Question: what are the best masks for preventing infection by Covid-19?

Title: Is wearing a face mask safe for people with epilepsy? Content: Since December 2019, the world has been experiencing a catastrophic pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV2. This virus primarily targets the human respiratory system. Available information suggests that people with epilepsy (PWE) are not at higher risk of being infected by the virus, nor of more severe COVID-19 manifestations, as a result of the epilepsy alone. However, COVID-19 is a serious disease that currently has no effective treatment or vaccine. A face mask is probably effective in preventing the spread of a respiratory pathogen, at least to some extent. So, should we recommend wearing a face mask to all during a pandemic of respiratory infectious disease (e.g., COVID-19) without any precautions or exemptions? While concrete evidence is lacking, if we consider that wearing a face mask may simulate hyperventilation, at least to some extent, we would probably avoid recommending this practice indiscriminately to all PWE. On the other hand, in the absence of any proven treatment or vaccine to combat COVID-19, prevention is the best available strategy and it is probably not reasonable to suggest avoid wearing face masks in PWE under any circumstances. Logically, PWE do not need to wear a face mask most of the time, as long as there is no close contact with others, especially during intense physical activities such as exercise. To the contrary, it is probably more advantageous to wear a face mask in crowded locations, with intermittent breaks in safe locations, away from others.

Title: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and Pregnancy: Responding to a Rapidly Evolving Situation Content: As the world confronts coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), an illness caused by yet another emerging pathogen (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2]), obstetric care providers are asking what this means for pregnant women. The global spread has been swift, and many key questions remain. The case-fatality rate for persons cared for in the United States and whether asymptomatic persons transmit the virus are examples of questions that need to be answered to inform public health control measures. There are also unanswered questions specific to pregnant women, such as whether pregnant women are more severely affected and whether intrauterine transmission occurs. Although guidelines for pregnant women from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been rapidly developed based on the best available evidence, additional information is critically needed to inform key decisions, such as whether pregnant health care workers should receive special consideration, whether to temporarily separate infected mothers and their newborns, and whether it is safe for infected women to breastfeed. Some current recommendations are well supported, based largely on what we know from seasonal influenza: patients should avoid contact with ill persons, avoid touching their face, cover coughs and sneezes, wash hands frequently, disinfect contaminated surfaces, and stay home when sick. Prenatal clinics should ensure all pregnant women and their visitors are screened for fever and respiratory symptoms, and symptomatic women should be isolated from well women and required to wear a mask. As the situation with COVID-19 rapidly unfolds, it is critical that obstetricians keep up to date.

Title: Use of N95, Surgical, and Cloth Masks to Prevent COVID-19 in Health Care and Community Settings: Living Practice Points From the American College of Physicians (Version 1) Content: Controversy exists around the appropriate types of masks and the situations in which they should be used in community and health care settings for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this article, the American College of Physicians (ACP) provides recommendations based on the best available evidence through 14 April 2020 on the effectiveness of N95 respirators, surgical masks, and cloth masks in reducing transmission of infection. The ACP plans periodic updates of these recommendations on the basis of ongoing surveillance of the literature for 1 year from the initial search date.

Title: The need of health policy perspective to protect Healthcare Workers during COVID-19 pandemic. A GRADE rapid review on the N95 respirators effectiveness. Content: Background Protecting Health Care Workers (HCWs) during routine care of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients is of paramount importance to halt the SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-2) pandemic. The WHO, ECDC and CDC have issued conflicting guidelines on the use of respiratory filters (N95) by HCWs. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase and The Cochrane Library from the inception to March 21, 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing N95 respirators versus surgical masks for prevention of COVID-19 or any other respiratory infection among HCWs. The grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. Findings Four RCTs involving 8736 HCWs were included. We did not find any trial specifically on prevention of COVID-19. However, wearing N95 respirators can prevent 73 more (95% CI 46-91) clinical respiratory infections per 1000 HCWs compared to surgical masks (2 RCTs; 2594 patients; low quality of evidence). A protective effect of N95 respirators in laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR= 0.41; 95%CI 0.28-0.61) was also found. A trend in favour of N95 respirators was observed in preventing laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, and influenza like illness. Interpretation We found no direct high quality evidence on whether N95 respirators are better than surgical masks for HCWs protection from SARS-CoV-2. However, low quality evidence suggests that N95 respirators protect HCWs from clinical respiratory infections. This finding should be contemplated to decide the best strategy to support the resilience of healthcare systems facing the potentially catastrophic SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Title: The need of health policy perspective to protect Healthcare Workers during COVID-19 pandemic. A GRADE rapid review on the N95 respirators effectiveness Content: Protecting Health Care Workers (HCWs) during routine care of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients is of paramount importance to halt the SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-2) pandemic. The WHO, ECDC and CDC have issued conflicting guidelines on the use of respiratory filters (N95) by HCWs. We searched PubMed, Embase and The Cochrane Library from the inception to March 21, 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing N95 respirators versus surgical masks for prevention of COVID-19 or any other respiratory infection among HCWs. The grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. Four RCTs involving 8736 HCWs were included. We did not find any trial specifically on prevention of COVID-19. However, wearing N95 respirators can prevent 73 more (95% CI 46-91) clinical respiratory infections per 1000 HCWs compared to surgical masks (2 RCTs; 2594 patients; low quality of evidence). A protective effect of N95 respirators in laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.41; 95%CI 0.28-0.61) was also found. A trend in favour of N95 respirators was observed in preventing laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, and influenza like illness. We found no direct high quality evidence on whether N95 respirators are better than surgical masks for HCWs protection from SARS-CoV-2. However, low quality evidence suggests that N95 respirators protect HCWs from clinical respiratory infections. This finding should be contemplated to decide the best strategy to support the resilience of healthcare systems facing the potentially catastrophic SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Title: The need of health policy perspective to protect Healthcare Workers during COVID-19 pandemic. A GRADE rapid review on the N95 respirators effectiveness Content: Protecting Health Care Workers (HCWs) during routine care of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients is of paramount importance to halt the SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-2) pandemic. The WHO, ECDC and CDC have issued conflicting guidelines on the use of respiratory filters (N95) by HCWs. We searched PubMed, Embase and The Cochrane Library from the inception to March 21, 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing N95 respirators versus surgical masks for prevention of COVID-19 or any other respiratory infection among HCWs. The grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. Four RCTs involving 8736 HCWs were included. We did not find any trial specifically on prevention of COVID-19. However, wearing N95 respirators can prevent 73 more (95% CI 46–91) clinical respiratory infections per 1000 HCWs compared to surgical masks (2 RCTs; 2594 patients; low quality of evidence). A protective effect of N95 respirators in laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.41; 95%CI 0.28–0.61) was also found. A trend in favour of N95 respirators was observed in preventing laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, and influenza like illness. We found no direct high quality evidence on whether N95 respirators are better than surgical masks for HCWs protection from SARS-CoV-2. However, low quality evidence suggests that N95 respirators protect HCWs from clinical respiratory infections. This finding should be contemplated to decide the best strategy to support the resilience of healthcare systems facing the potentially catastrophic SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Title: Estimating the Effect and Cost-Effectiveness of Facemasks in Reducing the Spread of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Uganda Content: Evidence that face masks provide effective protection against respiratory infections in the community is scarce. However, face masks are widely used by health workers as part of droplet precautions when caring for patients with respiratory infections. It would therefore be reasonable to suggest that consistent widespread use of face masks in the community could prevent further spread of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In this study we examine public face mask wearing in Uganda where a proportion wears masks to protect against acquiring, and the other to prevent from transmitting SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this study was to determine what percentage of the population would have to wear face masks to reduce susceptibility to and infectivity of COVID-19 in Uganda, keeping the basic reproduction number below unity and/or flattening the curve. We used an SEIAQRD model for the analysis. Results show that implementation of facemasks has a relatively large impact on the size of the coronavirus epidemic in Uganda. We find that the critical mask adherence is 5 per 100 when 80% wear face masks. A cost-effective analysis shows that utilizing funds to provide 1 public mask to the population has a per capita compounded cost of USD 1.34. If provision of face masks is done simultaneously with supportive care, the per capita compounded cost is USD 1.965, while for the case of only treatment and no provision of face masks costs each Ugandan USD 4.0579. We conclude that since it is hard to achieve a 100% adherence to face masks, government might consider provision of face masks in conjunction with provision of care.

Title: What is required to prevent a second major outbreak of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 upon lifting the metropolitan-wide quarantine of Wuhan city, China Content: Background: The Chinese government implemented a metropolitan-wide quarantine of Wuhan city on 23rd January 2020 to curb the epidemic of the coronavirus COVID-19. Lifting of this quarantine is imminent. We modelled the effects of two key health interventions on the epidemic when the quarantine is lifted. Method: We constructed a compartmental dynamic model to forecast the trend of the COVID-19 epidemic at different quarantine lifting dates and investigated the impact of different rates of public contact and facial mask usage on the epidemic. Results: We estimated that at the end of the epidemic, a total of 65,572 (46,156-95,264) individuals would be infected by the virus, among which 16,144 (14,422-23,447, 24.6%) would be infected through public contacts, 45,795 (32,390-66,395, 69.7%) through household contact, 3,633 (2,344-5,865, 5.5%) through hospital contacts (including 783 (553-1,134) non-COVID-19 patients and 2,850 (1,801-4,981) medical staff members). A total of 3,262 (1,592-6,470) would die of COVID-19 related pneumonia in Wuhan. For an early lifting date (21st March), facial mask needed to be sustained at a relatively high rate (≥85%) if public contacts were to recover to 100% of the pre-quarantine level. In contrast, lifting the quarantine on 18th April allowed public person-to-person contact adjusted back to the pre-quarantine level with a substantially lower level of facial mask usage (75%). However, a low facial mask usage (<50%) combined with an increased public contact (>100%) would always lead a significant second outbreak in most quarantine lifting scenarios. Lifting the quarantine on 25th April would ensure a smooth decline of the epidemics regardless of the combinations of public contact rates and facial mask usage. Conclusion: The prevention of a second epidemic is viable after the metropolitan-wide quarantine is lifted but requires a sustaining high facial mask usage and a low public contact rate.

Title: COVID-19: emerging protective measures Content: The COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease 2019) spreads primarily through droplets of saliva or discharge from the nose. COVID-19 is predominantly considered as an unavoidable pandemic, and scientists are very curious about how to provide the best protection to the public before a vaccine can be made available. There is an urge to manufacture a greater number of masks to prevent any aerosol with microbes. Hence, we aim to develop an efficient viral inactivation system by exploiting active compounds from naturally occurring medicinal plants and infusing them into nanofiber-based respiratory masks. Our strategy is to develop fibrous filtration with three-layered masks using the compounds from medicinal plants for viral deactivation. These masks will be beneficial not just to healthcare workers but common citizens as well. In the absence of vaccination, productive masks can be worn to prevent transmission of airborne pathogenic aerosols and control diseases.

Title: COVID-19: emerging protective measures. Content: The COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease 2019) spreads primarily through droplets of saliva or discharge from the nose. COVID-19 is predominantly considered as an unavoidable pandemic, and scientists are very curious about how to provide the best protection to the public before a vaccine can be made available. There is an urge to manufacture a greater number of masks to prevent any aerosol with microbes. Hence, we aim to develop an efficient viral inactivation system by exploiting active compounds from naturally occurring medicinal plants and infusing them into nanofiber-based respiratory masks. Our strategy is to develop fibrous filtration with three-layered masks using the compounds from medicinal plants for viral deactivation. These masks will be beneficial not just to healthcare workers but common citizens as well. In the absence of vaccination, productive masks can be worn to prevent transmission of airborne pathogenic aerosols and control diseases.

Title: What Is Required to Prevent a Second Major Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 upon Lifting Quarantine in Wuhan City, China Content: Summary Background The Chinese government implemented a metropolitan-wide quarantine of Wuhan city on 23rd January 2020 to curb the epidemic of the coronavirus COVID-19. Lifting of this quarantine is imminent. We modelled the effects of two key health interventions on the epidemic when the quarantine is lifted. Methods We constructed a compartmental dynamic model to forecast the trend of the COVID-19 epidemic at different quarantine lifting dates and investigated the impact of different rates of public contact and facial mask usage on the epidemic. Results We projected a declining trend of the COVID-19 epidemic if the current quarantine strategy continues, and Wuhan would record the last new confirmed cases in late April 2020. At the end of the epidemic, 65,733 (45,722-99,015) individuals would be infected by the virus, among which 16,166 (11,238-24,603, 24.6%) were through public contacts, 45,996 (31,892-69,565, 69.7%) through household contact, and 3,571 (2,521-5,879, 5.5%) through hospital contacts (including 778 (553-1,154) non-COVID-19 patients and 2,786 (1,969-4,791) medical staff). A total of 2,821 (1,634-6,361) would die of COVID-19 related pneumonia in Wuhan. Early quarantine lifting on 21st March is viable only if Wuhan residents sustain a high facial mask usage of ≥85% and a pre-quarantine level public contact rate. Delaying city resumption to mid/late April would relax the requirement of facial mask usage to ≥75% at the same contact rate. Conclusions The prevention of a second epidemic is viable after the metropolitan-wide quarantine is lifted but requires a sustaining high facial mask usage and a low public contact rate.

Title: Teach, and teach and teach: does the average citizen use masks correctly during daily activities? Results from an observational study with more than 12,000 participants Content: COVID-19 is a new disease with no treatment and no vaccine so far. The pandemic is still growing in many areas. Among the core measures to prevent disease spread is the use of face masks. We observed 12,588 people in five Brazilian cities within the Baixada Santista metropolitan area. Even though this is densely populated region and heavily impacted by COVID-19 with a high risk population, only 45.1% of the observed population wore in face masks in a correct way, and another 15.5% simply did not use masks at all. The remainder used masks incorrectly, which is evidence of the worst scenario of people believing that they are protected when they are not. This is among the first studies, to the best of our knowledge, that measures real life compliance with face masks during this COVID-19 pandemic. It is our conclusion that it is paramount to first control the virus before allowing people back in the streets. We should not assume that people will wear masks properly. Equally important is to instruct and sensitize people on how to use face masks and why it is important.

Title: Brief research report: Bidirectional impact of imperfect mask use on reproduction number of COVID-19: A next generation matrix approach() Content: The use of masks as a means of reducing transmission of COVID-19 outside healthcare settings has proved controversial. Masks are thought to have two modes of effect: they prevent infection with COVID-19 in wearers; and prevent transmission by individuals with subclinical infection. We used a simple next-generation matrix approach to estimate the conditions under which masks would reduce the reproduction number of COVID-19 under a threshold of 1. Our model takes into account the possibility of assortative mixing, where mask users interact preferentially with other mask users. We make 3 key observations: 1. Masks, even with suboptimal efficacy in both prevention of acquisition and transmission of infection, could substantially decrease the reproduction number for COVID-19 if widely used. 2. Widespread masking may be sufficient to suppress epidemics where R has been brought close to 1 via other measures (e.g., distancing). 3. “Assortment” within populations (the tendency for interactions between masked individuals to be more likely than interactions between masked and unmasked individuals) would rapidly erode the impact of masks. As such, mask uptake needs to be fairly universal to have an effect. This simple model suggests that widespread uptake of masking could be determinative in suppressing COVID-19 epidemics in regions with R(t) at or near 1.

Title: [Rational use of respiratory protective equipment: advice for health care professionals in time of COVID-19]. Content: The current COVID-19 pandemic has led to a worldwide shortage of respiratory protective equipment. In order to offer maximum protection against infection for all healthcare workers, we need to optimise our use of the available equipment. This article provides practical advice on which type of mask is indicated in what specific situation, what requirements the mask should meet and how to optimise the local workflow, including the re-use of masks after decontamination.

Title: Rationeel gebruik van ademhalingsbeschermingsmaskers./ [Rational use of respiratory protective equipment: advice for health care professionals in time of COVID-19] Content: The current COVID-19 pandemic has led to a worldwide shortage of respiratory protective equipment. In order to offer maximum protection against infection for all healthcare workers, we need to optimise our use of the available equipment. This article provides practical advice on which type of mask is indicated in what specific situation, what requirements the mask should meet and how to optimise the local workflow, including the re-use of masks after decontamination.

Title: Nursing care for patients with COVID-19 on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support Content: In Japan, four medical facilities including our own - the National Center for Global health and Medicine (NCGM) - have been designated for the treatment of specified infectious diseases by the Minister of Health, Labour, and Welfare Here, we report our nursing care for patients with severe COVID-19 on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support In addition to infection control measures in the form of an N95 mask, a water-repellent isolation gown, a cap, a shielded mask on top of the N95, and double-layered gloves, nurses were required to wear one-piece suits (DuPont™ Tyvek®) and use powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) While closed system catheters are normally changed once a day to limit aerosol exposure, they are now changed once every 4 days Nursing care included equipment checks, monitoring of hemodynamics and respiratory status, management of anticoagulants, observation of the patient’s general condition, management of sedatives and analgesics, prevention of medical device-related pressure ulcers and bedsores, and maintenance of hygiene Fundamentally sound nursing remains the best practice for patient treatment and management During nursing care for patients with COVID-19 on ECMO, infection control measures should be faithfully and properly followed

Title: The COVID‐19 epidemic of manuscripts Content: In the midst of the novel coronavirus pandemic—referred to as COVID‐19—there has been much uncertainty. We remain uncertain about its precise origin, its structure and composition, how best to test for it, or for resulting immunity, whether or not exposure leads to immunity, whether or not disposable surgical masks are effective, why men and some ethnic minorities are more susceptible and just exactly what the death rate as a result of this virus is. However, one thing is absolutely clear, there has been an epidemic of manuscripts on the subject of COVID‐19 to nursing journals and, amongst these new manuscripts the rejection rate is, unfortunately, very high.

Title: Risk of Transmission of infection to Healthcare Workers delivering Supportive Care for Coronavirus Pneumonia;A Rapid GRADE Review Content: Abstract Background: Avenues of treatment currently implemented for Covid-19 pandemic are largely supportive in nature. Non -availability of an effective antiviral treatment makes supportive care for acute hypoxic respiratory failure is the most crucial intervention. Highly contagious nature of Covid-19 had created stress and confusion among front line Health Care Workers (HCWs) regarding infectious risk of supportive interventions and best preventive strategies. Purpose: To analyze and summarize key evidence from published literature exploring the risk of transmission of Covid-19 related to common supportive care interventions in hospitalized patients and effectiveness of currently used preventive measures in hospital setting. Data Sources: Curated Covid-19 literature from NCBI Computational Biology Branch ,Embase and Ovid till May 20,2020.Longitudinal and reference search till June 28,2020 Study Selection: Studies pertaining to risk of infection to HCWs providing standard supportive care of hospitalized Covid-19 mainly focusing on respiratory support interventions.Indirect studies from SARS,MERS or other ARDS pathology caused by infectious agents based on reference tracking and snow ball search . Clinical, Healthy volunteer and mechanistic studies were included. Two authors independently screened studies for traditional respiratory supportive-care (Hypoxia management, ventilatory support and pulmonary toileting) related transmission of viral or bacterial pneumonia to HCWs. Data Extraction: Two authors (TK and SP) independently screened articles and verified for consensus. Quality of studies and level of evidence was assessed using Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine (OCEBM) , Newcastle - Ottawa quality assessment Scale for observational studies and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system for grading evidence. Data Synthesis: 21 studies were eligible for inclusion. In 11 mechanistic studies, 7 were manikin based,1 was in the setting of GNB pneumonia ,2 were healthy volunteer study and 1 was heterogenous setting.Out of 10 clinical studies ,5 were case controlled and 6 were cohort studies. Risk of corona virus transmission was significantly high in HCWs performing or assisting endotracheal intubation or contact with respiratory secretion.(Moderate certainty evidence, GRADE B) Safety of nebulization treatment in corona virus pneumonia patients are questionable(Low certainty evidence, GRADE C).Very low certainty evidence exist for risk of transmission with conventional HFNC (GRADE D) and NIV (GRADE D),CPR (GRADE D),Bag and mask ventilation(GRADE D).Moderate certainty evidence exist for protective effect of wearing a multilayered mask, gown , eye protection and formal training for PPE use (GRADE B).Low certainty evidence exist for transmission risk with bag and mask ventilation, suctioning before and after intubation and prolonged exposure (GRADE C).Certainty of evidence for wearing gloves,post exposure hand washing and wearing N 95 mask is low(GRADE C). Limitations: This study was limited to articles with English abstract. Highly dynamic nature of body of literature related to Covid-19, frequent updates were necessary even during preparation of manuscript and longitudinal search was continued even after finalizing initial search. Due to the heterogeneity and broad nature of the search protocol, quantitative comparisons regarding the effectiveness of included management strategies could not be performed. Direct evidence was limited due to poor quality and non-comparative nature of available Covid-19 reporting. Conclusions: Major risk factors for transmission of corona virus infection were, performing or assisting endotracheal intubation and contact with respiratory secretion. Risk of transmission with HFNC or NIV can be significantly decreased by helmet interface, modified exhalation circuit or placing a properly fitting face mask over patient interface of HFNC. Evidence for risk of transmission with CPR, suctioning before or after intubation or bag and mask ventilation of very low certainty. Significant protective factors are Formal training for PPE use, consistently wearing mask, gown and eye protection. Primary Funding Source: None Disclosure: None of the authors have any conflict of interest to disclose.

Title: Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis Content: BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047. FINDINGS: Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; p(interaction)=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; p(interaction)=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. INTERPRETATION: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance. FUNDING: World Health Organization.

Title: Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis Content: BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047. FINDINGS: Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25â697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10â736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] -10·2%, 95% CI -11·5 to -7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12-16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD -10·6%, 95% CI -12·5 to -7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. INTERPRETATION: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance. FUNDING: World Health Organization.

Title: The covid‐19 pandemic, personal protective equipment, and respirator: a narrative review Content: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has touched almost every continent. Personal protective equipment (PPE) is the final line of protection of healthcare workers (HCW). There is variation as well as controversy of infection control recommendation with regards to the use of PPE for HCW between institutions. The aim of this narrative review is to of examine and summarise the available evidence to guide recommendation for the safety of HCW. A literature search was conducted on the PubMed, MedLine, and Embase databases with the keywords “personal protective equipment”, “COVID 19”, “n95”, “health care worker”, and “mortality”. SARS‐nCoV‐2 is highly contagious. 3.5‐20% of HCW has been reported to be infected. The mortality ranges from 0.53‐1.94%. PPE is part of the measure within a package of prevention and control of pandemic, rather than a replacement of. Respirators are more effective than masks in preventing aerosol transmission to HCWs. Extended use may be considered if guidelines are adhered. PAPRs if available should be used in high risk procedures. Transmission of viruses is multimodal, and in the setting of a novel pathogen with high case fatality with no proven effective interventions, PPE that affords the best protection should be available to HCWs.

Title: To mask or not to mask children to overcome COVID-19 Content: It has been reported that asymptomatic people can transmit the new coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and become important sources of COVID-19. To reduce the role of asymptomatic or poorly symptomatic people in COVID-19, universal use of face masks in addition to hand hygiene and safety distance seems extremely useful. Consequently, preparing the healthy child to use face masks is strongly needed. To obtain maximal compliance, reasons for mask wearing without attempts of removing must be clearly explained. Moreover, child's will must not be forced.Conclusion: On the basis of clinical findings, we think that the universal use of facial masks seems necessary when people have to go out in their everyday lives. In addition to the availability of masks of different sizes capable of adapting perfectly to the face, it is necessary that the use of masks in children is preceded by a strong parental work and school lessons on this issue and other hygiene topics with the main aim to obtain child cooperation. What is Known: â¢ Asymptomatic people can transmit and become important sources of COVID-19. â¢ Asymptomatic cases are common also in pediatrics. What is New: â¢ Universal use of face masks for success against COVID-19 seems necessary also in pediatric age when people have to go out in their everyday lives. â¢ In addition to the availability of masks of different sizes capable of adapting perfectly to the face, it is necessary that the use of masks in children is preceded by a strong parental work and school lessons with the main aim to obtain child cooperation.

Title: About coronavirus disease 2019 (CoviD-19) Content: SARS-CoV-2 virus continues to be a worldwide public health threat During the early stages of a pandemic with sparse knowledge about the pathogen, limiting testing capacity, and without effective treatment options, it is a nearly impossible task for local and state governments to limit CoViD-19 associated morbidity and mortality in their jurisdictions To predict the numbers of infected persons, hospitalizations, and deaths, infectious disease models are useful tools for Public Health officials to decide on best public health mitigation measures to prevent the rapid growth of CoViD-19 disease The goal is to delay the rapid spread of the disease,”flatten the curve,” to have sufficient healthcare resources such as Intensive Care Units (ICU) beds and ventilators available to treat the very sick patients but also enough personal protective equipment (PPE) such as N95 masks, gloves, and gowns to protect the healthcare workers from getting infected

Title: Associations between wearing masks, washing hands, and social distancing practices, and risk of COVID-19 infection in public: a cohort-based case-control study in Thailand Content: Objective. To investigate whether wearing masks, washing hands and social distancing practices are associated with lower risk of COVID-19 infection. Design. A retrospective cohort-based case-control study. All participants were retrospectively interviewed by phone about their preventive measures against COVID-19 infection. Setting. Thailand, using the data from contact tracing of COVID-19 patients associated with nightclub, boxing stadium and state enterprise office clusters from the Surveillance Rapid Response Team, Department of Disease Control, Ministry of Public Health. Contacts were tested for COVID-19 using PCR assays per national contact tracing guidelines. Participants. A cohort of 1,050 asymptomatic contacts of COVID-19 patients between 1 and 31 March 2020. Main outcome measures. Diagnosis of COVID-19 by 21 April 2020. Odds ratios for COVID-19 infection and population attributable fraction were calculated. Exposure. The study team retrospectively asked about wearing masks, washing hands, and social distancing practices during the contact period through telephone interviews. Results. Overall, 211 (20%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 by 21 Apr 2020 (case group) while 839 (80%) were not (control group). Fourteen percent of cases (29/210) and 24% of controls (198/823) reported wearing either non-medical or medical masks all the time during the contact period. Wearing masks all the time (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.23; 95%CI 0.09-0.60) was associated with lower risk of COVID-19 infections compared to not wearing masks, while wearing masks sometimes (aOR 0.87; 95%CI 0.41-1.84) was not. Shortest distance of contact >1 meter (aOR 0.15; 95%CI 0.04-0.63), duration of close contact [≤]15 minutes (aOR 0.24; 95%CI 0.07-0.90) and washing hands often (aOR 0.33; 95%CI 0.13-0.87) were significantly associated with lower risk of infection. Sharing a cigarette (aOR 3.47; 95%CI 1.09-11.02) was associated with higher risk of infection. Type of mask was not independently associated with risk of infection. Those who wore masks all the time were more likely to wash hands and practice social distancing. We estimated that if everyone wore a mask all the time, washed hands often, did not share a dish, cup or cigarette, had shortest distance of contact >1 meter and had duration of close contact [≤]15 minutes, cases would have been reduced by 84%. Conclusions. Our findings support consistently wearing non-medical masks, washing hands, and social distancing in public to prevent COVID-19 infections.

Title: Promoting best practices for control of respiratory infections: collaboration between primary care and public health services. Content: OBJECTIVE To determine the effectiveness of a short-term intervention to promote best practices for control of respiratory infections in primary care physicians' offices. DESIGN Before-after observational study. SETTING Family physicians' offices in Ottawa, Ont. PARTICIPANTS General practitioners and office staff. INTERVENTIONS Four infection-control practices (use of masks, alcohol-based hand gel, and signs, and asking patients to sit at least 1 m apart in the waiting room) were observed, and 2 reported infection-control practices (disinfecting surfaces and use of hand-gel dispensers in examining rooms) were audited before the intervention and 6 weeks after the intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Percentage of patients asked to use masks and alcohol-based hand gel, number of relevant signs, and percentage of patients asked to sit at least 1 m away from other patients. Percentage of surfaces disinfected and percentage of physicians using hand-gel dispensers in examining rooms. RESULTS Of 242 practices invited, 53 agreed to participate (22% response rate), and within those practices, 143/151 (95%) physicians participated. Signs regarding respiratory infection control measures increased from 15.4% to 81.1% following the intervention (P < .001). At least 1 patient with cough and fever was given a mask in 17% of practices before the intervention; during the observation period after the intervention, at least 1 patient was given a mask in 66.7% of practices (P < .001). Patients were instructed to use alcohol-based hand gel in 24.5% of practices before the intervention and in 79.2% of practices after it (P < .001). Instruction to sit at least 1 m from others in the waiting area was given in 39.6% of practices before the intervention and in 52.8% of practices following the intervention (P < .001). Before the intervention, the percentage of practices using all 4 audited primary prevention measures was 3.8%; after the intervention, 52.8% of practices were using them (P < .001), demonstrating a 49% increase in adoption of best practices. CONCLUSION A multifaceted intervention by public health nurses successfully promoted best practices for control of respiratory infections in primary care offices. Collaboration between public health services and primary care can promote best practices and warrants further study and development in areas of common interest.

Title: Masked Face Recognition Dataset and Application Content: In order to effectively prevent the spread of COVID-19 virus, almost everyone wears a mask during coronavirus epidemic. This almost makes conventional facial recognition technology ineffective in many cases, such as community access control, face access control, facial attendance, facial security checks at train stations, etc. Therefore, it is very urgent to improve the recognition performance of the existing face recognition technology on the masked faces. Most current advanced face recognition approaches are designed based on deep learning, which depend on a large number of face samples. However, at present, there are no publicly available masked face recognition datasets. To this end, this work proposes three types of masked face datasets, including Masked Face Detection Dataset (MFDD), Real-world Masked Face Recognition Dataset (RMFRD) and Simulated Masked Face Recognition Dataset (SMFRD). Among them, to the best of our knowledge, RMFRD is currently theworld's largest real-world masked face dataset. These datasets are freely available to industry and academia, based on which various applications on masked faces can be developed. The multi-granularity masked face recognition model we developed achieves 95% accuracy, exceeding the results reported by the industry. Our datasets are available at: https://github.com/X-zhangyang/Real-World-Masked-Face-Dataset.

Title: Achieving a Covid-19 Free Country: Citizens Preventive Measures and Communication Pathways. Content: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread on a global scale in an extremely short time, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, and, at the same time, triggering extreme panic. Prevention in medicine is considered the best protection action for individuals in order to avoid infections. This study investigates whether Greek citizens (N = 3359) take the necessary precautions to prevent developing the COVID-19 disease, and it segments them based on homogenous behavior groups. Lastly, it provides communication techniques that should be implemented, targeting each citizen segment for a long-term COVID-19 free country. Data analysis revealed the extent of the applied precaution measures. The ones most applied by citizens were to avoid non-mandatory transportation, contact with individuals with respiratory symptoms, and individuals of high risk for severe illness (vulnerable groups). On the other hand, the least applied measures are daily checks of body temperature, monitoring for fever, cough, or dyspnea, use of a face mask when in public places, or when using public transportation. Additionally, cluster analysis revealed five groups of citizens based on self-reported behavior, namely, the Meticulous Proactive Citizens, the Self-isolated Citizens, the Cautious Citizens, the Occasionally Cautious Citizens, and the Unconcerned Citizens. Communication strategies targeting each segment are also discussed.

Title: Achieving a Covid-19 Free Country: Citizens Preventive Measures and Communication Pathways Content: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread on a global scale in an extremely short time, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, and, at the same time, triggering extreme panic. Prevention in medicine is considered the best protection action for individuals in order to avoid infections. This study investigates whether Greek citizens (N = 3359) take the necessary precautions to prevent developing the COVID-19 disease, and it segments them based on homogenous behavior groups. Lastly, it provides communication techniques that should be implemented, targeting each citizen segment for a long-term COVID-19 free country. Data analysis revealed the extent of the applied precaution measures. The ones most applied by citizens were to avoid non-mandatory transportation, contact with individuals with respiratory symptoms, and individuals of high risk for severe illness (vulnerable groups). On the other hand, the least applied measures are daily checks of body temperature, monitoring for fever, cough, or dyspnea, use of a face mask when in public places, or when using public transportation. Additionally, cluster analysis revealed five groups of citizens based on self-reported behavior, namely, the Meticulous Proactive Citizens, the Self-isolated Citizens, the Cautious Citizens, the Occasionally Cautious Citizens, and the Unconcerned Citizens. Communication strategies targeting each segment are also discussed.

Title: The Flow Physics of COVID-19 Content: Flow physics plays a key role in nearly every facet of the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes the generation and aerosolization of virus-laden respiratory droplets from a host, its airborne dispersion and deposition on surfaces, as well as the subsequent inhalation of these bioaerosols by unsuspecting recipients. Fluid dynamics is also key to preventative measures such as the use of face masks, hand-washing, ventilation of indoor environments, and even social distancing. This article summarizes what we know, and more importantly, what we need to learn about the science underlying these issues so that we are better prepared to tackle the next outbreak of COVID-19 or a similar disease.

Title: What association do political interventions, environmental and health variables have with the number of Covid-19 cases and deaths? A linear modeling approach Content: Background: It is unclear which variables contribute to the variance in Covid-19 related deaths and Covid-19 cases. Method: We modelled the relationship of various predictors (health systems variables, population and population health indicators) together with variables indicating public health measures (school closures, border closures, country lockdown) in 40 European and other countries, using Generalized Linear Models and minimized information criteria to select the best fitting and most parsimonious models. Results: We fitted two models with log-linearly linked variables on gamma-distributed outome variables (CoV2 cases and Covid-19 related deaths, standardized on population). Population standardized cases were best predicted by number of tests, life-expectancy in a country, and border closure (negative predictor, i.e. preventive). Population standardized deaths were best predicted by time, the virus had been in the country, life expectancy, smoking (negative predictor, i.e. preventive), and school closures (positive predictor, i.e. accelerating). Model fit statistics and model adequacy were good. Discussion and Interpretation: Interestingly, none of the variables that code for the preparedness of the medical system, for health status or other population parameters were predictive. Of the public health variables only border closure had the potential of preventing cases and none were predictors for preventing deaths. School closures, likely as a proxy for social distancing, was associated with increased deaths. Conclusion: The pandemic seems to run its autonomous course and only border closure has the potential to prevent cases. None of the contributes to preventing deaths.

Title: Dentists' Awareness, Perception, and Attitude Regarding COVID-19 and Infection Control: Cross-Sectional Study Among Jordanian Dentists Content: BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of prevention guidelines and recommendations on infection control, many dental practices lack the minimum requirements for infection control. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the level of awareness, perception, and attitude regarding the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and infection control among Jordanian dentists. METHODS: The study population consisted of dentists who worked in private clinics, hospitals, and health centers in Jordan. An online questionnaire was sent to a sample of Jordanian dentists in March 2020. The questionnaire was comprised of a series of questions about dentists' demographic characteristics; their awareness of the incubation period, the symptoms of the disease, mode of transmission of COVID-19 and infection control measures for preventing COVID-19; and their attitude toward treating patients with COVID-19. RESULTS: This study included a total of 368 dentists aged 22-73 years (mean 32.9 years, SD 10.6 years). A total of 112 (30.4%) dentists had completed a master or residency program in dentistry, 195 (53.0%) had received training in infection control in dentistry, and 28 (7.6%) had attended training or lectures regarding COVID-19. A total of 133 (36.1%) dentists reported that the incubation period is 1-14 days. The majority of dentists were aware of COVID-19 symptoms and ways of identifying patients at risk of having COVID-19, were able to correctly report known modes of transmission, and were aware of measures for preventing COVID-19 transmission in dental clinics. A total of 275 (74.7%) believed that it was necessary to ask patients to sit far from each other, wear masks while in the waiting room, and wash hands before getting in the dental chair to decrease disease transmission. CONCLUSIONS: Jordanian dentists were aware of COVID-19 symptoms, mode of transmission, and infection controls and measures in dental clinics. However, dentists had limited comprehension of the extra precautionary measures that protect the dental staff and other patients from COVID-19. National and international guidelines should be sent by the regional and national dental associations to all registered dentists during a crisis, including the COVID-19 pandemic, to make sure that dentists are well informed and aware of best practices and recommended disease management approaches.

Title: Dentists’ Awareness, Perception, and Attitude Regarding COVID-19 and Infection Control: Cross-Sectional Study Among Jordanian Dentists Content: BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of prevention guidelines and recommendations on infection control, many dental practices lack the minimum requirements for infection control. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the level of awareness, perception, and attitude regarding the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and infection control among Jordanian dentists. METHODS: The study population consisted of dentists who worked in private clinics, hospitals, and health centers in Jordan. An online questionnaire was sent to a sample of Jordanian dentists in March 2020. The questionnaire was comprised of a series of questions about dentists’ demographic characteristics; their awareness of the incubation period, the symptoms of the disease, mode of transmission of COVID-19 and infection control measures for preventing COVID-19; and their attitude toward treating patients with COVID-19. RESULTS: This study included a total of 368 dentists aged 22-73 years (mean 32.9 years, SD 10.6 years). A total of 112 (30.4%) dentists had completed a master or residency program in dentistry, 195 (53.0%) had received training in infection control in dentistry, and 28 (7.6%) had attended training or lectures regarding COVID-19. A total of 133 (36.1%) dentists reported that the incubation period is 1-14 days. The majority of dentists were aware of COVID-19 symptoms and ways of identifying patients at risk of having COVID-19, were able to correctly report known modes of transmission, and were aware of measures for preventing COVID-19 transmission in dental clinics. A total of 275 (74.7%) believed that it was necessary to ask patients to sit far from each other, wear masks while in the waiting room, and wash hands before getting in the dental chair to decrease disease transmission. CONCLUSIONS: Jordanian dentists were aware of COVID-19 symptoms, mode of transmission, and infection controls and measures in dental clinics. However, dentists had limited comprehension of the extra precautionary measures that protect the dental staff and other patients from COVID-19. National and international guidelines should be sent by the regional and national dental associations to all registered dentists during a crisis, including the COVID-19 pandemic, to make sure that dentists are well informed and aware of best practices and recommended disease management approaches.

Title: Deep learning to estimate the physical proportion of infected region of lung for COVID-19 pneumonia with CT image set Content: Utilizing computed tomography (CT) images to quickly estimate the severity of cases with COVID-19 is one of the most straightforward and efficacious methods. Two tasks were studied in this present paper. One was to segment the mask of intact lung in case of pneumonia. Another was to generate the masks of regions infected by COVID-19. The masks of these two parts of images then were converted to corresponding volumes to calculate the physical proportion of infected region of lung. A total of 129 CT image set were herein collected and studied. The intrinsic Hounsfiled value of CT images was firstly utilized to generate the initial dirty version of labeled masks both for intact lung and infected regions. Then, the samples were carefully adjusted and improved by two professional radiologists to generate the final training set and test benchmark. Two deep learning models were evaluated: UNet and 2.5D UNet. For the segment of infected regions, a deep learning based classifier was followed to remove unrelated blur-edged regions that were wrongly segmented out such as air tube and blood vessel tissue etc. For the segmented masks of intact lung and infected regions, the best method could achieve 0.972 and 0.757 measure in mean Dice similarity coefficient on our test benchmark. As the overall proportion of infected region of lung, the final result showed 0.961 (Pearson's correlation coefficient) and 11.7% (mean absolute percent error). The instant proportion of infected regions of lung could be used as a visual evidence to assist clinical physician to determine the severity of the case. Furthermore, a quantified report of infected regions can help predict the prognosis for COVID-19 cases which were scanned periodically within the treatment cycle.

Title: COVID‐19: Face masks and human‐to‐human transmission Content: In December 2019, transmission of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) that causes coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19) occurred in Wuhan, China1 .And later the virus began to be transmitted from person to person2 .Face masks are a type of personal protective equipment used to prevent the spread of respiratory infections，it may be effective at helping prevent transmission of respiratory viruses and bacteria3 .Here, we share a case of face masks are be used to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 infection.

Title: Risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission by aerosols, the rational use of masks, and protection of healthcare workers from COVID-19 Content: OBJECTIVES: To determine the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission by aerosols, to provide evidence on the rational use of masks, and to discuss additional measures important for the protection of healthcare workers from COVID-19. METHODS: Literature review and expert opinion. SHORT CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen causing COVID-19, is considered to be transmitted via droplets rather than aerosols, but droplets with strong directional airflow support may spread further than 2 m. High rates of COVID-19 infections in healthcare-workers (HCWs) have been reported from several countries. Respirators such as filtering face piece (FFP) 2 masks were designed to protect HCWs, while surgical masks were originally intended to protect patients (e.g., during surgery). Nevertheless, high quality standard surgical masks (type II/IIR according to European Norm EN 14683) appear to be as effective as FFP2 masks in preventing droplet-associated viral infections of HCWs as reported from influenza or SARS. So far, no head-to-head trials with these masks have been published for COVID-19. Neither mask type completely prevents transmission, which may be due to inappropriate handling and alternative transmission pathways. Therefore, compliance with a bundle of infection control measures including thorough hand hygiene is key. During high-risk procedures, both droplets and aerosols may be produced, reason why respirators are indicated for these interventions.

Title: Clinician perceptions of respiratory infection risk; a rationale for research into mask use in routine practice Content: Abstract Outbreaks of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases are global threats to society. Planning for, and responses to, such events must include healthcare and other measures based on current evidence. An important area of infection prevention and control (IPC) is the optimal use of personal protective equipment (PPE) by healthcare workers (HCWs), including masks for protection against respiratory pathogens. Appropriate mask use during routine care is a forerunner to best practice in the event of an outbreak. However, little is known about the influences on decisions and behaviours of HCWs with respect to protective mask use when providing routine care. In this paper we argue that there is a need for more research to provide a better understanding of the decision-making and risk-taking behaviours of HCWs in respect of their use of masks for infectious disease prevention. Our argument is based on the ongoing threat of emerging infectious diseases; a need to strengthen workforce capability, capacity and education; the financial costs of healthcare and outbreaks; and the importance of social responsibility and supportive legislation in planning for global security. Future research should examine HCWs' practices and constructs of risk to provide new information to inform policy and pandemic planning.

Title: Masks for Prevention of Respiratory Virus Infections, Including SARS-CoV-2, in Health Care and Community Settings: A Living Rapid Review Content: BACKGROUND: Recommendations on masks for preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vary. PURPOSE: To examine the effectiveness of N95, surgical, and cloth masks in community and health care settings for preventing respiratory virus infections, and effects of reuse or extended use of N95 masks. DATA SOURCES: Multiple electronic databases, including the World Health Organization COVID-19 database and medRxiv preprint server (2003 through 14 April 2020; surveillance through 2 June 2020), and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials of masks and risk for respiratory virus infection, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and observational studies of mask use and coronavirus infection risk were included. New evidence will be incorporated by using living review methods. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer abstracted data and assessed methodological limitations; a second reviewer provided verification. DATA SYNTHESIS: 39 studies (18 randomized controlled trials and 21 observational studies; 33 867 participants) were included. No study evaluated reuse or extended use of N95 masks. Evidence on SARS-CoV-2 was limited to 2 observational studies with serious limitations. Community mask use was possibly associated with decreased risk for SARS-CoV-1 infection in observational studies. In high- or moderate-risk health care settings, observational studies found that risk for infection with SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus probably decreased with mask use versus nonuse and possibly decreased with N95 versus surgical mask use. Randomized trials in community settings found possibly no difference between N95 versus surgical masks and probably no difference between surgical versus no mask in risk for influenza or influenza-like illness, but compliance was low. In health care settings, N95 and surgical masks were probably associated with similar risks for influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed viral infection; clinical respiratory illness had inconsistency. Bothersome symptoms were common. LIMITATIONS: There were few SARS-CoV-2 studies, observational studies have methodological limitations, and the review was done by using streamlined methods. CONCLUSION: Evidence on mask effectiveness for respiratory infection prevention is stronger in health care than community settings. N95 respirators might reduce SARS-CoV-1 risk versus surgical masks in health care settings, but applicability to SARS-CoV-2 is uncertain. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Update Alerts: The authors have specified in the Methods section the interval and stop date for updates to this Living Review. As Annals receives updates, they will appear in the Comments section of the article on Annals.org. Reader inquiries about updates that are not available at approximately the specified intervals should be submitted as Comments to the article.

Title: The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence Content: Please cite this paper as: bin‐Reza et al. (2012) The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267. There are limited data on the use of masks and respirators to reduce transmission of influenza. A systematic review was undertaken to help inform pandemic influenza guidance in the United Kingdom. The initial review was performed in November 2009 and updated in June 2010 and January 2011. Inclusion criteria included randomised controlled trials and quasi‐experimental and observational studies of humans published in English with an outcome of laboratory‐confirmed or clinically‐diagnosed influenza and other viral respiratory infections. There were 17 eligible studies. Six of eight randomised controlled trials found no significant differences between control and intervention groups (masks with or without hand hygiene; N95/P2 respirators). One household trial found that mask wearing coupled with hand sanitiser use reduced secondary transmission of upper respiratory infection/influenza‐like illness/laboratory‐confirmed influenza compared with education; hand sanitiser alone resulted in no reduction. One hospital‐based trial found a lower rate of clinical respiratory illness associated with non‐fit‐tested N95 respirator use compared with medical masks. Eight of nine retrospective observational studies found that mask and/or respirator use was independently associated with a reduced risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Findings, however, may not be applicable to influenza and many studies were suboptimal. None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection. Some evidence suggests that mask use is best undertaken as part of a package of personal protection especially hand hygiene. The effectiveness of masks and respirators is likely linked to early, consistent and correct usage.

Title: The COVID-19 pandemic, personal protective equipment and respirator: A narrative review Content: INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has touched almost every continent. Personal protective equipment (PPE) is the final line of protection of healthcare workers (HCW). There is variation as well as controversy of infection control recommendation with regards to the use of PPE for HCW between institutions. The aim of this narrative review is to of examine and summarise the available evidence to guide recommendation for the safety of HCW. METHOD: A literature search was conducted on the PubMed, MedLine and Embase databases with the keywords "personal protective equipment," "COVID 19," "n95," "health care worker" and "mortality." RESULTS: SARS-nCoV-2 is highly contagious. About 3.5%-20% of HCW has been reported to be infected. The mortality ranges from 0.53% to 1.94%. PPE is part of the measure within a package of prevention and control of pandemic, rather than a replacement of. Respirators are more effective than masks in preventing aerosol transmission to HCWs. Extended use may be considered if guidelines are adhered. Powered air-purifying respirators if available should be used in high-risk procedures. CONCLUSION: Transmission of viruses is multimodal and in the setting of a novel pathogen with high case fatality with no proven effective interventions, PPE that affords the best protection should be available to HCWs.

Title: Correspondence: Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 coated nanoparticles containing respiratory masks, chewing gums and nasal filters may be used for protection against COVID-19 infection Content: • World has encountered a novel pandemic called as COVID-19. • All people need protective items such as masks and gloves worldwide. • Preventing COVID-19 infection has become the most important issue. • ACE2 containing nanomaterials may be used in the respiratory masks, gloves and clothes. • Using nanotechnology to prevent this pandemic may be hope for fighting against COVID-19.

Title: Impact of population mask wearing on Covid-19 post lockdown Content: COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV2 is a rapidly spreading global pandemic. Although precise transmission routes and dynamics are unknown, SARS-CoV2 is thought primarily to spread via contagious respiratory droplets. Unlike with SARS-CoV, maximal viral shedding occurs in the early phase of illness, and this is supported by models that suggest 40-80% of transmission events occur from pre- and asymptomatic individuals. One widely-discussed strategy to limit transmission of SARS-CoV2, particularly from presymptomatic individuals, has been population-level wearing of masks. Modelling for pandemic influenza suggests some benefit in reducing total numbers infected with even 50% mask-use. COVID-19 has a higher hospitalization and mortality rate than influenza, and the impacts on these parameters, and critically, at what point in the pandemic trajectory mask-use might exert maximal benefit are completely unknown. We derived a simplified SIR model to investigate the effects of near-universal mask-use on COVID-19 assuming 8 or 16% mask efficacy. We decided to model, in particular, the impact of masks on numbers of critically-ill patients and cumulative mortality, since these are parameters that are likely to have the most severe consequences in the COVID-19 pandemic. Whereas mask use had a relatively minor benefit on critical-care and mortality rates when transmissibility (Reff) was high, the reduction on deaths was dramatic as the effective R approached 1, as might be expected after aggressive social-distancing measures such as wide-spread lockdowns. One major concern with COVID-19 is its potential to overwhelm healthcare infrastructures, even in resource-rich settings, with one third of hospitalized patients requiring critical-care. We incorporated this into our model, increasing death rates for when critical-care resources have been exhausted. Our simple model shows that modest efficacy of masks could avert substantial mortality in this scenario. Importantly, the effects on mortality became hyper-sensitive to mask-wearing as the effective R approaches 1, i.e. near the tipping point of when the infection trajectory is expected to revert to exponential growth, as would be expected after effective lockdown. Our model suggests that mask-wearing might exert maximal benefit as nations plan their post-lockdown strategies and suggests that mask-wearing should be included in further more sophisticated models of the current pandemic.

Title: Application of refined management in the prevention and control of coronavirus disease 2019 epidemic in non-isolated areas of a general hospital Content: Objective: This article summarizes the experience in the prevention and control of coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19) epidemic in non-isolated areas in a general hospital. Methods: Based on refined management theory, we professionally developed the standards for prevention and control of COVID-19 in non-isolated areas, systematically implemented various prevention and control measures, performed gridding audit, effectively communicated among teams and between doctors and patients assisted by information techniques, and reported results for quality improvement. Results: There was no hospital acquired COVID-19 infections among staff in the hospital. The rates of mask wearing, epidemiological history screening and the medical supplies disinfection were all 100% in the hospital. The accuracy rate of mask wearing of patients and their families was 73.79% and the compliance of their hand hygiene was 40.78%. Conclusion: Refined management strategies for the prevention and control of COVID-19 infection in non-isolated areas of the general hospital are effective. The accuracy rate of mask wearing and hand hygiene compliance of patients and their families need to be further improved.

Title: Application of refined management in prevention and control of the coronavirus disease 2019 epidemic in non-isolated areas of a general hospital Content: Abstract Objective This article summarizes the experience in the prevention and control of coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19) epidemic in non-isolated areas in a general hospital. Methods Based on refined management theory, we professionally developed the standards for prevention and control of COVID-19 in non-isolated areas, systematically implemented various prevention and control measures, performed gridding audits, effectively communicated among teams and between medical staff and patients assisted by information techniques, and reported results for quality improvement. Results There was no hospital-acquired COVID-19 infections among staff in the hospital. The rates of mask-wearing, epidemiological history screening, and the medical supplies disinfection were all 100% in the hospital. The accuracy rate of mask-wearing of patients and their families was 73.79% and the compliance rate of their hand hygiene was 40.78%. Conclusion Refined management strategies for the prevention and control of COVID-19 infection in non-isolated areas of the general hospital are effective. The accuracy rate of mask-wearing and hand hygiene compliance of patients and their families need to be further improved.

Title: Analysis of national and international guidelines on respiratory protection equipment for COVID-19 in healthcare settings. Content: Introduction Consistent guidelines on respiratory protection for healthcare professionals combined with improved global supply chains are critical to protect staff and patients from COVID-19. We summarized and compared the guidelines published by national and international societies/organizations on facemasks and respirators to prevent COVID-19 in healthcare settings. Methods From the 1st January to the 2nd April 2020, guidelines published in four countries (France, Germany, United States, United Kingdom), and two international organizations (US and European Center for Diseases Control, and World Health Organization) were reviewed to analyze the mask and respirators recommended as PPE for the care of patients during the COVID-19 outbreak. Guidelines were eligible for analysis if they (1) included specific guidelines, (2) were written for HCP protection, (3) targeting healthcare settings. The strategy recommended for optimizing supplies and overcoming shortages was collected. Observations The guidelines publication process on respiratory protections varied greatly across countries. Some referred to a unique guide whereas others saw the issue of multiple recommendations by various societies and organization. In term of chronology, most guidelines were published in March with either downgraded (US and European CDC), relatively stable (WHO, Germany, and UK), or a mixing of high and low level equipment (France). The recommendation of respirators was universally recommended for aerosol generating procedures (AGP) across countries, although the type of respirators and what constituted an AGP was variable. Some guidance maintained the use of N95/99 for all contact with confirmed COVID-19 cases (i.e. Germany) whereas others, recommended a surgical mask (i.e. WHO, UK, France). The strategies to overcome shortage of respiratory protection equipment were based on minimizing the need and rationalizing the use, but also prolonging their use, reusing them after cleaning/sterilization, or using cloth masks. Conclusions Stable and consistent guidelines inside and across countries, clearly detailing the respiratory protection type, and the circumstances in which they need to be used may prevent the confusion among frontline staff, and avoid shortage.

Title: What face mask for what use in the context of COVID-19 pandemic? The French guidelines Content: Summary In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, wearing a face mask has become usual and ubiquitous, in both hospitals and community. However, the general public is consuming surgical or filtering face piece (FFP) masks irrespective of their specificity, leading to global supply shortage for the most exposed persons, which are healthcare workers. This underlines the urgent need to clarify the indications of the different categories of mask, in order to rationalize their use. The study herein specifies the French position for the rational use of respiratory protective equipment for healthcare workers.

Title: What face mask for what use in the context of COVID-19 pandemic? The French guidelines Content: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, wearing a face mask has become usual and ubiquitous, in both hospitals and community. However, the general public is consuming surgical or filtering face piece (FFP) masks irrespective of their specificity, leading to global supply shortage for the most exposed persons, which are healthcare workers. This underlines the urgent need to clarify the indications of the different categories of mask, in order to rationalize their use. The study herein specifies the French position for the rational use of respiratory protective equipment for healthcare workers.

Title: Current knowledge of COVID-19 and infection prevention and control strategies in healthcare settings: A global analysis Content: OBJECTIVE: In the current absence of a vaccine for COVID-19, public health responses aim to break the chain of infection by focusing on the mode of transmission. We reviewed the current evidence on the transmission dynamics and on pathogenic and clinical features of COVID-19 to critically identify any gaps in the current infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines. METHODS: In this study, we reviewed global COVID-19 IPC guidelines by organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Guidelines from 2 high-income countries (Australia and United Kingdom) and from 1 middle-income country (China) were also reviewed. We searched publications in English on ‘PubMed’ and Google Scholar. We extracted information related to COVID-19 transmission dynamics, clinical presentations, and exposures that may facilitate transmission. We then compared these findings with the recommended IPC measures. RESULTS: Nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare settings occurs through droplets, aerosols, and the oral–fecal or fecal–droplet route. However, the IPC guidelines fail to cover all transmission modes, and the recommendations also conflict with each other. Most guidelines recommend surgical masks for healthcare providers during routine care and N95 respirators for aerosol-generating procedures. However, recommendations regarding the type of face mask varied, and the CDC recommends cloth masks when surgical masks are unavailable. CONCLUSION: IPC strategies should consider all the possible routes of transmission and should target all patient care activities involving risk of person-to-person transmission. This review may assist international health agencies in updating their guidelines.

Title: Current knowledge of COVID-19 and infection prevention and control strategies in healthcare settings: A global analysis Content: OBJECTIVE: In the current absence of a vaccine for COVID-19, public health responses aim to break the chain of infection by focusing on the mode of transmission. We reviewed the current evidence on the transmission dynamics and on pathogenic and clinical features of COVID-19 to critically identify any gaps in the current infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines. METHODS: In this study, we reviewed global COVID-19 IPC guidelines by organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Guidelines from 2 high-income countries (Australia and United Kingdom) and from 1 middle-income country (China) were also reviewed. We searched publications in English on 'PubMed' and Google Scholar. We extracted information related to COVID-19 transmission dynamics, clinical presentations, and exposures that may facilitate transmission. We then compared these findings with the recommended IPC measures. RESULTS: Nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare settings occurs through droplets, aerosols, and the oral-fecal or fecal-droplet route. However, the IPC guidelines fail to cover all transmission modes, and the recommendations also conflict with each other. Most guidelines recommend surgical masks for healthcare providers during routine care and N95 respirators for aerosol-generating procedures. However, recommendations regarding the type of face mask varied, and the CDC recommends cloth masks when surgical masks are unavailable. CONCLUSION: IPC strategies should consider all the possible routes of transmission and should target all patient care activities involving risk of person-to-person transmission. This review may assist international health agencies in updating their guidelines.

Title: Medical mask or N95 respirator: When and how to use? Content: COVID-19 pandemic is now a global threat on human health reaching up to 2 million infected people all around the World. Since its first recognition in Wuhan, many topics were discussed intensively about COVID-19, both in the public and scientific community. Personal protective equipments and especially masks were among the hottest topics during this pandemic. Regardless of which mask is used, performing hand hygiene frequently with an alcohol-based hand rub or with soap and water if hands are dirty; is the most effective preventive measure for COVID-19. The type of mask used when caring for COVID-19 patients will vary according to the setting, type of personnel/person, and activity. Although the main transmission route for COVID-19 is droplets, during aerosol generating procedures airborne transmission may occur. Keeping the distancing and medical masks and eye protection during close contact efficiently protects against respiratory diseases transmitted via droplets. Airborne precautions include goggles and respiratory protection with the use of an N95 or an equivalent mask respirator to prevent airborne transmission.

Title: Medical mask or N95 respirator: When and how to use? Content: COVID-19 pandemic is now a global threat to human health reaching up to 2 million infected people all around the world. Since its first recognition in Wuhan, many topics were discussed intensively about COVID-19, both in the public and scientific community. Personal protective equipment, especially masks, has been among the hottest topics during this pandemic. Regardless of which mask is used, performing hand hygiene frequently with an alcohol-based hand rub or with soap and water if hands are dirty is the most effective preventive measure for COVID-19. The type of mask used when caring for COVID-19 patients will vary according to the setting, type of personnel/person, and activity. Although the main transmission route for COVID-19 is droplets, during aerosol generating procedures airborne transmission may occur. Keeping the distancing and medical masks and eye protection during close contact efficiently protects against respiratory diseases transmitted via droplets. Airborne precautions include goggles and respiratory protection with the use of an N95 or an equivalent mask respirator to prevent airborne transmission.

Title: Coronavirus infection prevention by wearing masks Content: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) [2019-nCoV; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)] was first detected in Wuhan, China at the end of 2019. In current status, spread of CO-VID-19 in person-to-person could be caused mainly by respiratory droplets, which leads to the spread of the influenza virus in both community and clinicians. Thus, in order to reduce the risk of that, the urgent management strategies against COVID-19 are to block transmission, isolation, protection, and using drug or vaccine updated on an ongoing basis. unfortunately, no drugs or vaccines still has yet been allowed to treat patients with COVID-19, so the rapid detection of effective intercessions against COVID-19 is seemed a major challenge on the all world. Herein, this article attempts summarizing to introduce the characterization of COVID-19, the influence of droplets travel in person-to-person transmission and the effect of wearing masks in the infection prevention of influenza virus, as well as understanding its advantage and role in the coronavirus infection prevention.

Title: Protecting healthcare staff from severe acute respiratory syndrome: filtration capacity of multiple surgical masks Content: Summary Guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organisation state that healthcare workers should wear N95 masks or higher-level protection during all contact with suspected severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). In areas where N95 masks are not available, multiple layers of surgical masks have been tried to prevent transmission of SARS. The in vivo filtration capacity of a single surgical mask is known to be poor. However, the filtration capacity of a combination of masks is unknown. This was a crossover trial of one, two, three and five surgical masks in six volunteers to determine the in vivo filtration efficiency of wearing more than one surgical mask. We used a Portacount to measure the difference in ambient particle counts inside and outside the masks. The best combination of five surgical masks scored a fit factor of 13.7, which is well below the minimum level of 100 required for a half face respirator. Multiple surgical masks filter ambient particles poorly. They should not be used as a substitute for N95 masks unless there is no alternative.

Title: Anosmia: a COVID-19 symptom that must be investigated by rhinoplasty surgeons Content: the prevention of the COVID-19 epidemic between the LTCFs having been contaminated by at least one case of COVID-19 among residents and/or LTCFs staff and LTCFs with no cases of COVID between March 23rd and May 6th, in the year 2020 Methods Participants The epidemic risk being variable over time and from one region to another, and because the guidance have evolved over time in short-term periods, our study was limited to all the LTCFs of the Haute-Garonne department (Occitania region), SouthWestern France, between March 23rd and May 6th, 2020 We sent a questionnaire to LTCFs directors/medical staff by email on March 30th, to all the 132 LTCFs registered in the Haute-Garonne department After sending the questionnaire, we systematically performed a phone call (period of 6 to 19 May 2020) to the LTCFs either coordinating nurse or coordinating doctor in order to explain the questions and guide them on how to complete the questionnaire online The questionnaire focused on the preventive measures implemented in the LTCF before March 23rd, 2020 This date refers to the first confirmed case of COVID-19 in LTCFs in the department of Haute Garonne At that period, none of the other LTCFs had confirmed cases of COVID-19 The questionnaire therefore relates to practices at the time that preceded the arrival of the epidemic wave This date was also chosen because it was, on the basis of our field knowledge (7), an important motivational element for local LTCFs to implement more strictly all the guidance for LTCFs This event was indeed widely diffused in the media in the Haute Garonne department, in the official website of the association of LTCFs coordinating doctors and allowed a temporal reference of a major local event helping LTCFs staff to complete the questionnaire accurately Variables of interest The questionnaire included the status of the LTC (public, private for-profit, private non-profit) and the presence of a coordinating physician (yes/no) The implementation of the guidance were listed (each recommendation was a dichotomy: yes/no) regarding: the systematic wearing of masks by the healthcare professional;access to effective masks (surgical and/or FFP2);satisfactory supply of masks;satisfactory supply of hydro-alcoholic solute;access to specific internal or external training on hygiene measures throughout the year;the use of containment in residents' rooms;during meals, separating residents to each other, respecting a distance of at least one meter (in the dining room with distance, in small groups, in bedroom);cessation of group activities for residents (with distance, in small groups);the use of interim jobs;staff compartmentalization within zones (organization of the work so that the team works in small groups in one area of the LTCF with no physical connection with the other members of the team);resident compartmentalization within zones (organization of the LTCF so that the resident live in small groups in one area of the LTCF with no possible physical connection with the other residents);specific dressing procedure at the entrance (complete daily routine dress change at the entrance and exit of the LTCF for anyone entering the LTCF) In order to judge the global prevention effort made by the healthcare team, the questionnaire ended with a self-assessment scale: To what extent do you think the nursing home staff has satisfactorily applied all the recommended «barrier» measures? (rated from 0, not at all, to 10, perfectly) At the end of the phone call, the coordinating nurse or coordinating doctor was asked to give a global judgment of the follow-up of the guidance by the all nursing home staff Outcome measure The coordinating nurse or doctor should specify whether, in the LTCFs, one or more residents and/or one or more caregivers were infected with COVID-19 (yes/no) The cases had to be confirmed by a positive rt-PCR test Unity of measurement was the LTCF Ethics This study is a survey of the leaders of the LTCFs and no data relating to residents was collected The approval of the ethics c mmittee was not required Statistical Analysis Qualitative variables are described as numbers and percentage [n (%)] and quantitative variables as mean and standard deviation (SD) Bivariate analysis used the chi-square test (Fisher's exact test if applicable) and the Student's ttest for independent samples, as appropriate In order to consider the confounding factors, a logistic regression was realized Multicollinearity was assessed The initial model was composed of variables found associated with a LTCFs infected by COVID-19 to a threshold of 0 20 in bivariate analysis Then, a reduced model was performed, using a step by step backward regression Analysis has been duplicated separately for private and public LTCFs Results Among the 132 LTCFs in the region, 124 (93 9%) agreed to participate and 8 refused In 30 LTCFs, confirmed cases of COVID-19 (24 2%) were found among: one or more residents (n = 6 LTCFs), one or more caregivers (n = 17), or both (n = 7) Seven LTCFs (5 6%) had confirmed cases for two or more residents Table 1 shows the implementation of guidance in the LTCFs with confirmed COVID cases vs those without confirmed cases In bivariate analyses, LTCFs ownership, staff compartmentalization within zones, use of professional interim, and organization of the meals with ≥ 1-meter distance separating residents to each other were significantly associated with infection of COVID-19 in the LTCFs The

Title: Coproducing Responses to COVID‐19 with Community‐Based Organizations: Lessons from Zhejiang Province, China Content: Zhejiang Province achieved one of the best records in containing the COVID‐19 pandemic in China, what lessons can the world learn from it? What roles do community‐based organizations play in its success story? Based on more than 100 interviews during and after the outbreak in Zhejiang, this article provides a roadmap of how community‐based organizations were involved in the three distinct stages of Zhejiang's responses to COVID‐19. We recommend that public sector leaders strategically leverage the strengths of community‐based organizations in multiple stages of COVID‐19 responses; incentivize volunteers to participate in epidemic prevention and control; provide data infrastructure and digital tracking platforms; and build trust and long‐term capacity of community‐based organizations. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Title: Social and behavioral health responses to COVID-19: lessons learned from four decades of an HIV pandemic Content: Our public health approaches to addressing COVID-19 are heavily dependent on social and behavioral change strategies to halt transmissions. To date, biomedical forms of curative and preventative treatments for COVID-19 are at best limited. Four decades into the HIV epidemic we have learned a considerable amount of information regarding social and behavioral approaches to addressing disease transmission. Here we outline broad, scoping lessons learned from the HIV literature tailored to the nature of what we currently know about COVID-19. We focus on multiple levels of intervention including intrapersonal, interpersonal, community, and social factors, each of which provide a reference point for understanding and elaborating on social/behavioral lessons learned from HIV prevention and treatment research. The investments in HIV prevention and treatment research far outweigh any infectious disease in the history of public health, that is, until now with the emergence of COVID-19.

Title: Let food be the medicine, but not for coronavirus: Nutrition and food science, telling myths from facts Content: The entire globe is facing a dangerous pandemic due to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The medical and scientific community is trying to figure out and adopt effective strategies that can lead to (i) preventing virus expansion; (ii) identifying medications for the management of critical care and reducing rates of mortality; and (iii) finally discovering the highly anticipated vaccine. Nutritional interventions have attained considerable scientific evidence in disease prevention and treatment. The main question, “What is the role of nutrition and food science in this scenario?” requires urgent answer as many theories suggesting that specific food or dietary supplements can fight coronavirus infection have received extensive coverage in most popular social media platforms. In this editorial, we focus on some frequent statements on the role of nutrition and food science in the battle against COVID-19, distinguishing between myths and facts. We highlight that social distancing and hygiene precautions are the best practices for reducing the risk of COVID-19 transmission. We further underline the importance of nutrition in its wholistic concept, pointing out the risk of unproven dietary options that could lead individuals to weaken effective precautionary measures.

Title: Medical masks vs N95 respirators for preventing COVID‐19 in healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized trials Content: BACKGROUND: Respiratory protective devices are critical in protecting against infection in healthcare workers at high risk of novel 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID‐19); however, recommendations are conflicting and epidemiological data on their relative effectiveness against COVID‐19 are limited. PURPOSE: To compare medical masks to N95 respirators in preventing laboratory‐confirmed viral infection and respiratory illness including coronavirus specifically in healthcare workers. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from January 1, 2014, to March 9, 2020. Update of published search conducted from January 1, 1990, to December 9, 2014. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the protective effect of medical masks to N95 respirators in healthcare workers. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewer pair independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four RCTs were meta‐analyzed adjusting for clustering. Compared with N95 respirators; the use of medical masks did not increase laboratory‐confirmed viral (including coronaviruses) respiratory infection (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.90‐1.25; I (2) = 0%; low certainty in the evidence) or clinical respiratory illness (OR 1.49; 95% CI: 0.98‐2.28; I (2) = 78%; very low certainty in the evidence). Only one trial evaluated coronaviruses separately and found no difference between the two groups (P = .49). LIMITATIONS: Indirectness and imprecision of available evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Low certainty evidence suggests that medical masks and N95 respirators offer similar protection against viral respiratory infection including coronavirus in healthcare workers during non–aerosol‐generating care. Preservation of N95 respirators for high‐risk, aerosol‐generating procedures in this pandemic should be considered when in short supply.

Title: Medical masks vs N95 respirators for preventing COVID-19 in healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials Content: BACKGROUND: Respiratory protective devices are critical in protecting against infection in healthcare workers at high risk of novel 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19); however, recommendations are conflicting and epidemiological data on their relative effectiveness against COVID-19 are limited. PURPOSE: To compare medical masks to N95 respirators in preventing laboratory-confirmed viral infection and respiratory illness including coronavirus specifically in healthcare workers. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from January 1, 2014, to March 9, 2020. Update of published search conducted from January 1, 1990, to December 9, 2014. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the protective effect of medical masks to N95 respirators in healthcare workers. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewer pair independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four RCTs were meta-analyzed adjusting for clustering. Compared with N95 respirators; the use of medical masks did not increase laboratory-confirmed viral (including coronaviruses) respiratory infection (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.90-1.25; I2 = 0%; low certainty in the evidence) or clinical respiratory illness (OR 1.49; 95% CI: 0.98-2.28; I2 = 78%; very low certainty in the evidence). Only one trial evaluated coronaviruses separately and found no difference between the two groups (P = .49). LIMITATIONS: Indirectness and imprecision of available evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Low certainty evidence suggests that medical masks and N95 respirators offer similar protection against viral respiratory infection including coronavirus in healthcare workers during non-aerosol-generating care. Preservation of N95 respirators for high-risk, aerosol-generating procedures in this pandemic should be considered when in short supply.

Title: Masking the general population might attenuate COVID-19 outbreaks Content: The effect of masking the general population on a COVID-19 epidemic is estimated by computer simulation using two separate state-of-the-art web-based softwares, one of them calibrated for the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The questions addressed are these: 1. Can mask use by the general population limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in a country? 2. What types of masks exist, and how elaborate must a mask be to be effective against COVID-19? 3. Does the mask have to be applied early in an epidemic? 4. A brief general discussion of masks and some possible future research questions regarding masks and SARS-CoV-2. Results are as follows: (1) The results indicate that any type of mask, even simple home-made ones, may be effective. Masks use seems to have an effect in lowering new patients even the protective effect of each mask (here dubbed"one-mask protection") is low. Strict adherence to mask use does not appear to be critical. However, increasing the one-mask protection to>50% was found to be advantageous. Masks seemed able to reduce overflow of capacity, e.g. of intensive care. As the default parameters of the software included another intervention, it seems possible to combine mask and other interventions. (2) Masks do seem to reduce the number of new cases even if introduced at a late stage in an epidemic. However, early implementation helps reduce the cumulative and total number of cases. (3) The simulations suggest that it might be possible to eliminate a COVID-19 outbreak by widespread mask use during a limited period. The results from these simulations are encouraging, but do not necessarily represent the real-life situation, so it is suggested that clinical trials of masks are now carried out while continuously monitoring effects and side-effects.

Title: The use of facemasks by the general population to prevent transmission of Covid 19 infection: A systematic review. Content: Background The pandemic of COVID-19, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS- CoV-2), has become a serious worldwide public health emergency. This systematic review aims to summarize the available evidence regarding the role of face mask in community settings in slowing the spread of respiratory viruses such as SARS- CoV-2. Methods The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for this review. A literature search using PUBMED, Google Scholar, and Cochrane database were performed using Medical subject heading (MeSH) words from the year 2000-2020. The articles focused on the use of masks and N95 respirators in healthcare workers were excluded. Results A total of 305 records were identified, out of which 14 articles were included in the review based upon quality and eligibility criteria. All the articles mentioned about the role of face masks in preventing the spread of respiratory viruses like influenza, SARS, and SARS-CoV-2, in the community or experimental setting. Studies also suggested that early initiation of face mask usage was more effective. Masks were also reported to be more effective in viruses that transmit easily from asymptomatic individuals, as is now known in SARS-CoV-2. Conclusion Theoretical, experimental, and clinical evidence suggested that usage of face masks in a general population offered significant benefit in preventing the spread of respiratory viruses especially in the pandemic situation, but its utility is limited by inconsistent adherence to mask usage.

Title: Does Collective Interest or Self-Interest Motivate Mask Usage as a Preventive Measure Against COVID-19? Content: The revised guidance on masks from public health officials has been one of the most significant COVID-19 policy reversals to date. Statements made at the outset of the pandemic, including those from the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States Surgeon General, and the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, all actively discouraged asymptomatic members of the general public from wearing masks. However, on April 3, 2020, the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued new recommendations that called for nonmedical masks, such as cloth face coverings, to be worn in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (Adams, 2020). Canadian public health officials quickly followed with their own guidance for wearing nonmedical masks or face coverings when out in public; however, they have stressed that doing so is optional for asymptomatic persons and should be seen as a complement to existing precautionary measures such as physical distancing and hand hygiene, particularly in cases where physical distancing may not be feasible (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2020). Emphasis was placed on nonmedical masks serving not to protect the wearer, but rather others who come within close proximity of the wearer. Echoing her public statements on the matter, Canada's chief public health officer Tweeted that “[w]earing a NON-MEDICAL mask in public settings has not been proven to add any protection TO the person wearing it, but it can be an additional way to prevent spread FROM an infected person to others” (Tam, 2020).

Title: Universal masking in hospitals in the COVID-19 era: Is it time to consider shielding? Content: With concerns for presymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 and increasing burden of contact tracing and employee furloughs, several hospitals have supplemented pre-existing infection prevention measures with universal masking of all personnel in hospitals. Other hospitals are currently faced with the dilemma of whether or not to proceed with universal masking in a time of critical mask shortages. We summarize the rationale behind a universal masking policy in healthcare settings, important considerations before implementing such a policy and the challenges with universal masking. We also discusses proposed solutions such as universal face shields.

Title: The 5% of the Population at High Risk for Severe COVID-19 Infection Is Identifiable and Needs to Be Taken Into Account When Reopening the Economy Content: The goal of this column is to help mental health care professionals understand coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) so that they can better explain the complexities of the current crisis to their patients. The bottom-line of this column is that, while COVID-19 can infect virtually everyone in the human population, only about 5% are susceptible to severe infection requiring admission to an intensive care unit and/or causing a fatal outcome and this population can be identified on the basis of comorbid medical illness and/or age. These numbers are based on experience in China, the United States, and Europe. Table 1 presents an analysis conducted by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which is further supported by several other sources reviewed in the article. The population at risk for severe infection are individuals with comorbid medical illness and those 85 years of age and older. The comorbid medical illnesses identified as risk factors are preexisting respiratory and cardiovascular disease, immunocompromised status, morbid obesity (ie, body mass index ≥40), diabetes mellitus, and possibly significant kidney or liver impairment. Parenthetically, news reports and the literature sometimes cite age 60 years and older as a risk factor but age between 60 and 85 years is likely a surrogate for having 1 or more of these comorbid medical conditions. While 5% may initially seem like a small number, it nevertheless potentially represents 16.5 million people, given the United States population of 330 million. That is a tremendous number of people requiring intensive care unit admission and/or potentially dying, and individuals in this population have overwhelmed the US health care system in some hotspots. For this reason, this column suggests taking this at-risk population into account in mitigation strategies when attempting to open the US economy. The column addresses the following questions: (1) What are the 3 aspects of the race to minimize the damage caused by COVID-19? (2) What data are currently available to help guide decisions to be made? (3) What strategies have been employed to date and how successful have they been? and (4) Might risk stratification of exposure be a viable strategy to minimize the damage caused by the virus? The race to minimize the damage caused by COVID-19 requires that we obtain knowledge about the disease and its treatment or prevention, how to best safeguard public health and avoid overwhelming the health care system, and how to minimize the societal damage caused by substantial disruption of the economy. Data gathered over the past 4 months since the COVID-19 virus emerged as a human pathogen have provided guidance for our decisions going forward. The most widely adopted strategies for dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic to date have involved the epidemiological approach of encouraging good hygiene practices and social distancing, including orders to "shelter in place," quarantine of high-risk individuals, and isolation of infected individuals. The goal of this epidemiological approach has been to "flatten the curve" by reducing the height of the peak of the infection to avoid overwhelming the health care system and society in general, while buying time to learn more about the disease and find more effective ways to deal with it. However, now that more is known about COVID-19 and the portion of the population that is most at risk for serious adverse outcomes including death, it may be possible to move from a shelter-in-place approach for the entire population to focus on those at most risk and thus facilitate a gradual and rational phased reduction of social restrictions to reopen the economy. Such a graduated opening would be based on regions of countries meeting specific criteria in terms of being able to contain the virus, coupled with vigorous monitoring to look for outbreaks, followed by case monitoring, isolation of infected individuals and quarantine of exposed individuals, and increased use of testing for active disease as well as for immunity. Taking the data on high-risk individuals into account would allow for a gradual lifting of restrictions on the majority of the population while maintaining more stringent safeguards to protect the vulnerable portion of the population. Nevertheless, the entire population would need to continue to practice good hygiene and social distancing while simultaneously-and perhaps even more vigorously-focusing on sheltering the vulnerable population until adequate community immunity has been achieved to prevent the spread of the virus, whether that is accomplished through natural exposure alone or with the addition of safe and effective vaccine(s) which may not be available for a year. Continued widespread testing for antibodies will help determine how far or close this country is-and other countries are-from developing effective community immunity.

Title: The 5% of the Population at High Risk for Severe COVID-19 Infection Is Identifiable and Needs to Be Taken Into Account When Reopening the Economy. Content: The goal of this column is to help mental health care professionals understand coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) so that they can better explain the complexities of the current crisis to their patients. The bottom-line of this column is that, while COVID-19 can infect virtually everyone in the human population, only about 5% are susceptible to severe infection requiring admission to an intensive care unit and/or causing a fatal outcome and this population can be identified on the basis of comorbid medical illness and/or age. These numbers are based on experience in China, the United States, and Europe. Table 1 presents an analysis conducted by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which is further supported by several other sources reviewed in the article. The population at risk for severe infection are individuals with comorbid medical illness and those 85 years of age and older. The comorbid medical illnesses identified as risk factors are preexisting respiratory and cardiovascular disease, immunocompromised status, morbid obesity (ie, body mass index ≥40), diabetes mellitus, and possibly significant kidney or liver impairment. Parenthetically, news reports and the literature sometimes cite age 60 years and older as a risk factor but age between 60 and 85 years is likely a surrogate for having 1 or more of these comorbid medical conditions. While 5% may initially seem like a small number, it nevertheless potentially represents 16.5 million people, given the United States population of 330 million. That is a tremendous number of people requiring intensive care unit admission and/or potentially dying, and individuals in this population have overwhelmed the US health care system in some hotspots. For this reason, this column suggests taking this at-risk population into account in mitigation strategies when attempting to open the US economy. The column addresses the following questions: (1) What are the 3 aspects of the race to minimize the damage caused by COVID-19? (2) What data are currently available to help guide decisions to be made? (3) What strategies have been employed to date and how successful have they been? and (4) Might risk stratification of exposure be a viable strategy to minimize the damage caused by the virus? The race to minimize the damage caused by COVID-19 requires that we obtain knowledge about the disease and its treatment or prevention, how to best safeguard public health and avoid overwhelming the health care system, and how to minimize the societal damage caused by substantial disruption of the economy. Data gathered over the past 4 months since the COVID-19 virus emerged as a human pathogen have provided guidance for our decisions going forward. The most widely adopted strategies for dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic to date have involved the epidemiological approach of encouraging good hygiene practices and social distancing, including orders to "shelter in place," quarantine of high-risk individuals, and isolation of infected individuals. The goal of this epidemiological approach has been to "flatten the curve" by reducing the height of the peak of the infection to avoid overwhelming the health care system and society in general, while buying time to learn more about the disease and find more effective ways to deal with it. However, now that more is known about COVID-19 and the portion of the population that is most at risk for serious adverse outcomes including death, it may be possible to move from a shelter-in-place approach for the entire population to focus on those at most risk and thus facilitate a gradual and rational phased reduction of social restrictions to reopen the economy. Such a graduated opening would be based on regions of countries meeting specific criteria in terms of being able to contain the virus, coupled with vigorous monitoring to look for outbreaks, followed by case monitoring, isolation of infected individuals and quarantine of exposed individuals, and increased use of testing for active disease as well as for immunity. Taking the data on high-risk individuals into account would allow for a gradual lifting of restrictions on the majority of the population while maintaining more stringent safeguards to protect the vulnerable portion of the population. Nevertheless, the entire population would need to continue to practice good hygiene and social distancing while simultaneously-and perhaps even more vigorously-focusing on sheltering the vulnerable population until adequate community immunity has been achieved to prevent the spread of the virus, whether that is accomplished through natural exposure alone or with the addition of safe and effective vaccine(s) which may not be available for a year. Continued widespread testing for antibodies will help determine how far or close this country is-and other countries are-from developing effective community immunity.

Title: Skull-base surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: the Italian Skull Base Society recommendations Content: Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is highly contagious with devastating impacts for healthcare systems worldwide. Medical staff are at high risk of viral contamination and it is imperative to know what personal protective equipment (PPE) is appropriate for each situation. Furthermore, elective clinics and operations have been reduced in order to mobilize manpower to the acute specialties combating the outbreak; appropriate differentiation between patients who require immediate care and those who can receive telephone consultation or whose treatment might viably be postponed is therefore crucial. Italy was 1 of the earliest and hardest-hit European countries and therefore the Italian Skull Base Society board has promulgated specific recommendations based on consensus best practices and the literature, where available. Only urgent surgical operations are recommended and all patients should be tested at least twice (on days 4 and 2 prior to surgery). For positive patients, procedures should be postponed until after swab test negativization. If the procedure is vital to the survival of the patient, filtering facepiece 3 (FFP3) and/or powered air purifying respirator (PAPR) devices, goggles, full-face visor, double gloves, water-resistant gowns, and protective caps are mandatory. For negative patients, use of at least an FFP2 mask is recommended. In all cases the use of drills, which promote the aerosolization of potentially infected mucous particles, should be avoided. Given the potential neurotropism of SARS-CoV-2, dura handling should be minimized. It is only through widely-agreed protocols and teamwork that we will be able to deal with the evolving and complex implications of this new pandemic.

Title: Skull base surgery during the Covid‐19 pandemic: The Italian skull base society recommendations Content: Severe acute respiratory syndrome‐coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid‐19), is highly contagious with devastating impacts for healthcare systems worldwide. Medical staff are at high risk of viral contamination and it is imperative to know what personal protective equipment is appropriate for each situation. Furthermore, elective clinics and operations have been reduced in order to mobilize manpower to the acute specialties combatting the outbreak; appropriate differentiation between patients who require immediate care and those who can receive telephone consultation or whose treatment might viably be postponed is therefore crucial. Italy was one of the earliest and hardest‐hit European countries and therefore the Italian Skull Base Society board has promulgated specific recommendations based on consensus best practices and the literature, where available. Only urgent surgical operations are recommended and all patients should be tested at least twice (on days 4 and 2 prior to surgery). For positive patients, procedures should be postponed until after swab test negativization. If the procedure is vital to the survival of the patient, FFP3 and/or PAPRs devices, goggles, full‐face visor, double gloves, water‐resistant gowns and protective caps, are mandatory. For negative patients, use of at least FFP2 mask is recommended. In all cases the use of drills, which promote the aerosolization of potentially infected mucous particles, should be avoided. Given the potential neurotropism of SARS‐CoV‐2, dura handling should be minimized. It is only through widely‐agreed protocols and teamwork that we will be able to deal with the evolving and complex implications of this new pandemic. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Title: COVID-19: Special Precautions in Ophthalmic Practice and FAQs on Personal Protection and Mask Selection Content: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory coronavirus-2, was first reported in December 2019. The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, 2020 and as of April 17, 2020, 210 countries are affected with >2,000,000 infected and 140,000 deaths. The estimated case fatality rate is around 6.7%. We need to step up our infection control measures immediately or else it may be too late to contain or control the spread of COVID-19. In case of local outbreaks, the risk of infection to healthcare workers and patients is high. Ophthalmic practice carries some unique risks and therefore high vigilance and special precautions are needed. We share our protocols and experiences in the prevention of infection in the current COVID-19 outbreak and the previous severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic in Hong Kong. We also endeavor to answer the key frequently asked questions in areas of the coronaviruses, COVID-19, disease transmission, personal protection, mask selection, and special measures in ophthalmic practices. COVID-19 is highly infectious and could be life-threatening. Using our protocol and measures, we have achieved zero infection in our ophthalmic practices in Hong Kong and China. Preventing spread of COVID-19 is possible and achievable.

Title: Effectiveness of Cloth Masks for Protection Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Content: Cloth masks have been used in healthcare and community settings to protect the wearer from respiratory infections. The use of cloth masks during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is under debate. The filtration effectiveness of cloth masks is generally lower than that of medical masks and respirators; however, cloth masks may provide some protection if well designed and used correctly. Multilayer cloth masks, designed to fit around the face and made of water-resistant fabric with a high number of threads and finer weave, may provide reasonable protection. Until a cloth mask design is proven to be equally effective as a medical or N95 mask, wearing cloth masks should not be mandated for healthcare workers. In community settings, however, cloth masks may be used to prevent community spread of infections by sick or asymptomatically infected persons, and the public should be educated about their correct use.

Title: Effectiveness of Cloth Masks for Protection Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2. Content: Cloth masks have been used in healthcare and community settings to protect the wearer from respiratory infections. The use of cloth masks during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is under debate. The filtration effectiveness of cloth masks is generally lower than that of medical masks and respirators; however, cloth masks may provide some protection if well designed and used correctly. Multilayer cloth masks, designed to fit around the face and made of water-resistant fabric with a high number of threads and finer weave, may provide reasonable protection. Until a cloth mask design is proven to be equally effective as a medical or N95 mask, wearing cloth masks should not be mandated for healthcare workers. In community settings, however, cloth masks may be used to prevent community spread of infections by sick or asymptomatically infected persons, and the public should be educated about their correct use.

Title: Selection of homemade mask materials for preventing transmission of COVID-19: a laboratory study Content: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has swept the whole world with high mortality. Since droplet transmission is the main route of transmission, wearing a mask serves as a crucial preventive measure. However, the virus has spread quite quickly, causing severe mask shortage. Finding alternative materials for homemade masks while ensuring the significant performance indicators will help alleviate the shortage of masks. Referring to the national standard for the "Surgical Mask" of China, 17 materials to be selected for homemade masks were tested in four key indicators: pressure difference, particle filtration efficiency, bacterial filtration efficiency and resistance to surface wetting. Eleven single-layer materials met the standard of pressure difference ([≤]49 Pa), of which 3 met the standard of resistance to surface wetting ([≥]3), 1 met the standard of particle filtration efficiency ([≥]30%), but none met the standard of bacterial filtration efficiency ([≥]95%). Based on the testing results of single-layer materials, fifteen combinations of paired materials were tested. The results showed that three double-layer materials including double-layer medical non-woven fabric, medical non-woven fabric plus non-woven shopping bag, and medical non-woven fabric plus granular tea towel could meet all the standards of pressure difference, particle filtration efficiency, and resistance to surface wetting, and were close to the standard of the bacterial filtration efficiency. In conclusion, if resources are severely lacking and medical masks cannot be obtained, homemade masks using available materials, based on the results of this study, can minimize the chance of infection to the maximum extent.

Title: Event-specific interventions to minimize COVID-19 transmission Content: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic with over 11 million cases worldwide. Currently there is no treatment and no vaccine. Interventions such as hand washing, masks, social distancing, and "social bubbles" are used to limit community transmission, but it is challenging to choose the best interventions for a given activity. Here, we provide a quantitative framework to determine which interventions are likely to have the most impact in which settings. We introduce the concept of "event R", the expected number of new infections due to the presence of a single infected individual at an event. We obtain a fundamental relationship between event R and four parameters: transmission intensity, duration of exposure, the proximity of individuals, and the degree of mixing. We use reports of small outbreaks to establish event R and transmission intensity in a range of settings. We identify principles that guide whether physical distancing, masks and other barriers to transmission, or social bubbles will be most effective. We outline how this information can be obtained and used to re-open economies with principled measures to reduce COVID-19 transmission.

Title: Best practice recommendations: ENT consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic Content: These best practice recommendations for ENT consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic have been drawn up because ENT examinations and treatments are at risk of contamination by the SARS-Cov-2 virus in certain instances. Thus, ENT specialists are among the professionals who are most exposed to this infection. During the pandemic, insofar as an asymptomatic patient may be infected and contagious, the same precautions must be employed whether the patient is ill with, suspected of having, or without any clinical evidence of COVID-19 infection. According to the scientific data available, the examinations and procedures potentially exposing to projections/aerosolizations of organic material of human origin are considered to be at risk of staff contamination. For ENT examinations and procedures without exposure to such projections/aerosolizations, the professional is advised to a long sleeve clean outfit, a surgical mask and gloves in case of contact with the patient's mucosa. ENT examinations and procedures with exposure to these projections/aerosolizations require the so-called "airborne", "contact", and "droplets" additional precautions: FFP2/N95 respiratory protection device, eye protection, disposable headwear and long sleeve overgown.

Title: Best practice recommendations: ENT consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic Content: These best practice recommendations for ENT consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic have been drawn up because ENT examinations and treatments are at risk of contamination by the SARS-Cov-2 virus in certain instances. Thus, ENT specialists are among the professionals who are most exposed to this infection. During the pandemic, insofar as an asymptomatic patient may be infected and contagious, the same precautions must be employed whether the patient is ill with, suspected of having, or without any clinical evidence of COVID-19 infection. According to the scientific data available, the examinations and procedures potentially exposing to projections/aerosolizations of organic material of human origin are considered to be at risk of staff contamination. For ENT examinations and procedures without exposure to such projections/aerosolizations, the professional is advised to a long sleeve clean outfit, a surgical mask and gloves in case of contact with the patient's mucosa. ENT examinations and procedures with exposure to these projections/aerosolizations require the so-called “airborne”, “contact”, and “droplets” additional precautions: FFP2/N95 respiratory protection device, eye protection, disposable headwear and long sleeve overgown.

Title: COVID-19 and myeloma: what are the implications for now and in the future? Content: The pandemic has affected every aspect of myeloma care. Immediate focus is minimising risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the sequelae of infection. However, what does the future hold for our patients? What lessons will be taken forward to tackle myeloma in the fiscally constrained future? If we embrace the challenges that will emerge in the post-pandemic environment, the treatment delivered to patients could be more cost-effective and better tailored than before. Healthcare delivery post-COVID-19 will not return to how it was, and now is the time to invest in novel strategies to deliver the best possible outcomes for patients.

Title: Covid‐19 and Myeloma: what are the implications for now and in the future? Content: The pandemic has affected every aspect of myeloma care. Immediate focus is minimizing risk of contracting COVID‐19 and the sequelae of infection. However, what does the future hold for our patients? What lessons will be taken forward to tackle myeloma in the fiscally constrained future? If we embrace the challenges that will emerge in the post‐pandemic environment, the treatment delivered to patients could be more cost effective and better tailored than before. Healthcare delivery post‐COVID will not return to how it was, and now is the time to invest in novel strategies to deliver the best possible outcomes for patients.

Title: SARS-CoV-2 disease severity and diabetes: why the connection and what is to be done? Content: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a novel virus responsible for the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, has infected over 3.5 million people all over the world since the first case was reported from Wuhan, China 5 months ago. As more epidemiological data regarding COVID-19 patients is acquired, factors that increase the severity of the infection are being identified and reported. One of the most consistent co-morbidities associated with worse outcome in COVID-19 patients is diabetes, along with age and cardiovascular disease. Studies on the association of diabetes with other acute respiratory infections, namely SARS, MERS, and Influenza, outline what seems to be an underlying factor in diabetic patients that makes them more susceptible to complications. In this review we summarize what we think may be the factors driving this pattern between diabetes, aging and poor outcomes in respiratory infections. We also review therapeutic considerations and strategies for treatment of COVID-19 in diabetic patients, and how the additional challenge of this co-morbidity requires attention to glucose homeostasis so as to achieve the best outcomes possible for patients.

Title: To mask or not to mask: Modeling the potential for face mask use by the general public to curtail the COVID-19 pandemic Content: Face mask use by the general public for limiting the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic is controversial, though increasingly recommended, and the potential of this intervention is not well understood. We develop a compartmental model for assessing the community-wide impact of mask use by the general, asymptomatic public, a portion of which may be asymptomatically infectious. Model simulations, using data relevant to COVID-19 dynamics in the US states of New York and Washington, suggest that broad adoption of even relatively ineffective face masks may meaningfully reduce community transmission of COVID-19 and decrease peak hospitalizations and deaths. Moreover, mask use decreases the effective transmission rate in nearly linear proportion to the product of mask effectiveness (as a fraction of potentially infectious contacts blocked) and coverage rate (as a fraction of the general population), while the impact on epidemiologic outcomes (death, hospitalizations) is highly nonlinear, indicating masks could synergize with other non-pharmaceutical measures. Notably, masks are found to be useful with respect to both preventing illness in healthy persons and preventing asymptomatic transmission. Hypothetical mask adoption scenarios, for Washington and New York state, suggest that immediate near universal (80%) adoption of moderately (50%) effective masks could prevent on the order of 17--45% of projected deaths over two months in New York, while decreasing the peak daily death rate by 34--58%, absent other changes in epidemic dynamics. Even very weak masks (20% effective) can still be useful if the underlying transmission rate is relatively low or decreasing: In Washington, where baseline transmission is much less intense, 80% adoption of such masks could reduce mortality by 24--65% (and peak deaths 15--69%), compared to 2--9% mortality reduction in New York (peak death reduction 9--18%). Our results suggest use of face masks by the general public is potentially of high value in curtailing community transmission and the burden of the pandemic. The community-wide benefits are likely to be greatest when face masks are used in conjunction with other non-pharmaceutical practices (such as social-distancing), and when adoption is nearly universal (nation-wide) and compliance is high.

Title: To mask or not to mask: Modeling the potential for face mask use by the general public to curtail the COVID-19 pandemic Content: Face mask use by the general public for limiting the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic is controversial, though increasingly recommended, and the potential of this intervention is not well understood. We develop a compartmental model for assessing the community-wide impact of mask use by the general, asymptomatic public, a portion of which may be asymptomatically infectious. Model simulations, using data relevant to COVID-19 dynamics in the US states of New York and Washington, suggest that broad adoption of even relatively ineffective face masks may meaningfully reduce community transmission of COVID-19 and decrease peak hospitalizations and deaths. Moreover, mask use decreases the effective transmission rate in nearly linear proportion to the product of mask effectiveness (as a fraction of potentially infectious contacts blocked) and coverage rate (as a fraction of the general population), while the impact on epidemiologic outcomes (death, hospitalizations) is highly nonlinear, indicating masks could synergize with other non-pharmaceutical measures. Notably, masks are found to be useful with respect to both preventing illness in healthy persons and preventing asymptomatic transmission. Hypothetical mask adoption scenarios, for Washington and New York state, suggest that immediate near universal (80%) adoption of moderately (50%) effective masks could prevent on the order of 17–45% of projected deaths over two months in New York, while decreasing the peak daily death rate by 34–58%, absent other changes in epidemic dynamics. Even very weak masks (20% effective) can still be useful if the underlying transmission rate is relatively low or decreasing: In Washington, where baseline transmission is much less intense, 80% adoption of such masks could reduce mortality by 24–65% (and peak deaths 15–69%), compared to 2–9% mortality reduction in New York (peak death reduction 9–18%). Our results suggest use of face masks by the general public is potentially of high value in curtailing community transmission and the burden of the pandemic. The community-wide benefits are likely to be greatest when face masks are used in conjunction with other non-pharmaceutical practices (such as social-distancing), and when adoption is nearly universal (nation-wide) and compliance is high.

Title: Surgical mask partition reduces the risk of non-contact transmission in a golden Syrian hamster model for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Content: BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is believed to be mostly transmitted by medium-to-large sized respiratory droplets although airborne transmission is theoretically possible in healthcare settings involving aerosol-generating procedures. Exposure to respiratory droplets can theoretically be reduced by surgical mask usage. However, there is a lack of experimental evidence supporting surgical mask usage for prevention of COVID-19. METHODS: We used a well-established golden Syrian hamster SARS-CoV-2 model. We placed SARS-CoV-2-challenged index hamsters and naïve hamsters into closed system units each comprising two different cages separated by a polyvinyl chloride air porous partition with unidirectional airflow within the isolator. The effect of a surgical mask partition placed in between the cages was investigated. Besides clinical scoring, hamster specimens were tested for viral load, histopathology, and viral nucleocapsid antigen expression. RESULTS: Non-contact transmission was found in 66.7% (10/15) of exposed naïve hamsters. Surgical mask partition for challenged index or naïve hamsters significantly reduced transmission to 25% (6/24, P=0.018). Surgical mask partition for challenged index hamsters significantly reduced transmission to only 16.7% (2/12, P=0.019) of exposed naïve hamsters. Unlike the severe COVID-19 manifestations of challenged hamsters, infected naïve hamsters had lower clinical scores, milder histopathological changes, and lower viral nucleocapsid antigen expression in respiratory tract tissues. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 could be transmitted by respiratory droplets or airborne droplet nuclei in the hamster model. Such transmission could be reduced by surgical mask usage, especially when masks were worn by infected individuals.

Title: The epidemiological characteristics of 2019 novel coronavirus diseases (COVID-19) in Jingmen, Hubei, China Content: There is currently a global outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and its epidemic characteristics in the areas where the outbreak has been successfully controlled are rarely reported.Describe the epidemic characteristics of COVID-19 in Jingmen, Hubei, introduce the local prevention and control experience, and observe the impact of various prevention and control measures on the number of new cases.All the COVID-19 patients diagnosed in the municipal districts of Jingmen from January 12 to February 29, 2020 were enrolled in this study. We described epidemiological data and observed the impact of control measures on the epidemic.Of the 219 cases (110 men and 109 women), 88 (40%) had exposure to Wuhan. The median age was 48 years (range, 2-88 years; IQR, 35-60). Thirty-three severe patients with a median age of 66 years (range, 33-82 years, IQR, 57-76) were treated in intensive care units; out of these patients, 66.7% (22) were men and 19 (57.5%) had chronic diseases, including hypertension, diabetes, heart failure, stroke, and renal insufficiency. Under the control measures, the number of new patients gradually decreased and nearly disappeared after 18 days. Wearing masks in all kinds of situations prevents most infections and is one of the most effective prevention and control measures.In conclusion, all people are susceptible to COVID-19, and older males and those with comorbid conditions are more likely to become severe cases. Even though COVID-19 is highly contagious, control measures have proven to be very effective, particularly wearing masks, which could prevent most infections.

Title: The epidemiological characteristics of 2019 novel coronavirus diseases (COVID-19) in Jingmen, Hubei, China Content: There is currently a global outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and its epidemic characteristics in the areas where the outbreak has been successfully controlled are rarely reported. Describe the epidemic characteristics of COVID-19 in Jingmen, Hubei, introduce the local prevention and control experience, and observe the impact of various prevention and control measures on the number of new cases. All the COVID-19 patients diagnosed in the municipal districts of Jingmen from January 12 to February 29, 2020 were enrolled in this study. We described epidemiological data and observed the impact of control measures on the epidemic. Of the 219 cases (110 men and 109 women), 88 (40%) had exposure to Wuhan. The median age was 48 years (range, 2–88 years; IQR, 35–60). Thirty-three severe patients with a median age of 66 years (range, 33–82 years, IQR, 57–76) were treated in intensive care units; out of these patients, 66.7% (22) were men and 19 (57.5%) had chronic diseases, including hypertension, diabetes, heart failure, stroke, and renal insufficiency. Under the control measures, the number of new patients gradually decreased and nearly disappeared after 18 days. Wearing masks in all kinds of situations prevents most infections and is one of the most effective prevention and control measures. In conclusion, all people are susceptible to COVID-19, and older males and those with comorbid conditions are more likely to become severe cases. Even though COVID-19 is highly contagious, control measures have proven to be very effective, particularly wearing masks, which could prevent most infections.

Title: Epidemiology reveals mask wearing by the public is crucial for COVID-19 control Content: Abstract Objective The pandemic 2019 Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is the greatest concern globally. Here we analyzed the epidemiological features of China, South Korea, Italy and Spain to find out the relationship of major public health events and epidemiological curves. Study design In this study we describe and analyze the epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 in and outside China. We use GAM to generate the epidemiological curves and simulate infection curves with reported incubation period. Results The epidemiological curved derived from the GAM suggested that the infection curve can reflect the public health measurements sensitively. Under the massive actions token in China, the infection curve flattened at 23rd of January. While surprisingly, even before Wuhan lockdown and first level response of public emergency in Guangdong and Shanghai, those infection curve came to the reflection point both at 21st of January, which indicated the mask wearing by the public before 21st Jan were the key measure to cut off the transmission. In the countries outside China, infection curve also changed in response to measures, but its rate of decline was much smaller than the curve of China's. Conclusion The present analysis comparing the epidemiological curves in China, South Korea, Italy and Spain supports the importance of mask wearing by the public. Analysis of the infection curve helped to clarify the impact of important public health events, evaluate the efficiencies of prevention measures, and showed wearing masks in public resulted in significantly reduced daily infected cases.

Title: Airborne route and bad use of ventilation systems as non-negligible factors in SARS-CoV-2 transmission Content: Summary The world is facing a pandemic of unseen proportions caused by a corona virus named SARS-CoV-2 with unprecedent worldwide measures being taken to tackle its contagion. Person-to-person transmission is accepted but WHO only considers aerosol transmission when procedures or support treatments that produce aerosol are performed. However, transmission mechanisms are not fully understood and there is evidence for an airborne route to be considered as the virus remains viable in aerosols for at least 3h and that mask usage was the best intervention to prevent infection. Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Systems (HVAC) are used as a primary infection disease control measure. However, they may contribute to the transmission/spreading of airborne diseases as proposed in the past for SARS. The authors believe that airborne transmission is possible and that HVAC systems when not adequately used may contribute to the transmission of the virus, as suggested by descriptions of from Japan, Germany, and the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship. Previous SARS outbreaks reported at Amoy Gardens, Emergency Rooms and Hotels, for example, also suggested airborne transmission. Further studies are warranted to confirm our hypotheses but the assumption of such way of transmission would cause a major shift in measures recommended to prevent infection such as the disseminated use of masks and structural changes to hospital and other facilities HVAC systems.

Title: Airborne route and bad use of ventilation systems as non-negligible factors in SARS-CoV-2 transmission Content: The world is facing a pandemic of unseen proportions caused by a corona virus named SARS-CoV-2 with unprecedent worldwide measures being taken to tackle its contagion. Person-to-person transmission is accepted but WHO only considers aerosol transmission when procedures or support treatments that produce aerosol are performed. Transmission mechanisms are not fully understood and there is evidence for an airborne route to be considered, as the virus remains viable in aerosols for at least 3 h and that mask usage was the best intervention to prevent infection. Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Systems (HVAC) are used as a primary infection disease control measure. However, if not correctly used, they may contribute to the transmission/spreading of airborne diseases as proposed in the past for SARS. The authors believe that airborne transmission is possible and that HVAC systems when not adequately used may contribute to the transmission of the virus, as suggested by descriptions from Japan, Germany, and the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship. Previous SARS outbreaks reported at Amoy Gardens, Emergency Rooms and Hotels, also suggested an airborne transmission. Further studies are warranted to confirm our hypotheses but the assumption of such way of transmission would cause a major shift in measures recommended to prevent infection such as the disseminated use of masks and structural changes to hospital and other facilities with HVAC systems.

Title: A RAPID SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE EFFICACY OF FACE MASKS AND RESPIRATORS AGAINST CORONAVIRUSES AND OTHER RESPIRATORY TRANSMISSIBLE VIRUSES FOR THE COMMUNITY, HEALTHCARE WORKERS AND SICK PATIENTS Content: ABSTRACT Background The pandemic of COVID-19 is growing, and a shortage of masks and respirators has been reported globally. Policies of health organizations for healthcare workers are inconsistent, with a change in policy in the US for universal face mask use. The aim of this study was to review the evidence around the efficacy of masks and respirators for healthcare workers, sick patients and the general public. Methods A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials on use of respiratory protection by healthcare workers, sick patients and community members was conducted. Articles were searched on Medline and Embase using key search terms. Results A total of 19 randomised controlled trials were included in this study – 8 in community settings, 6 in healthcare settings and 5 as source control. Most of these randomised controlled trials used different interventions and outcome measures. In the community, masks appeared to be more effective than hand hygiene alone, and both together are more protective. Randomised controlled trials in health care workers showed that respirators, if worn continually during a shift, were effective but not if worn intermittently. Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective. When used by sick patients randomised controlled trials suggested protection of well contacts. Conclusion The study suggests that community mask use by well people could be beneficial, particularly for COVID-19, where transmission may be pre-symptomatic. The studies of masks as source control also suggest a benefit, and may be important during the COVID-19 pandemic in universal community face mask use as well as in health care settings. Trials in healthcare workers support the use of respirators continuously during a shift. This may prevent health worker infections and deaths from COVID-19, as aerosolisation in the hospital setting has been documented.

Title: A rapid systematic review of the efficacy of face masks and respirators against coronaviruses and other respiratory transmissible viruses for the community, healthcare workers and sick patients Content: BACKGROUND: The pandemic of COVID-19 is growing, and a shortage of masks and respirators has been reported globally. Policies of health organizations for healthcare workers are inconsistent, with a change in policy in the US for universal face mask use. The aim of this study was to review the evidence around the efficacy of masks and respirators for healthcare workers, sick patients and the general public. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials on use of respiratory protection by healthcare workers, sick patients and community members was conducted. Articles were searched on Medline and Embase using key search terms. RESULTS: A total of 19 randomised controlled trials were included in this study - 8 in community settings, 6 in healthcare settings and 5 as source control. Most of these randomised controlled trials used different interventions and outcome measures. In the community, masks appeared to be effective with and without hand hygiene, and both together are more protective. Randomised controlled trials in health care workers showed that respirators, if worn continually during a shift, were effective but not if worn intermittently. Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective. When used by sick patients randomised controlled trials suggested protection of well contacts. CONCLUSION: The study suggests that community mask use by well people could be beneficial, particularly for COVID-19, where transmission may be pre-symptomatic. The studies of masks as source control also suggest a benefit, and may be important during the COVID-19 pandemic in universal community face mask use as well as in health care settings. Trials in healthcare workers support the use of respirators continuously during a shift. This may prevent health worker infections and deaths from COVID-19, as aerosolisation in the hospital setting has been documented.

Title: What variables can better predict the number of infections and deaths worldwide by SARS-CoV-2? Variation through time Content: Lack of knowledge is the main problem we face in the global Covid-19 pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 is a new virus of which there were no previous studies. Using data from 50 very different countries and by means of a regression analysis, we studied the degree to which a series of variables (health indicators, environmental parameters, economic and social indicators, general characteristics of the country) were able to predict the number of people infected and killed by Covid-19. We also studied how these variables were changing their ability to predict the number of infected and dead by covid-19 during a 3 months period (March, April, May). The number of deaths by Covid-19 can always be predicted with great accuracy from the number of infected, regardless of the characteristics of the country (which has better or worse health, greater or lesser wealth, regardless of its population structure, etc.). Epidemiological measures to prevent transmission, mainly travel and mobility restrictions, proved to be much more efficient than having large hospital and medical resources. Inbound tourism turned out to be the variable that best predicts the number of infected (and, consequently, the number of deaths) happening in the different countries. Electricity consumption and degree of air pollution of a country (CO2 emissions, nitrous oxide and methane) are also capable of predicting, with great precision, the number of infections and deaths from Covid-19 in that country. Characteristics such as the area and population of a country also can predict, although to a lesser extent, the number of infected and dead. In contrast, a series of variables, which in principle would seem to have a greater influence on the evolution of Covid-19 (hospital bed density, Physicians per 1000 people, Researches in R & D, urban population, etc.), turned out to have very little ability to predict both the number of infected and the number of deaths from Covid-19. All this may explain why the countries that opted for social withdrawal policies since the start of the pandemic outbreak obtained better results.

Title: Significant reduction in hospital admissions for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Hong Kong during coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic Content: BACKGROUND: Chronic respiratory diseases are risk factors for severe disease in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Respiratory tract infection is one of the commonest causes of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). There has not been evidence suggesting the link between COVID-19 and AECOPD, especially in places with dramatic responses in infection control with universal masking and aggressive social distancing. METHODS: This is a retrospective study to assess the number of admissions of AECOPD in the first three months of 2020 in Queen Mary Hospital with reference to the admissions in past five years. Log-linear model was used for statistical inference of covariates, including percentage of masking, air quality health index and air temperature. RESULTS: The number of admissions for AECOPD significantly decreased by 44.0% (95% CI 36.4%–52.8%, p < 0.001) in the first three months of 2020 compared with the monthly average admission in 2015–2019. Compare to same period of previous years, AECOPD decreased by 1.0% with each percent of increased masking (p < 0.001) and decreased by 3.0% with increase in 1 °C in temperature (p = 0.045). The numbers of admissions for control diagnoses (heart failure, intestinal obstruction and iron deficiency anaemia) in the same period in 2020 were not reduced. CONCLUSIONS: The number of admissions for AECOPD decreased in first three months of 2020, compared with previous years. This was observed with increased masking percentage and social distancing in Hong Kong. We postulated universal masking and social distancing during COVID-19 pandemics both contributed in preventing respiratory tract infections hence AECOPD.

Title: UNIVERSAL MASKING DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC - CURRENT EVIDENCE AND CONTROVERSIES. Content: The emergence of coronavirus disease 19 pandemic and novel research on the high transmissibility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has raised controversies over the use of face masks to prevent community transmission. Specific regulations need to be fulfilled to use a face mask as part of the personal protective equipment and high quality of evidence supporting its use to prevent respiratory viral infections, including SARS-CoV-2, is lacking. However, its widespread use is becoming a standard practice in some countries and discrepancies between health authorities on their policy have led to controversy. The aim of this review is to provide an outlook on recent research in this matter and areas of opportunity.

Title: Universal Masking during Covid-19 Pandemic - Current Evidence and Controversies Content: The emergence of coronavirus disease 19 pandemic and novel research on the high transmissibility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has raised controversies over the use of face masks to prevent community transmission. Specific regulations need to be fulfilled to use a face mask as part of the personal protective equipment and high quality of evidence supporting its use to prevent respiratory viral infections, including SARS-CoV-2, is lacking. However, its widespread use is becoming a standard practice in some countries and discrepancies between health authorities on their policy have led to controversy. The aim of this review is to provide an outlook on recent research in this matter and areas of opportunity.

Title: Healthcare worker mask reuse in a global pandemic: Using idle resources to create an inexpensive, scalable, and accessible UV system for N95 sterilization Content: As the current COVID-19 pandemic illustrates, not all hospitals and other facilities are equipped with enough personal protective equipment to meet the demand in a crisis. Healthcare workers around the world utilize N95 masks to protect themselves and their patients, yet during this global pandemic they are forced to re-wear what is intended to be single-use masks. This poses significant risk to these healthcare workers along with the populations they are trying to protect. Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) has been validated previously as a way to effectively sterilize these masks between use, however, not all facilities have access to the high cost commercial UV-C lamp sterilization equipment. However, UV-C bulbs are sitting idle in biosafety cabinets (BSCs) at universities and research facilities around the globe that have been shuttered to slow the spread of COVID-19. These bulbs may also be available in existing medical centers where infectious diseases are commonly treated. Therefore, we have developed a method to modify existing light fixtures, or create custom light fixtures compatible with new or existing common UV-C bulbs. This system is scalable and can be created for less than 50 US dollars, on site, at the point of need, and leverages resources that are currently untapped and sitting unused in public and private research facilities. The freely-accessible design can be easily modified for use around the world. Hospitals can obtain this potentially life-saving UVGI resource with minimal funds, via collaboration between research facilities to obtain the UV-C meters and limited availability UVGI bulbs. While mask reuse is not ideal, we must do what we can in emergency situations to protect our frontline healthcare workers and the communities they serve.

Title: Medical mask versus cotton mask for preventing respiratory droplet transmission in micro environments Content: Abstract The objective of this study was to investigate whether cotton mask worn by respiratory infection person could suppress respiratory droplet levels compared to medical mask. We recruited adult volunteers with confirmed influenza and suspected cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to wear medical masks and self-designed triple-layer cotton masks in a regular bedroom and a car with air conditioning. Four 1-hour repeated measurements (two measurements for bedroom the others for car) of particles with a size range of 20–1000 nm measured by number concentrations (NC0.02–1), temperature and relatively humidity, and cough/sneeze counts per hour were conducted for each volunteer. The paired t-tests were used for within-group comparisons in a bedroom and in a car. The results showed that there was no significant difference in NC0.02–1 or cough/sneeze counts between volunteers with medical masks and cotton masks in a bedroom or a car. We concluded that the cotton mask could be a potential substitute for medical mask for respiratory infection person in microenvironment with air conditioning. Healthy people may daily use cotton mask in the community since cotton mask is washable and reusable.

Title: Medical mask versus cotton mask for preventing respiratory droplet transmission in micro environments Content: The objective of this study was to investigate whether cotton mask worn by respiratory infection person could suppress respiratory droplet levels compared to medical mask. We recruited adult volunteers with confirmed influenza and suspected cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to wear medical masks and self-designed triple-layer cotton masks in a regular bedroom and a car with air conditioning. Four 1-hour repeated measurements (two measurements for bedroom the others for car) of particles with a size range of 20-1000 nm measured by number concentrations (NC0.02-1), temperature and relatively humidity, and cough/sneeze counts per hour were conducted for each volunteer. The paired t-tests were used for within-group comparisons in a bedroom and in a car. The results showed that there was no significant difference in NC0.02-1 or cough/sneeze counts between volunteers with medical masks and cotton masks in a bedroom or a car. We concluded that the cotton mask could be a potential substitute for medical mask for respiratory infection person in microenvironment with air conditioning. Healthy people may daily use cotton mask in the community since cotton mask is washable and reusable.

Title: Nasopharyngeal wash in preventing and treating upper respiratory tract infections: Could it prevent COVID-19? Content: Rapid transmission of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has led to the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The current emphasis is on preventive strategies such as social distancing, face mask, and hand washing. The technique of nasopharyngeal wash to prevent the virus from inhabiting and replicating in the nasal and pharyngeal mucosa has been suggested to be useful in reducing symptoms, transmission, and viral shedding in cases of viral acute respiratory tract infections. In rapid systematic review, we found studies showing some improvement in prevention and treatment of upper respiratory tract infections. We postulate that hypertonic saline gargles and nasal wash may be useful in prevention and for care of patients with COVID-19. The present evidence emphasizes the need of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the role and mechanism of nasopharyngeal wash in COVID-19.

Title: The Relationship Between COVID-19 Infection and Risk Perception, Knowledge, Attitude As Well As Four Non-pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) During the Late Period Of The COVID-19 Epidemic In China An Online Cross-sectional Survey of 8158 Adults Content: Background: So far, there has been no published population study on the relationship between COVID19 infection and public risk perception, information source, knowledge, attitude and four nonpharmaceutical interventions(NPI: hand washing, proper coughing habits, social distancing and mask wearing) during the COVID-19 outbreak in China. Methods: An online survey of 8158 Chinese adults between 22 February to 5 March 2020 was conducted. Bivariate associations between categorical variables were examined using Fisher exact test. We also explored the determinants of four NPIs as well as their association with COVID19 infection using logistic regression. Results: Of 8158 adults included, 57 (0.73%) were infected with COVID19. The overwhelming majority of respondents showed a positive attitude (99.2%), positive risk perception (99.9%) and high knowledge levels that were among the strongest predictors of four highly adopted NPIs (hand washing:96.8%; proper coughing: 93.1%; social distancing:87.1%; mask wearing:97.9%). There was an increased risk of COVID19 infection for those who not washing hands (2.28% vs 0.65%; RR=3.53: 95%CI: 1.538.15; P<0.009); not practicing proper coughing (1.79% vs 0.73%; RR=2.44: 95%CI: 1.15-5.15;P=0.026); not practicing social distancing (1.52% vs 0.58%; RR=2.63:95%CI:1.48 4.67; P=0.002); and not wearing a mask (7.41% vs 0.6%; RR=12.38:95%CI:5.81-26.36; P<0.001). For those who did practice all other three NPIs, wearing mask was associated with significantly reduced risk of infection compared to those who did not wear a mask (0.6% vs 16.7%; p=0.035). Similarly, for those who did not practice all or part of the other three NPIs, wearing mask was also associated with significantly reduced risk of infection. In a penalised logistic regression model including all four NPIs, wearing a mask was the only significant predictor of COVID19 infection among four NPIs (OR=7.20; 95%CI:2.2423.11; p<0.001). Conclusions: We found high levels of risk perception, positive attitude, desirable knowledge as well as a high level of adopting four NPIs. The relevant knowledge, risk perception and attitude were strong predictors of adapting the four NPIs. Mask wearing, among four personal NPIs, is the most effective protective measure against COVID19 infection with added preventive effect among those who practised all or part of the other three NPIs.

Title: Barriers and facilitators to healthcare workers' adherence with infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines for respiratory infectious diseases: a rapid qualitative evidence synthesis Content: BACKGROUND: This review is one of a series of rapid reviews that Cochrane contributors have prepared to inform the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. When new respiratory infectious diseases become widespread, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers' adherence to infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines becomes even more important. Strategies in these guidelines include the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) such as masks, face shields, gloves and gowns; the separation of patients with respiratory infections from others; and stricter cleaning routines. These strategies can be difficult and time-consuming to adhere to in practice. Authorities and healthcare facilities therefore need to consider how best to support healthcare workers to implement them. OBJECTIVES: To identify barriers and facilitators to healthcare workers' adherence to IPC guidelines for respiratory infectious diseases. SEARCH METHODS: We searched OVID MEDLINE on 26 March 2020. As we searched only one database due to time constraints, we also undertook a rigorous and comprehensive scoping exercise and search of the reference lists of key papers. We did not apply any date limit or language limits. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included qualitative and mixed-methods studies (with a distinct qualitative component) that focused on the experiences and perceptions of healthcare workers towards factors that impact on their ability to adhere to IPC guidelines for respiratory infectious diseases. We included studies of any type of healthcare worker with responsibility for patient care. We included studies that focused on IPC guidelines (local, national or international) for respiratory infectious diseases in any healthcare setting. These selection criteria were framed by an understanding of the needs of health workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts and full texts identified by our search. We used a prespecified sampling frame to sample from the eligible studies, aiming to capture a range of respiratory infectious disease types, geographical spread and data-rich studies. We extracted data using a data extraction form designed for this synthesis. We assessed methodological limitations using an adapted version of the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool. We used a 'best fit framework approach' to analyse and synthesise the evidence. This provided upfront analytical categories, with scope for further thematic analysis. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. We examined each review finding to identify factors that may influence intervention implementation and developed implications for practice. MAIN RESULTS: We found 36 relevant studies and sampled 20 of these studies for our analysis. Ten of these studies were from Asia, four from Africa, four from Central and North America and two from Australia. The studies explored the views and experiences of nurses, doctors and other healthcare workers when dealing with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), H1N1, MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome), tuberculosis (TB), or seasonal influenza. Most of these healthcare workers worked in hospitals; others worked in primary and community care settings. Our review points to several barriers and facilitators that influenced healthcare workers' ability to adhere to IPC guidelines. The following factors are based on findings assessed as of moderate to high confidence. Healthcare workers felt unsure as to how to adhere to local guidelines when they were long and ambiguous or did not reflect national or international guidelines. They could feel overwhelmed because local guidelines were constantly changing. They also described how IPC strategies led to increased workloads and fatigue, for instance because they had to use PPE and take on additional cleaning. Healthcare workers described how their responses to IPC guidelines were influenced by the level of support they felt that they received from their management team. Clear communication about IPC guidelines was seen as vital. But healthcare workers pointed to a lack of training about the infection itself and about how to use PPE. They also thought it was a problem when training was not mandatory. Sufficient space to isolate patients was also seen as vital. A lack of isolation rooms, anterooms and shower facilities was a problem. Other important practical measures described by healthcare workers included minimising overcrowding, fast-tracking infected patients, restricting visitors, and providing easy access to handwashing facilities. A lack of PPE, and equipment that was of poor quality, was a serious concern for healthcare workers and managers. They also pointed to the need to adjust the volume of supplies as infection outbreaks continued. Healthcare workers believed that they followed IPC guidance more closely when they saw the value of it. Some healthcare workers felt motivated to follow the guidance because of fear of infecting themselves or their families, or because they felt responsible for their patients. Some healthcare workers found it difficult to use masks and other equipment when it made patients feel isolated, frightened or stigmatised. Healthcare workers also found masks and other equipment uncomfortable to use. The workplace culture could also influence whether healthcare workers followed IPC guidelines or not. Across many of the findings, healthcare workers pointed to the importance of including all staff, including cleaning staff, porters, kitchen staff and other support staff when implementing IPC guidelines. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare workers point to several factors that influence their ability and willingness to follow IPC guidelines when managing respiratory infectious diseases. These include factors tied to the guideline itself and how it is communicated, support from managers, workplace culture, training, physical space, access to and trust in personal protective equipment, and a desire to deliver good patient care. The review also highlights the importance of including all facility staff, including support staff, when implementing IPC guidelines.

Title: Barriers and facilitators to healthcare workers' adherence with infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines for respiratory infectious diseases: a rapid qualitative evidence synthesis. Content: BACKGROUND This review is one of a series of rapid reviews that Cochrane contributors have prepared to inform the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. When new respiratory infectious diseases become widespread, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers' adherence to infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines becomes even more important. Strategies in these guidelines include the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) such as masks, face shields, gloves and gowns; the separation of patients with respiratory infections from others; and stricter cleaning routines. These strategies can be difficult and time-consuming to adhere to in practice. Authorities and healthcare facilities therefore need to consider how best to support healthcare workers to implement them. OBJECTIVES To identify barriers and facilitators to healthcare workers' adherence to IPC guidelines for respiratory infectious diseases. SEARCH METHODS We searched OVID MEDLINE on 26 March 2020. As we searched only one database due to time constraints, we also undertook a rigorous and comprehensive scoping exercise and search of the reference lists of key papers. We did not apply any date limit or language limits. SELECTION CRITERIA We included qualitative and mixed-methods studies (with a distinct qualitative component) that focused on the experiences and perceptions of healthcare workers towards factors that impact on their ability to adhere to IPC guidelines for respiratory infectious diseases. We included studies of any type of healthcare worker with responsibility for patient care. We included studies that focused on IPC guidelines (local, national or international) for respiratory infectious diseases in any healthcare setting. These selection criteria were framed by an understanding of the needs of health workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Four review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts and full texts identified by our search. We used a prespecified sampling frame to sample from the eligible studies, aiming to capture a range of respiratory infectious disease types, geographical spread and data-rich studies. We extracted data using a data extraction form designed for this synthesis. We assessed methodological limitations using an adapted version of the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool. We used a 'best fit framework approach' to analyse and synthesise the evidence. This provided upfront analytical categories, with scope for further thematic analysis. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. We examined each review finding to identify factors that may influence intervention implementation and developed implications for practice. MAIN RESULTS We found 36 relevant studies and sampled 20 of these studies for our analysis. Ten of these studies were from Asia, four from Africa, four from Central and North America and two from Australia. The studies explored the views and experiences of nurses, doctors and other healthcare workers when dealing with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), H1N1, MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome), tuberculosis (TB), or seasonal influenza. Most of these healthcare workers worked in hospitals; others worked in primary and community care settings. Our review points to several barriers and facilitators that influenced healthcare workers' ability to adhere to IPC guidelines. The following factors are based on findings assessed as of moderate to high confidence. Healthcare workers felt unsure as to how to adhere to local guidelines when they were long and ambiguous or did not reflect national or international guidelines. They could feel overwhelmed because local guidelines were constantly changing. They also described how IPC strategies led to increased workloads and fatigue, for instance because they had to use PPE and take on additional cleaning. Healthcare workers described how their responses to IPC guidelines were influenced by the level of support they felt that they received from their management team. Clear communication about IPC guidelines was seen as vital. But healthcare workers pointed to a lack of training about the infection itself and about how to use PPE. They also thought it was a problem when training was not mandatory. Sufficient space to isolate patients was also seen as vital. A lack of isolation rooms, anterooms and shower facilities was a problem. Other important practical measures described by healthcare workers included minimising overcrowding, fast-tracking infected patients, restricting visitors, and providing easy access to handwashing facilities. A lack of PPE, and equipment that was of poor quality, was a serious concern for healthcare workers and managers. They also pointed to the need to adjust the volume of supplies as infection outbreaks continued. Healthcare workers believed that they followed IPC guidance more closely when they saw the value of it. Some healthcare workers felt motivated to follow the guidance because of fear of infecting themselves or their families, or because they felt responsible for their patients. Some healthcare workers found it difficult to use masks and other equipment when it made patients feel isolated, frightened or stigmatised. Healthcare workers also found masks and other equipment uncomfortable to use. The workplace culture could also influence whether healthcare workers followed IPC guidelines or not. Across many of the findings, healthcare workers pointed to the importance of including all staff, including cleaning staff, porters, kitchen staff and other support staff when implementing IPC guidelines. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Healthcare workers point to several factors that influence their ability and willingness to follow IPC guidelines when managing respiratory infectious diseases. These include factors tied to the guideline itself and how it is communicated, support from managers, workplace culture, training, physical space, access to and trust in personal protective equipment, and a desire to deliver good patient care. The review also highlights the importance of including all facility staff, including support staff, when implementing IPC guidelines.

Title: Do Face Masks Create a False Sense of Security? A COVID-19 Dilemma Content: Face masks have become an emblem of the public response to COVID-19, with many governments mandating their use in public spaces. The logic is that face masks are low cost and might help prevent some transmission. However, from the start, the assumption that face masks are "low cost" was questioned. Early on, there were warnings of the opportunity cost of public use of medical masks given shortages of personal protective equipment for healthcare providers. This led to recommendations for cloth masks and other face coverings, with little evidence of their ability to prevent transmission. However, there may also be a high cost to these recommendations if people rely on face masks in place of other more effective ways to break transmission, such as staying home. We use SafeGraph smart device location data to show that the representative American in states that have face mask mandates spent 20-30 minutes less time at home, and increase visits to a number of commercial locations, following the mandate. Since the reproductive rate of SAR-COV2, the pathogen that causes COVID-19 is hovering right around one, such substitution behavior could be the difference between controlling the epidemic and a resurgence of cases.

Title: Pathophysiology, Transmission, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Review. Content: Importance The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, due to the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has caused a worldwide sudden and substantial increase in hospitalizations for pneumonia with multiorgan disease. This review discusses current evidence regarding the pathophysiology, transmission, diagnosis, and management of COVID-19. Observations SARS-CoV-2 is spread primarily via respiratory droplets during close face-to-face contact. Infection can be spread by asymptomatic, presymptomatic, and symptomatic carriers. The average time from exposure to symptom onset is 5 days, and 97.5% of people who develop symptoms do so within 11.5 days. The most common symptoms are fever, dry cough, and shortness of breath. Radiographic and laboratory abnormalities, such as lymphopenia and elevated lactate dehydrogenase, are common, but nonspecific. Diagnosis is made by detection of SARS-CoV-2 via reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing, although false-negative test results may occur in up to 20% to 67% of patients; however, this is dependent on the quality and timing of testing. Manifestations of COVID-19 include asymptomatic carriers and fulminant disease characterized by sepsis and acute respiratory failure. Approximately 5% of patients with COVID-19, and 20% of those hospitalized, experience severe symptoms necessitating intensive care. More than 75% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 require supplemental oxygen. Treatment for individuals with COVID-19 includes best practices for supportive management of acute hypoxic respiratory failure. Emerging data indicate that dexamethasone therapy reduces 28-day mortality in patients requiring supplemental oxygen compared with usual care (21.6% vs 24.6%; age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.74-0.92]) and that remdesivir improves time to recovery (hospital discharge or no supplemental oxygen requirement) from 15 to 11 days. In a randomized trial of 103 patients with COVID-19, convalescent plasma did not shorten time to recovery. Ongoing trials are testing antiviral therapies, immune modulators, and anticoagulants. The case-fatality rate for COVID-19 varies markedly by age, ranging from 0.3 deaths per 1000 cases among patients aged 5 to 17 years to 304.9 deaths per 1000 cases among patients aged 85 years or older in the US. Among patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit, the case fatality is up to 40%. At least 120 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are under development. Until an effective vaccine is available, the primary methods to reduce spread are face masks, social distancing, and contact tracing. Monoclonal antibodies and hyperimmune globulin may provide additional preventive strategies. Conclusions and Relevance As of July 1, 2020, more than 10 million people worldwide had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Many aspects of transmission, infection, and treatment remain unclear. Advances in prevention and effective management of COVID-19 will require basic and clinical investigation and public health and clinical interventions.