Explore the vast range of titles available.

Few novel or emerging infectious diseases have posed such vital ethical challenges so quickly and dramatically as the novel coronavirus SARS‐CoV‐2. The World Health Organization declared a public health emergency of international concern and recently classified Covid‐19 as a worldwide pandemic. As of this writing, the epidemic has not yet peaked in the United States, but community transmission is widespread. President Trump declared a national emergency as fifty governors declared state emergencies. In the coming weeks, hospitals will become overrun, stretched to their capacities. When the health system becomes stretched beyond capacity, how can we ethically allocate scarce health goods and services? How can we ensure that marginalized populations can access the care they need? What ethical duties do we owe to vulnerable people separated from their families and communities? And how do we ethically and legally balance public health with civil liberties?

The ongoing SARS-CoV-2 outbreak marks the first time that large amounts of genome sequence data have been generated and made publicly available in near real time. Early analyses of these data revealed low sequence variation, a finding that is consistent with a recently emerging outbreak, but which raises the question of whether such data are sufficiently informative for phylogenetic inferences of evolutionary rates and time scales. The phylodynamic threshold is a key concept that refers to the point in time at which sufficient molecular evolutionary change has accumulated in available genome samples to obtain robust phylodynamic estimates. For example, before the phylodynamic threshold is reached, genomic variation is so low that even large amounts of genome sequences may be insufficient to estimate the virus’s evolutionary rate and the time scale of an outbreak. We collected genome sequences of SARS-CoV-2 from public databases at eight different points in time and conducted a range of tests of temporal signal to determine if and when the phylodynamic threshold was reached, and the range of inferences that could be reliably drawn from these data. Our results indicate that by 2 February 2020, estimates of evolutionary rates and time scales had become possible. Analyses of subsequent data sets, that included between 47 and 122 genomes, converged at an evolutionary rate of about 1.1 × 10−3 subs/site/year and a time of origin of around late November 2019. Our study provides guidelines to assess the phylodynamic threshold and demonstrates that establishing this threshold constitutes a fundamental step for understanding the power and limitations of early data in outbreak genome surveillance.

BackgroundThe viral persistence in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains to be investigated.MethodsWe investigated the viral loads, therapies, clinical features, and immune responses in a 70-year patient tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 for 3 months.FindingsThe patient exhibited the highest prevalence of abnormal indices of clinical features and immune responses at the first admission, including fever (38.3 ℃), decreased lymphocytes (0.83 × 109/L) and serum potassium (3.1 mmol/L), as well as elevated serum creatinine (115 µmol/L), urea (8.6 mmol/L), and C-reactive protein (80 mg/L). By contrast, at the second and the third admission, these indices were all normal. Through three admissions, IL-2 increased from 0.14 pg/mL, 0.69 pg/mL, to 0.91 pg/mL, while IL-6 decreased from 11.78 pg/mL, 1.52 pg/mL, to 0.69 pg/mL, so did IL-10 from 5.13 pg/mL, 1.85 pg/mL, to 1.75 pg/mL. The steady declining trend was also found in TNF-α (1.49, 1.15, and 0.85 pg/mL) and IFN-γ (0.64, 0.42, and 0.27 pg/mL). The threshold cycle values of RT-PCR were 26.1, 30.5, and 23.5 for ORFlab gene, and 26.2, 30.6, and 22.7 for N gene, showing the patient had higher viral loads at the first and the third admission than during the middle term of the disease. The patient also showed substantially improved acute exudative lesions on the chest CT scanning images.ConclusionsThe patient displayed declining immune responses in spite of the viral shedding for 3 months. We inferred the declining immune responses might result from the segregation of the virus from the immune system.

This study aimed to investigate the perceived work stress and its influencing factors among hospital staff during the novel coronavirus (COVID‐19) pandemic in Taiwan. A web‐based survey was conducted at one medical center and two regional hospitals in southern Taiwan, targeting physicians, nurses, medical examiners, and administrators. The questionnaire included items on the demographic characteristics of hospital staff and a scale to assess stress among healthcare workers caring for patients with a highly infectious disease. A total of 752 valid questionnaires were collected. The hospital staff reported a moderate level of stress and nurses had a highest level of stress compared to staff in the other three occupational categories. The five highest stress scores were observed for the items “rough and cracked hands due to frequent hand washing and disinfectant use,” “inconvenience in using the toilet at work,” “restrictions on eating and drinking at work,” “fear of transmitting the disease to relatives and friends,” and “fear of being infected with COVID‐19.” Discomfort caused by protective equipment was the major stressor for the participants, followed by burden of caring for patients. Among participants who experienced severe stress (n = 129), work stress was higher among those with rather than without minor children. The present findings may serve as a reference for future monitoring of hospital staff's workload, and may aid the provision of support and interventions.

In this study, we investigated the acute exacerbation and outcomes of COPD patients during the outbreak of COVID-19 and evaluated the prevalence and mortality of COPD patients with confirmed COVID-19. A prospectively recruited cohort of 489 COPD patients was retrospectively followed-up for their conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic from December 2019 to March 2020 in Hubei, China. In addition, the features of 821 discharged patients with confirmed COVID-19 were retrospectively analyzed. Of the 489 followed-up enrolled COPD patients, 2 cases were diagnosed as confirmed COVID-19, and 97 cases had exacerbations, 32 cases of which were hospitalized, and 14 cases died. Compared with the 6-month follow-up results collected 1 year ago, in 307 cases of this cohort, the rates of exacerbations and hospitalization of the 489 COPD patients during the last 4 months decreased, while the mortality rate increased significantly (2.86% vs 0.65%, p=0.023). Of the 821 patients with COVID-19, 37 cases (4.5%) had pre-existing COPD. Of 180 confirmed deaths, 19 cases (10.6%) were combined with COPD. Compared to COVID-19 deaths without COPD, COVID-19 deaths with COPD had higher rates of coronary artery disease and/or cerebrovascular diseases. Old age, low BMI and low parameters of lung function were risk factors of all-cause mortality for COVID-19 patients with pre-existing COPD. Our findings imply that acute exacerbations and hospitalizations of COPD patients were infrequent during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, COVID-19 patients with pre-existing COPD had a higher risk of all-cause mortality.

This communication stresses the importance of the complete lockdown of a developing nation as a powerful tool against COVID-19 acting as a ‘vaccine’. India has been under complete lockdown since 24th March 2020 in addition to other measures emphasized by the Indian Government such as promoting hand washing, social distancing, and use of face masks. A strict lockdown is suggested as an effective measure for containing the novel Corona virus infection transmission worldwide.

In late December 2019, strange pneumonia was detected in a seafood market in Wuhan, China which was later termed COVID-19 by the World Health Organization. At present, the virus has spread across 232 countries worldwide killing 2,409,011 as of 17 February 2021 (9:37 CET). Motivated by a recent dataset, knowledge gaps, surge in global cases, and the need to combat the virus spread, this study examined the relationship between COVID-19 confirmed cases and attributable deaths at the global and regional levels. We used a panel of 232 countries (further disaggregated into Africa-49, Americas-54, Eastern Mediterranean-23, Europe-61, Southeast Asia-10, and Western Pacific-35) from 03 January 2020 to 28 November 2020, and the instrumental variable generalized method of moment’s model (IV-GMM) for analysing the datasets. The results showed that COVID-19 confirmed cases at both the global and regional levels have a strong positive effect on deaths. Thus, the confirmed cases significantly increase attributable deaths at the global and regional levels. At the global level, a 1% increase in confirmed cases increases attributable deaths by 0.78%. Regionally, a 1% increase in confirmed cases increases attributable deaths by 0.65% in Africa, 0.90% in the Americas, 0.67% in the Eastern Mediterranean, 0.72% in Europe, 0.88% in Southeast Asia, and 0.52% in the Western Pacific. This study expands the understanding of the relationship between COVID-19 cases and deaths by using a global dataset and the instrumental variable generalized method of moment’s model (IV-GMM) for the analysis that addresses endogeneity and omitted variable issues.

As I organize a pile of ethics consult chart notes in New York City in mid‐April 2020, I look at the ten cases that I have co‐consulted on recently. Nine of the patients were found to be Covid positive. The reasons for the consults are mostly familiar—surrogate decision‐making, informed refusal of treatment, goals of care, defining futility. But the context is unfamiliar and unsettling. Bioethicists are in pandemic mode, dusting off and revising triage plans. Patients and potential patients are fearful—of the disease itself and of the amplification of health disparities and inequities. There is much to contemplate, but as I go through my cases, I worry about disability, about biases and racist stereotypes. In this pandemic, historically marginalized communities are at risk of further disenfranchisement.

Prestigious University is a large, private educational institution with a medical school, a university hospital, a law school, and graduate and undergraduate colleges all on a single campus. In the face of the Covid‐19 pandemic, students were told during spring break to return to campus only briefly to retrieve their belongings. Classes then went online. On March 23, 2020, the faculty, students, and staff were emailed the following by the university's director of infection control and public health: We have become aware that a Prestigious University staff member has tested positive for the virus that causes Covid‐19. The individual, who was last on campus on March 16, is now in isolation at their permanent residence and is doing well clinically. The university has already identified those members of our community who may have been in close contact with this individual, and we are working to notify them. Further, this individual's local health department has a protocol for identifying people who have been in direct contact with anyone testing positive for Covid‐19 (such as this Prestigious University staff member) so that they can self‐quarantine and watch for COVID‐19 symptoms for a period of 14 days from their last contact with the infected individual. A professor in the Philosophy Department has asked the ethicists at the medical school whether such contact tracing suffices. “Don't the members of the community deserve to know who this is? Isn't there a mandate to identify this person in order to maximize public health benefits and slow the spread of this deadly virus?”

Shortly after Wuhan, the city where the novel coronavirus was first identified, was placed on lockdown in January, I received an email from two Hastings Center fellows in China: Renzong Qiu, of Renmin University of China in Beijing, and Ruipeng Lei, of Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan. Attached was a post for our blog, Hastings Bioethics Forum, that raised ethical and legal questions about China's response. “Hegel says, ‘We learn from history that we do not learn from history,’” their piece began. “The recurrence of the coronavirus epidemic in China proves his insight to be right.” This bold report from bioethicists in China was courageous and eye‐opening. It was among the first discussions in bioethics of what has since become a global crisis, and it turned out to be the first in a string of commentaries in Hastings Bioethics Forum with insights about the crisis, the issues it raises, and how the world should respond to it.