighted sample of individuals). The 28,125 addresses drawn per municipality are then randomly allocated to the four study arms A1, A2, B1, and B2 in the ratio 5 to 2.5 to 14 to 7 based on the expected response rates in each arm and the sensitivity and specificity of the pre-screening tool as applied in strategy B1 and B2. Based on the assumptions, this allocation should yield 2500 saliva samples in each strategy. Although a municipality can be sampled by multiple batches and the overall number of addresses per municipality might vary, the number of addresses contacted in each arm is kept constant. Blinding (masking) The design is single-blinded, meaning the staff conducting the SARS-CoV-2 tests are unaware of the study arm assignment of each single participant and test sample. Sample sizes Total sample size for the trial is 10,000 saliva samples equally allocated to the four study arms (i.e. 2,500 participants per arm). For the qualitative component, up to 60 in-depth interviews will be conducted with about 30 study participants (up to 15 in each arm A and B) and 30 participation refusers (up to 15 in each arm A and B) purposefully selected from the quantitative study sample to represent a variety of gender and ages to explore experiences with admission or rejection of study participation. Up to 25 asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 positive study participants will be purposefully selected to explore the way in which asymptomatic men and women diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 give meaning to their diagnosis and to the dialectic between feeling concurrently healthy and yet also being at risk for transmitting COVID-19. In addition, 100 randomly selected study participants will be included to explore participants’ perspective on testing processes and implementation. Trial Status Final protocol version is “Surveillance_Studienprotokoll_03Nov2020_v1_2” from November 3, 2020. Recruitment started November 18, 2020 and is expected to end by or before December 31, 2020. Trial registration The trial is currently being registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien), DRKS00023271 ( https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial . HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00023271). Retrospectively registered 30 November 2020. Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1 ). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

We conducted a rapid, mixed-methods assessment to understand how COVID-19 affected Latinx sexual minority men (LSMM) and transgender women (LTGW). Using a computer-assisted telephone interviewing software, one interviewer called 52 participants (randomly sampled from a larger HIV prevention pilot study aiming to increase HIV knowledge and testing frequency; n = 36 LSMM and n = 16 LTGW) between 04/27/20-05/18/20. We quantified core domains using the Epidemic-Pandemic Impacts Inventory scale and provided important context through open-ended qualitative questions assessing: 1) COVID-19 infection history and experiences with quarantine; 2) Health and healthcare access; 3) Employment and economic impact of COVID-19. Participants reported increases in physical conflict or verbal arguments with a partner (13.5%) or other adult(s) (19.2%) due to stressors associated with the safer-at-home order. Participants also reported increased alcohol consumption (23.1%), problems with sleep (67.3%) and mental health (78.4%). Further, disruptions in access to Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis or PrEP–a daily pill to prevent HIV–occurred (33.3% of 18 participants who reported being on PrEP). Many said they received less medical attention than usual (34.6%), and LTGW reported delays in critical gender-affirming hormones/procedures. Half of the participants lost their jobs (50.0%); many undocumented participants relayed additional financial concerns because they did not qualify for financial assistance. Though no COVID-19 infections were noted, COVID-19 dramatically impacted other aspects of health and overall wellbeing of LSMM and LTGW. Public health responses should address the stressors faced by LSMM and LTGW during the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact on wellbeing.

\"In March 2020, economic and social life across the United States came to an abrupt halt as the country tried to slow the spread of COVID-19. In the worst economic contraction since the Great Depression, twenty-two million people lost their jobs between mid-March and mid-April of 2020. And yet somehow the finances of most Americans improved during the pandemic--savings went up, debts went down, and fewer people had trouble paying their bills. In The Pandemic Paradox, economist Scott Fulford explains this seeming contradiction, describing how the pandemic reshaped the American economy. As Americans grappled with remote work, \"essential\" work, and closed schools, three massive pandemic relief bills, starting with the CARES Act on March 27, 2020, managed to protect many of America's most vulnerable. Fulford draws from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's \"Making Ends Meet\" surveys--which he helped design--to interweave macroeconomic trends in spending, saving, and debt with stories of individual Americans' economic lives during the pandemic. We meet Winona, who quit her job to take care of her children; Marvin, who retired early and worried that his savings wouldn't last; Lisa, whose expenses went up after her grown kids (and their dog) moved back home; and many others. What the statistics and the stories show, Fulford argues, is that a better, fairer, more productive economy is still possible. The success of pandemic relief policy proves that Americans' economic fragility is not an unsolvable problem. But we have to choose to solve it.\"--Amazon.com.

Despite the rapid development of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines and the widely recognized health and economic benefits of vaccination, there exist stark differences in vaccination rates across country income groups. While more than 70% of the population is fully vaccinated in high-income countries, vaccination rates in low-income countries are only around 30%. The paper reviews the factors behind global COVID-19 vaccine inequity and the health, social, and economic costs triggered by this inequity. The main contributors to vaccine inequity include vaccine nationalism, intellectual property rights, constraints in manufacturing capacity, poor resilience of healthcare systems, and vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine inequity has high costs, including preventable deaths and cases of illnesses in low-income countries, slow economic recovery, and large learning losses among children. Increasing vaccination rates in low-income countries is in the self-interest of higher-income countries as it may prevent the emergence of new variants and continuous disruptions to global supply chains.

\"In 2020, hundreds of thousands of coronavirus deaths were caused not by the vicissitudes of nature but by the callous and opportunistic decisions of powerful people, as revealed here by John Nichols\"-- Provided by publisher

Background Following the COVID-19 pandemic, millions of people continue to experience ongoing physical and mental health sequelae after recovery from acute infection. There is currently no specific treatment for the diverse symptoms associated with post-COVID-19 condition. Physical and mental health rehabilitation may help improve quality of life in such patients. This study reports the cost-effectiveness of a programme of physical and mental health rehabilitation compared to best practice usual care in people with post-COVID-19 condition who were previously hospitalised. Methods We conducted an economic evaluation within a randomised controlled trial from the perspective of the UK national health service (NHS) and personnel social services perspective (PSS). Resource used and health-related quality of life were collected using bespoke questionnaire and the EQ-5D-5 L questionnaire at three, six, and 12 months. Incremental costs and quality adjusted life years accrued over the follow-up period were estimated and reported as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Estimate uncertainty was managed by multiple imputation and bootstrapping cost-effectiveness estimates; and displayed graphically on the cost-effectiveness plane. Results Over a 12-month time horizon, incremental costs and QALYs were £305 (95% CI: -123 to 732) and 0.026 (95% CI: -0.005 to 0.052) respectively. The ICER was £11,941 per QALY indicating cost-effective care. Sensitivity analyses supported the base case findings. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective at a £30,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold was 84%. Conclusion The within-trial economic evaluation suggested that people with post-COVID-19 condition after hospitalisation should be offered a programme of physical and mental health rehabilitation as it likely reflects a cost-effective use of NHS resources. Hospitalisation for COVID-19 has become less commonplace: further evaluation in non-hospitalised patients may be worthwhile. Trial registration ISRCTN registry ISRCTN11466448 23rd November 2020.